Petition for the appointment of a conservator; MCL 700.5401(3)(a) & (b); In re Townsend Conservatorship; Clear & convincing evidence; Social Welfare Act definition of “vulnerable adult”; Credibility assessments; Waiver

Holding that the probate court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition for appointment of a conservator for petitioner’s mother (MJP), the court affirmed. The probate court “did not improperly focus on MJP’s capacity, nor did it ignore the question of whether she was a vulnerable adult at risk of exploitation.” It denied the petition after an evidentiary hearing. It determined that while there were concerns about “MJP’s decision-making being impaired by the ‘relationship dynamics between [MJP] and her sons,’ there was no ‘pervasive pattern of abuse that would cause [MJP] to make, regularly, decisions that are contrary to her interests because of those relationship dynamics[.]’” It found none of MCL 700.5401(3)(a)’s conditions were present and also, under “Townsend Conservatorship, there were ‘no grounds whatsoever in order to allow this proceeding to move forward.’” And under MCL 700.5401(3)(b), it concluded “the element was not ‘shown even on a preliminary basis.’” The probate court found that MJP had “‘plenty of property and assets left,’ including full ownership of real property and other assets.” Thus, it determined that she had “the resources ‘she needs in order to take care of herself and that she is managing them accurately.’” It noted “that a conservatorship case was not the forum to ‘force a person to expose all of his or her financial records’” and that it did not have to decide whether her “decisions were ‘responsible.’ Finally,” it found her credible. The court held that the probate court’s findings as to her “credibility were not clearly erroneous.” It also held that the probate court did not err in relying on the report and deposition of a mental health professional (Dr. L) who had evaluated MJP’s capacity. L “performed numerous tests on MJP, including cognitive functioning, which she passed.” He also interviewed her “and discussed her ability to manage her finances, finding MJP’s ‘financial decision-making abilities were intact.’” In addition, he “reviewed the affidavits attached to the petition. He concluded MJP ‘has tumultuous and at times dangerous relationships with her sons,’ but otherwise has ‘intact cognitive functioning.’”