IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
In re the Matter of the Guardianship of No. 69450-2-1
ROBERT HAMLIN,
DIVISION ONE
Deceased.
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL &
HEALTH SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Respondent,
v.
AVIS HAMLIN,
Appellant. FILED: June 22, 2015
Schindler, J. — The State of Washington Department of Social and Health
Services filed a petition to appoint a guardian for Robert Hamlin. Following a contested
hearing on February 1, 2012, the court entered an order appointing a certified guardian
for Robert.1 Robert died on February 20, 2012. On appeal, Avis Hamlin contends the
court erred in denying her request for a jury trial on the guardianship and to appoint her
as the guardian. Because we can no longer provide effective relief and the case does
not present a question of continuing and substantial public interest, we dismiss the
appeal as moot.
We refer to Robert Hamlin and Avis Hamlin by their first names for clarity.
No. 69450-2-1/2
On August 12, 2011, the State of Washington Department of Social and Health
Services (Department) received a referral from the United States Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA) that 77-year-old Robert Hamlin was being neglected. The referral
states Robert's hospital physicians were concerned his spouse Avis Hamlin was not
capable of properly caring for him at home.
On October 20, the Department filed a motion for a "Vulnerable Adult Protection
Order" (VAPO) to prevent Avis from removing Robert from "a skilled medical facility."
On October 24, the Department filed a petition to appoint a guardian for Robert. The
petition states Robert "exhibits signs of late stage dementia" and "is not capable of
caring for himself." The petition asserts Robert "is not receiving the medication, medical
equipment or skilled care he requires" because Avis "lacks the ability to ensure his care
needs are being met."
Adult Protective Services (APS) social worker Heidi Wilson submitted a
declaration in support of the guardianship petition. Wilson states that in February 2011,
Robert was admitted to Harborview Medical Center (Harborview) for 10 days for a
"urinary tract infection and delirium." Wilson states Harborview medical staff "did not
feel he was safe at home" because Robert arrived "in poor hygiene and showed
evidence of frequent falls." Harborview staff reported Avis was "very guarded about
sharing information with the team about the situation, social support, or living
environment" and she demonstrated a "lack of insight into her inability to care for him at
home."
Wilson states that on March 3, 2011, Avis acted "[ajgainst [mjedical [ajdvice" by
removing Robert from a nursing facility. Between March and October, Avis repeatedly
No. 69450-2-1/3
refused in-home services and accused multiple caregivers of abusing Robert. On
October 4, Robert arrived at Swedish Edmonds Emergency Room (Swedish ER) with
an "exploding" colostomy bag that had "not been changed in over a month." According
to Wilson, Avis transferred Robert to the VA hospital "prior to the [Swedish ER]
completing Mr. Hamlin's medical treatment." Wilson states that on October 12, the VA
hospital reported it was "unable to find an agency to provide in-home services due to
concerns of high care needs and wife's refusal for non Anglo caregivers." Wilson states
that in her opinion, Avis's "poor judgment, oversight and decision making" placed
Robert's health "at significant on-going risk."
On October 24, the court appointed a guardian ad litem (GAL) to represent the
best interests of Robert during the guardianship proceeding. On October 27, the court
scheduled a hearing on the guardianship petition for December 12.
On October 28, Avis filed a "General Durable Power of Attorney Effective
Immediately of Robert L. Hamlin" with the King County Recorder's Office. The power of
attorney is dated April 21, 2011 and designates Avis as Robert's "attorney-in-fact." The
power of attorney does not designate anyone as an alternate attorney-in-fact.
On December 7, the GAL filed a report recommending the court appoint a
"Certified Professional Guardian" for Robert. The report states Robert "clearly does not
have the cognitive ability" to manage his health, safety, housing, nutrition, or finances.
The report states the GAL met with Robert at the VA hospital on October 29 and he
provided "[n]o coherent response" to whether he objected or agreed to the guardianship
and whether he wanted an attorney.
No. 69450-2-1/4
The court continued the guardianship hearing to January 18, 2012. On January
4, the GAL filed a supplemental report. The report states that when the GAL asked
Robert on January 4 whether he objected to the guardianship, Robert responded,
"Whatever is proper." The report states Robert answered "[n]o" when the GAL asked
whether he wanted an attorney.
On January 17, Avis filed an "Objection to Private GAL Supplemental Report."
The objection challenges "all recommendations of [GAL]," including "the GAL report and
Supplemental reports and everything they filed in this case." The court continued the
hearing on the guardianship petition to February 1.
On January 23, Avis filed a motion to dismiss the guardianship proceeding or, in
the alternative, demanded a jury trial. The motion states, in pertinent part, "I allege this
Guardianship was filed improperly out of biased discrimination to defraud a Vulnerable
Adult and does not have Standing. ... If the Court will not dismiss the action, I ask for a
trial by Jury and Fair Hearing." On January 25, Avis filed a petition nominating herself
as Robert's guardian "as he has directed by his free will and Durable Power of
Attorney."
