Petition to terminate a guardianship; MCL 700.5310(2) & (4); MCL 700.5306(1); MCL 700.5219(1)

The court held that in deciding a petition to terminate an adult guardianship, a probate court must determine that the ward is still incapacitated and that the guardian’s appointment is still needed to provide the ward continuing care and supervision. Because the probate court applied an incorrect legal framework in denying petitioner-Gordon’s petition to terminate his guardianship, the court reversed and remanded. The “probate court stated that the issue was governed by MCL 700.5219(1) and that the question to be answered was, ‘Is it in the best interest of [Gordon] for [the guardianship] to be terminated?’” The court noted that the probate court “repeatedly referenced the best-interest standard, and it ultimately found that there was no evidence indicating that terminating the guardianship was in Gordon’s best interest.” However, in making its ruling, it “applied the wrong legal standard. MCL 700.5219(1) governs guardians of minors” – Gordon is an adult and thus, his petition “should have been evaluated under MCL 700.5310.” The probate court must follow the same procedures applicable to a petition for appointment of a guardian in deciding a petition to terminate a guardianship. “In particular, a ward has the right ‘[t]o require that proof of incapacity and the need for a guardian be proven by clear and convincing evidence, as provided in [MCL 700.5306].’” The court further noted that “support for each finding must be ‘supported separately on the record.’” Because circumstances may have materially changed while the appeal was pending, the probate “court should consider up-to-date information on remand.”