Removal of a guardian; In re Guardianship of Redd; The Estates & Protected Individuals Code (EPIC); MCL 700.5310; “Suitable”

Concluding that appellant-former guardian’s (Shelledy) “behavior provided a sufficient basis for her removal” as guardian by a preponderance of the evidence, the court affirmed the probate court’s order denying her request to be reinstated. She was one of the protected individual’s (IL) four adult children. “The siblings have a contentious relationship and split into essentially two factions:” appellant and her brother, and appellees-Haight and Boogren, their sisters. Appellant contended the probate court erred in removing her as IL’s guardian. The court noted that to “‘remove a guardian under MCL 700.5310, the probate court must find that the guardian is no longer suitable or willing to serve.’” A preponderance of the evidence must support such a finding. “EPIC does not define the term ‘suitable,’ but” the court held in Redd that “a ‘suitable’ guardian is one who is qualified and able to provide for the ward’s care, custody, and control.” The probate court removed appellant “after she continued to isolate IL from Haight and Boogren and withhold information from them.” Appellant asserted “that there was no evidence indicating that she was isolating IL from” them. But the court found this claim was “belied by the record, which is replete with instances of Shelledy keeping essential information regarding IL from Haight and Boogren and interfering with their ability to visit their mother. As the probate court noted, absent evidence that [they] were abusive or harmful to IL, Shelledy, as IL’s guardian, should have encouraged IL’s interaction with two of her four children. But Shelledy’s behavior isolated IL from her other daughters, demonstrating that [she] was either unable or unwilling to prioritize IL’s wellbeing and care over her hostility toward her sisters.”