Court of Appeals Affirms Appointment of Independent Guardian Over Patient Advocate Due to Failure to Act in Ward’s Best Interests
Opinion Published: June 12, 2025 (Yates, P.J. and Young and Wallace, JJ.)
Docket No. 370828
Oakland County Probate Court
Holding: The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s opinion and order, finding no abuse of discretion.
Facts: Leon Jukowski was the patient advocate with power of attorney for health care of then 93-year-old CY. After the death of CY’s husband in 2022, CY’s three daughters grew concerned about how Jukowski was able to care for their mother as her health deteriorated.
The daughters filed a petition in January of 2023, seeking the appointment of a guardian of an incapacitated individual in the probate court. Jukowski was the self-appointed power of attorney, and the daughters brought the matter forward, contending that Jukowski was not acting in CY’s best interest. The daughters alleged that Jukowski had failed to take proper care of CY, fearing abuse and neglect. Additionally, the daughters claimed that Jukowski was not providing CY sufficient medical care and that CY’s 70-year-old caretaker was unable to provide her with proper care. Because of this, the daughters petitioned for Lesley Yulkowski, one of CY’s daughters, to be appointed full guardian with all of the powers provided by statutes.
Through her counsel, CY objected to this petition in February 2023. CY denied that she was legally incapacitated and indicated that, if she did need a guardian, she would choose Jukowski to serve in the position. Furthermore, CY asserted that if the trial court did not appoint Jukowski as her guardian, that Micheal Golab or Amy Glen, both attorneys involved in CY’s estate should her guardians instead.
The Trial Court held a two-day evidentiary hearing in February 2024 to consider the petition by the daughters. In April 2024, the Trial Court issued its opinion and order which granted the petition to appoint a guardian of CY. The Trial Court held that it was “undisputed that CY qualified as an ‘incapacitated individual’ under MCL 700.1105(a) due to her ‘dementia/cognitive issues,’ and need for “24/7 care and assistance in all aspects of daily living.” The court also determined that, through MCL 700.5313(2), Jukowski had the highest priority to be CY’s patient advocate. However, it also determined that Jukowski had operated contrary to CY’s best interest by failing to cooperate with the daughters and that his approach to taking care of his mother was “inappropriate,” stipulating that the daughter’s involvement was pertinent. Testimony revealed that CY was “left without proper supervision on several occasions, she was receiving inadequate nutrition, and she was found wearing a soiled diaper in an unclean residence.” The Trial Court determined that greater care and supervision of CY was required and that Jukowski was unable to provide it. Since CY objected to the daughters serving as decision makers regarding her medical care, the court appointed Thomas Fraser to ““to serve as guardian and determine a proper level of care for [CY] that will serve her best interests and foster cooperation and involvement by her children.”
CY then filed an appeal of right, contesting the trial court’s appointment of Fraser when “Jukowski was properly furnishing care for CY as her patient advocate and DPOA concerning medical decisions.”
Key Appellate Ruling:
The Trial Court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to appoint the protected person’s patient advocate as guardian in light of evidence that the protected person’s health had declined and she had suffered physical and medical neglect under the watch of the patient advocate and in permitting the guardian to exercise the patient advocate’s powers.
The Court of Appeals looked at CY’s challenges to the appointment of a guardian, best interests, and to the patient advocate designation, as well as the requirement to post a bond.
Regarding guardian appointment, the Court determined that the Trial Court did not abuse its discretion in appointing someone other than Jukowski as guardian to ensure she received the proper care. The Court relied on the evidence submitted to the trial court that CY’s care had declined significantly since the death of her husband and had been both physically and medically neglected.
Under MCL 700.5306(2), the courts may not grant a guardian the same powers of that of a patient advocate. However, an exception to MCL 700.5306(2) is created under MCL 700.5306(5) which stipulates that the court “grant powers to a guardian over “treatment decisions that the patient advocate is designated to make” if “the patient advocate is not acting consistent with the ward’s best interests.” It was therefore determined that it was critical to CY’s care to appoint someone other than Jukowski.
Regarding the best interests of CY, the Court of Appeals found no abuse of discretion in the Trial Courts determination, finding that appointing a guardian was in CY’s best interest. The Court found that while “the trial court did not render best-interest findings during the guardianship hearing. . . the court fully explained its rationale in its opinion and order granting the petition for guardianship.”
The Court of Appeals also determined that the Trial Court made the correct determination by appointing a patient advocate other than Jukowski. It found that “MCL 700.5306(5) recognizes an exception to MCL 700.5306(2), permitting the trial court to grant powers to a guardian over “treatment decisions that the patient advocate is designated to make” if “the patient advocate is not acting consistent with the ward’s best interests.” The Court found that the lower court’s holding was therefore correct, despite the PAD which had been signed by CY.
Finally, the Court of Appeals found that there was no error made by the Trial Court when it did not require the professional guardian to post bond under MCL 700.5106(3). It found that the “time-honored rule” that issues not presented at the Trial Court level “may not be raised on appeal.” The Court of Appeals found that there was a failure to properly address the assertion and, therefore, held that the issue of bond would be abandoned.
The Trial Court was affirmed in respect to all issues raised.
