Guardianship & conservatorship termination; Evidentiary hearing; Authentication of evidence; MRE 901(a)

Noting that the probate court did conduct an evidentiary hearing, the court concluded that it “did not abuse its discretion by relying on testimony from” the protected individual (GJB) and her daughter in “determining that GJB no longer required a guardian or conservator.” Thus, the court affirmed the opinion and order terminating the guardianship and conservatorship. The daughter (appellee) was appointed GJB’s guardian and conservator after GJB suffered a traumatic brain injury. Appellant was GJB’s daughter-in-law. She “petitioned to replace the daughter as GJB’s guardian and conservator. In response, the daughter filed counterpetitions to terminate the guardianship and conservatorship because GJB had largely recovered from her injury[.]” Appellant asserted that the probate “court abused its discretion by terminating GJB’s conservatorship and guardianship without conducting an evidentiary hearing.” However, the record was clear that the probate court conducted “an evidentiary hearing before making its opinion. Evidentiary hearings involve the presentation of evidence by the parties about contested factual questions so that the trial court can make sufficiently informed decisions.” In this case, “GJB and her daughter provided sworn testimony at the hearing, which was subjected to cross-examination by” appellant, who was also given an opportunity to call witnesses, but declined to do so. The court found that the probate “court controlled the hearing in an orderly and efficient manner.” And appellant agreed with its “suggested course of action and participated fully in the hearing, even providing cross-examination and closing arguments.” Thus, she waived any challenge to how the probate court conducted the evidentiary hearing. As to her claim that it “erred in not considering documentary evidence submitted before the hearing[,]” the court noted that she “did not move to admit and authenticate any medical reports or other documentary evidence that she wanted” it to consider.