Petition to appoint a guardian for an incapacitated individual; MCL 700.5303(1); Notice; MCL 700.5311; Appointment of a temporary guardian; MCL 700.5312; Clear & convincing evidence supporting appointment of an independent guardian; MCL 700.5306(1); Credibility; MCL 700.5303(3); Existence of a power of attorney; MCL 700.5306(2) & (5); In re Guardianship of CY; Not “suitable”; MCL 700.5313(3); Change to the request without filing an amended petition; MCR 5.102 & 5.113(B); Plain error

The court held that respondent failed to establish reversible error as to the issue of notice in this case concerning a petition to appoint a guardian for an incapacitated individual (HIH). Further, the probate court did not err in finding that clear and convincing evidence supported the appointment of an independent guardian. In doing so, it did not err in determining that respondent, who was HIH’s attorney-in-fact and patient advocate, “was not suitable to care for HIH.” Finally, she showed no plain error in petitioners’ failure to file an amended petition. Thus, the court affirmed the order granting the petition and appointing an independent guardian for HIH. The case involved an intra-family dispute. Respondent was HIH’s daughter. Petitioners were other family members. Respondent first argued the probate court did not establish jurisdiction due to lack of notice to her, HIH, and other interested individuals. Petitioners “filed a petition for the appointment of a guardian pursuant to MCL 700.5303(1), and also requested the appointment of a temporary guardian pending a decision on the petition because of an emergency situation caused by respondent’s neglect. Respondent and HIH appeared at the [6/6/24] hearing, and at the subsequent hearing” two months later. “MCL 700.5311(2), which requires personal service for the incapacitated individual, provides for a waiver of notice if the individual alleged to be incapacitated attends the hearing. By that statute respondent and HIH waived notice by appearing at the” June and August hearings. As to the probate court’s decision to appoint a guardian, there was testimony “that HIH had been diagnosed with dementia and diabetes. For example, respondent administered HIH’s medications every day, while one of HIH’s granddaughters testified that HIH should not be left alone at night, explaining that HIH became nervous at night and wandered around the house.” While respondent appeared to challenge the credibility of some testimony, the court would not disturb the probate court’s credibility findings. It concluded that the “probate court did not err by listening to witness testimony to determine whether HIH was an incapacitated individual lacking in understanding or capacity to make informed decisions. The testimony supported” its finding that she was and that appointing a guardian was necessary to provide her continuing care and supervision.