At the February 1 guardianship hearing, Avis renewed her motion for a jury trial.
The court denied the motion. The court ruled, in pertinent part, "This is his right.
[Robert] did not ask for an attorney. [Robert] didn't ask for a trial." A number of
witnesses testified at the hearing, including APS social worker Heidi Wilson, the GAL,
and Avis.
The court granted the motion to enter a VAPO and the petition to appoint a
certified guardian. The court ruled, "It is . . . quite clear, from the mountain of
No. 69450-2-1/5
information that I have received, . . . that [Robert] clearly does need a guardian of both
the estate and the person." The court found "there is sufficient evidence that indicates
that [Avis] has attempted to remove, and has removed, [Robert] against medical advice
from a couple of facilities" and was unable to care for him.
They've been married for a very long time, as I understand it, and in the
past I believe [Avis] has been able to successfully help him. But I believe
that that time is over, based on the evidence that I'm seeing. . ..
The issue about the medical care at home, there was an example
in here about the colostomy bag which hadn't been changed for over a
month. [Robert] was at home at the time. He had severe sepsis.. . . [I]t
really is beyond her ability to care for him.
The court rejected Avis's request to act as Robert's guardian. "[T]he power of
attorney to me does not appear to be a viable alternative to a guardianship in this case.
He needs a professional at this point."
The court entered an order on February 1, 2012 appointing a certified guardian
for "the Person and Estate of Robert Hamlin." The findings of fact state, in pertinent
part:
Alternative Arrangements Made By Robert Hamlin: Robert Hamlin did
make alternative arrangements for assistance, by executing a General
Durable Power of Attorney on April 21, 2011. This is not an effective less
restrictive alternative to guardianship because Mrs. Hamlin does not
possess the requisite qualities to be her husband's decision maker; no
alternate attorney-in-fact is nominated. Mr. Hamlin no longer possesses
capacity to execute a new power of attorney.
More than 10 days after entry ofthe order, Avis filed a "Motion for Revision,"
asserting a "lack of due process and violation of civil rights." The court denied the
motion "as untimely." Robert died on February 20, 2012.
No. 69450-2-1/6
On March 29, the court entered an "Order Approving Guardian's First and Final
Report." The order appoints a GAL "to review the activities of the Guardian" and to "file
a written report and recommendations regarding the Guardian's report."
On August 21, the court entered "Findings of Fact and Order Discharging
Guardian Ad Litem, Approving Guardian's First and Final Report, Approving Fees and
Costs, and Other Relief and Unblocking Account to Pay Approved Fees." The order
discharges the GAL and ratifies the March 29 Order Approving Guardian's First and
Final Report. On September 19, Avis filed an appeal of the August 21, 2012 order
approving the final report.
Avis contends the court erred in denying her request for a jury trial and refusing
to appoint her as the guardian.2 The Department contends that because Robert died on
February 20, 2012, the court can no longer provide effective relief and we should
dismiss the appeal as moot. We agree with the Department.
Whether an appeal is moot is a question of law we review de novo. Bavand v.
OneWest Bank, FSB, 176 Wn. App. 475, 510, 309 P.3d 636 (2013).
As a general rule, we will dismiss a case as moot if" 'a court can no longer
provide effective relief.'" In re Marriage of Horner, 151 Wn.2d 884, 891, 93 P.3d 124
(2004) (quoting Orwick v. City of Seattle, 103 Wn.2d 249, 253, 692 P.2d 793 (1984)).
We may decide a case that is technically moot "if it presents issues of continuing and
substantial public interest." Horner, 151 Wn.2d at 891. In determining whether a case
2Avis also contends the court erred in approving the guardian's final report but does not provide
any argument or citation to authority in support of this assignmentof error. Therefore, we do not address
it. See RAP 10.3(a)(6); In re Guardianship of Cornelius. 181 Wn. App. 513, 534, 326 P.3d 718 (2014). In
addition, Avis asserts deprivation of due process because the property subject to the guardianship was
community property. " 'Parties raising constitutional issues must present considered arguments.'" Health
Ins. Pool v. Health Care Auth.. 129 Wn.2d 504, 511, 919 P 2d 62 M996) (quoting State v. Johnson. 119
Wn.2d 167, 171,829P.2d 1082(1992)). Because Avis fails to offer considered argument on this issue,
we do not consider this argument.
6
No. 69450-2-1/7
involves the requisite degree of public interest, we consider (1) the public or private
nature of the question presented, (2) the desirability of an authoritative determination for
the future guidance of public officers, (3) the likelihood that the question will recur, and
(4) the " 'level of genuine adverseness and the quality of advocacy of the issues.'"
Horner, 151 Wn.2d at 892 (quoting Westerman v. Carv, 125 Wn.2d 277, 286, 892 P.2d
1067(1994)).
Avis does not address whether the case presents issues of continuing and
substantial public interest. Because the court can no longer provide effective relief, we
dismiss the appeal as moot.
jcP^^^cdQ^ Qy
WE CONCUR:
UA , v^
tl