[Cite as In re Guardianship of Mannies, 2019-Ohio-430.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
WOOD COUNTY
In re Guardianship of Wayne Mannies Court of Appeals No. WD-18-056
Trial Court No. 20182006
DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Decided: February 8, 2019
*****
Edward J. Stechschulte, for appellant.
*****
PIETRYKOWSKI, J.
{¶ 1} Appellant, Wayne Mannies, appeals from the July 2, 2018 judgment of the
Wood County Court of Common Pleas, Probate Division, declaring appellant
incompetent by reason of a developmental disability and appointing Loretta Hutton as
guardian of the person of appellant. For the reasons which follow, we affirm.
{¶ 2} On appeal, appellant asserts a single assignment of error:
Is evidence that Appellant’s health has improved under the then
existing Health Care Power of Attorney proof that a less restrictive
alternative to a guardianship existed, thereby rendering the Trial Court’s
order of a guardianship an abuse of discretion?
{¶ 3} On January 26, 2018, an emergency guardianship was established for
appellant because of health issues. The guardianship was extended to March 1, 2018,
because the guardian’s intervention was ensuring medications were being provided and
appellant’s heath issue was improving.
{¶ 4} On February 27, 2018, a court investigator filed a report regarding
appellant’s ability to care for himself. The investigator concluded that appellant could
not take care of his personal finances, shop for himself, drive, or take medications due to
his moderate intellectual disability. The investigator also reported appellant was very
emotional about the guardianship proceedings and wanted to regain control over his
medications despite the fact that since the emergency guardianship had been imposed,
appellant’s health had significantly improved. Sometime in March 2018, a healthcare
power of attorney was also executed for appellant’s benefit.
{¶ 5} A review hearing was held July 2, 2018. Appellant appeared, with counsel,
as well as the guardian, and two unidentified service providers from the Wood County
Board of Developmental Disabilities (“WCBDD”). Appellant asserted his opposition to
the guardianship and objection to his medicine continuing to be locked up. He further
2.
asserted that the failure of health care providers to understand the healthcare power of
attorney is an insufficient reason to continue the guardianship.
{¶ 6} The guardian testified appellant cannot make decisions for himself because
he had not been taking his medicine on his own. She further testified his home was dirty.
Although the power of attorney was beneficial, the guardian did not believe it was
sufficient. A service coordinator with the WCBDD testified the guardianship should
continue because appellant rejected their services and services might not be provided if
there was only a health care power of attorney. Both service coordinators testified that
some health care providers will not speak with the guardian if appellant only had a power
of attorney.
{¶ 7} The probate court continued the guardianship emphasizing the expert’s
evaluation, the court investigator’s report, and appellant’s overall demeanor. The probate
court indicated that it had tried the least restrictive means by enacting the power of
attorney, but that method was insufficient. Appellant appeals.
{¶ 8} In his sole assignment of error, appellant argues the probate court abused its
discretion by continuing the guardianship when there was a less restrictive alternative
available.
{¶ 9} R.C. 2111.02 governs the appointment of a guardian of the person. In
guardianship matters, the probate court must act in the best interest of the proposed ward.
In re Estate of Bednarczuk, 80 Ohio App.3d 548, 551, 609 N.E.2d 1310 (12th Dist.1992).
Objections to the guardianship by the proposed ward are to be seriously considered. In re
3.
Guardianship of Jung, 6th Dist. Ottawa No. OT-11-020, 2012-Ohio-1873, ¶ 12, citing In
re Guardianship of Schumacher, 38 Ohio App.3d 37, 39, 525 N.E.2d 833 (9th
Dist.1987). However, the ultimate determination of whether to impose a guardianship of
the person is a matter left to the probate court’s discretion. R.C. 2111.02(A); In re Hackl,
6th Dist. Wood No. WD-08-030, 2009-Ohio-666, ¶ 13; In re Guardianship of Simmons,
6th Dist. Wood No. WD-02-039, 2003-Ohio-5416, ¶ 38.
{¶ 10} The probate court’s decisions are subject to appellate review under an
abuse of discretion standard. Id. There must be proof that the court’s attitude is
“unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable.” State v. Beasley, 152 Ohio St.3d 470, 2018-
Ohio-16, 97 N.E.3d 474, ¶ 12, citing Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219,
450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983). An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court failed to
consider the facts and circumstances. Beasley.
{¶ 11} Appellant asserts that the healthcare power of attorney was working
because appellant’s health issues were improving. Therefore, the guardianship was not
the least restrictive means to ensure appellant took his medication. He further contends
the fact that healthcare providers would not always honor the power of attorney was an
unacceptable reason to continue the guardianship.
{¶ 12} Upon a review of the evidence, we find that appellant’s health issues have
improved, but there is no evidence to substantiate the claim that the improvement was
accomplished solely because of the healthcare power of attorney. Furthermore, the
probate court considered appellant’s objections and observed his demeanor before
4.
concluding that a guardianship was warranted. Appellant has failed to demonstrate the
probate court abused its discretion. Appellant’s sole assignment of error is found not
well-taken.
{¶ 13} Having found that the trial court did not commit error prejudicial to
appellant and that substantial justice has been done, the judgment of the Wood County
Court of Common Pleas, Probate Division, is affirmed. Appellant is ordered to pay the
costs of this appeal pursuant to App.R. 24.
Judgment affirmed.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.
See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.
Mark L. Pietrykowski, J. _______________________________
JUDGE
Thomas J. Osowik, J.
_______________________________
Christine E. Mayle, P.J. JUDGE
CONCUR.
_______________________________
JUDGE
This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of
Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported
version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at:
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.
5.