Background

This case centers on a guardianship dispute involving CY, a 93-year-old woman suffering from dementia and cognitive decline. Following the death of her husband in late 2022, CY’s three daughters petitioned the Oakland County Probate Court to appoint a guardian, alleging that CY’s son, Leon Jukowski—who held power of attorney and was designated as her patient advocate—was neglecting her care.

The daughters cited multiple instances of neglect, unsanitary living conditions, and inadequate medical attention. They also raised concerns about CY’s caregiver, who lacked professional training. CY, through counsel, objected to the petition, asserting her preference for Jukowski to serve as her guardian, or alternatively, her attorney or trustee.

Probate Court Ruling

After a two-day evidentiary hearing, the probate court found that CY was legally incapacitated under Michigan law and in need of a guardian. While acknowledging that Jukowski had statutory priority under MCL 700.5313(2)(b), the court concluded he was unsuitable due to:

  • His failure to provide adequate care and supervision.
  • Poor communication with CY’s medical providers and family.
  • Employment of an unqualified caregiver.
  • Evidence of CY’s deteriorating health and hygiene under his supervision.

The court also noted CY’s objection to her daughters serving as guardians. Finding no suitable family member willing or able to serve, the court appointed a professional guardian, Thomas Brennan Fraser, under MCL 700.5313(4).

Court of Appeals Decision

CY appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by:

  1. Disregarding her patient advocate designation (PAD).
  2. Failing to honor her preference for Jukowski.
  3. Appointing a professional guardian without sufficient findings.
  4. Not requiring the guardian to post a bond.

The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the probate court’s decision, holding that:

  • The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding Jukowski unsuitable.
  • The PAD did not preclude the appointment of a guardian under MCL 700.5306(5), which allows courts to override a PAD if the advocate is not acting in the ward’s best interests.
  • The appointment of a professional guardian was in CY’s best interests, as detailed in the court’s written opinion.
  • The bond issue was not preserved for appeal and was therefore abandoned.

Legal Framework and Issues

1. Determination of Incapacity

Under MCL 700.1105(a), an “incapacitated individual” is one who lacks sufficient understanding or capacity to make or communicate informed decisions. The probate court found, based on medical records and testimony, that CY met this definition due to her cognitive decline and need for 24/7 care.

2. Necessity of Guardianship

Per MCL 700.5306(1), a court may appoint a guardian if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that the appointment is necessary to provide continuing care and supervision. The court concluded that CY’s deteriorating condition and the inadequacy of her current care arrangement justified the appointment.

3. Statutory Priority vs. Suitability

While MCL 700.5313(2)(b) gives priority to individuals named in a patient advocate designation, this priority is not absolute. The court emphasized that it retains discretion to assess the “qualitative circumstances” of the relationship. Here, Jukowski’s failure to provide adequate care and his poor communication with CY’s medical providers and siblings rendered him unsuitable.

4. Override of Patient Advocate Designation

The court relied on MCL 700.5306(5), which allows a court to override a PAD if the advocate is not acting in the ward’s best interests. Despite CY’s designation of Jukowski, the court found his conduct inconsistent with her welfare, justifying the appointment of a different guardian.

5. Appointment of a Professional Guardian

Under MCL 700.5106(2), a professional guardian may be appointed only if it is in the ward’s best interests and no other suitable person is available. The court found that CY objected to her daughters serving, and no other family member was both suitable and willing. Thus, the appointment of a professional guardian was appropriate.

Legal Takeaways

  • A patient advocate designation does not guarantee appointment as guardian if the advocate fails to act in the ward’s best interests.
  • Probate courts have discretion to override statutory priority when supported by clear and convincing evidence.
  • Professional guardians may be appointed when no suitable family member is available or appropriate.
  • Best-interest findings must be clearly articulated, even if not made orally during hearings.

Key Takeaways for Practitioners

  • Statutory priority is not dispositive: Courts may bypass individuals with statutory priority if they are found unsuitable based on the ward’s best interests.
  • PADs are not immune to judicial scrutiny: Even a valid PAD can be overridden if the advocate fails to act in the ward’s best interests.
  • Professional guardianship is a last resort: Courts must exhaust all other options and make explicit best-interest findings before appointing a professional guardian.
  • Preserving appellate issues: Practitioners must raise all relevant statutory requirements, such as bond posting, at the trial level to preserve them for appeal.