Modification of a guardianship for a developmentally disabled person; MCL 330.1604(2); In re Geror; Preference for partial guardianship; MCL 330.1602(2); MCL 330.1618(4); Powers & duties of a partial guardian; MCL 330.1620(1); Removal of a guardian; MCL 330.1626(3); MCL 330.1637; “Suitability” to serve as a guardian; MCL 330.1628; In re Guardianship of Redd; In camera interview to ascertain a disabled person’s preference under MCL 330.1628; In re Guardianship of AMMB; Right result; Messenger v Ingham Cnty Prosecutor

Finding that the trial court reached the correct result, albeit under the improper statutory framework, the court affirmed the order removing appellant as partial guardian of her daughter, IS, and naming appellee as her sole partial guardian. On appeal, the court agreed with appellant that “the trial court failed to properly account for MCL 330.1637 in its analysis, but” disagreed that relief was warranted. “[T]he pertinent statutory framework governing the modification of a guardianship or the dismissal of a guardian remains MCL 330.1637, which was entirely omitted from the instant trial court’s analysis, despite this Court’s previous instruction.” As the “trial court failed to address the principal issue under the proper statutory provision, it necessarily abused its discretion.” However, the court affirmed “on alternate grounds, in light of the procedural history of the case and the trial court’s extensive findings regarding the propriety of the guardianship.” The trial court “thoroughly detailed the witnesses’ testimonies, addressed the various facets of the partial guardianship, examined the parties’ conduct throughout the underlying guardianship proceedings and in their respective roles as guardians, and considered which form of guardianship would best promote IS’s independence. While appellant” claimed it erred by finding she “was unsuitable to serve as IS’s partial coguardian, the record provides ample evidence regarding [her] improper conduct in overseeing IS’s care, in conjunction with IS’s preference for appellee to solely serve as partial guardian.” In addition, “the broad language of MCL 330.1637 provides courts with significant discretion, particularly under MCL 330.1637(4), to” modify guardianships “beyond the presence of changes of the legally protected person’s capacity.” Because the trial court “reached the proper result albeit on improper grounds, we conclude the contested opinion and order should be sustained.”