Opinion
A19-1821
07-06-2020
In Re: Guardianship of Anakin Joseph Hazelton
Ted L. Hazelton, Winona, Minnesota (pro se appellant); and Anakin J. Hazelton, Winona, Minnesota (pro se appellant) Paul R. Ellison, Winona, Minnesota (for Winona County); and Frederick Guardianship Services, LLC, Hokah, Minnesota (for respondent)
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn . Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2018). Affirmed; motion granted
Hooten, Judge Winona County District Court
File No. 85-PR-19-1312 Ted L. Hazelton, Winona, Minnesota (pro se appellant); and Anakin J. Hazelton, Winona, Minnesota (pro se appellant) Paul R. Ellison, Winona, Minnesota (for Winona County); and Frederick Guardianship Services, LLC, Hokah, Minnesota (for respondent) Considered and decided by Hooten, Presiding Judge; Worke, Judge; and Jesson, Judge.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
HOOTEN, Judge
On appeal from the appointment of a guardian, the ward and his father argue that the district court: (1) failed to abide by the statutory hierarchy for identifying who would be the ward's guardian, (2) made its decision before certain information from the ward's doctor was submitted, and (3) failed to properly understand the context of certain events described in the record. We affirm.
FACTS
In June 2019, respondent Winona County filed a guardianship petition for appellant Anakin Joseph Hazelton, alleging that he was a vulnerable adult who lacked sufficient understanding or capacity to make decisions concerning his well-being. The petition explained that Anakin was previously diagnosed with autism and high anxiety, had "severe deficits in the communication domain, especially with receptive and expressive communication," and difficulty controlling his emotions.
At the time of the petition, Anakin lived with his father, appellant Ted Hazelton. Hazelton was Anakin's primary caregiver; he was the representative payee on Anakin's social security benefits and controlled any money Anakin earned while working on a paper route. Testimony from the guardianship hearing revealed that Hazelton rarely allowed Anakin to spend his own money despite the fact that staff from an assisted living center, Legacies, LLC, believed Anakin could gain the skills necessary to budget his own money with their assistance.
The primary basis for Winona County's guardianship petition was a domestic assault incident in May 2019, which resulted in Hazelton's arrest. The petition alleged that Anakin reported to Legacies, LLC that his father "hit him in the eye which caused his eye and the area around it to swell." Legacies' staff reported the incident to police and Hazelton was eventually arrested and charged with two counts of domestic assault.
Following the incident, Winona County filed a guardianship petition. It argued that Anakin required a guardian who would act in his best interests, and indicated that a professional guardian, and not Hazelton, was the appropriate guardian. The county pointed to reports that Anakin was afraid of his father and feared that he would retaliate against him for filing a complaint after the domestic assault incident as evidence to support the proposition that a professional guardian was necessary.
Hazelton filed his own petition for guardianship in September 2019. He maintained that Anakin "thrive[d] on routine, and it would be detrimental to him to have a stranger be his guardian." He argued that it would be in Anakin's best interest to continue living with his father and asked the court to appoint him as guardian. The petition did not reference the alleged domestic assault incident.
The district court held a hearing on the competing guardianship petitions on September 10, 2019. During the hearing, Anakin was represented by counsel who conceded that Anakin was an incapacitated individual and required a guardian. But counsel argued that Anakin's preference was for the court to appoint Hazelton as his guardian instead of a professional guardian. The county maintained that it was not in Anakin's best interests to appoint Hazelton as the guardian.
The district court agreed to address Hazelton's petition for guardianship despite Hazelton's failure to serve the interested parties.
The county called Amy Marty, Anakin's social worker and case manager, as a witness during the guardianship hearing. She testified that she believed that it was not in Anakin's best interest for Hazelton to serve as his guardian and referenced two incidents where Anakin ran out of medication following Hazelton's failure to refill the medication. Marty also testified that she believed Hazelton was controlling Anakin's money and preventing him from spending it in the way he chooses. She testified that these types of incidents occurred regularly and that she believed that Anakin would benefit from a guardian who allowed him to take more ownership of his money.
She also testified about the domestic violence incident that occurred between Anakin and Hazelton. She indicated that when Legacies' staff arrived to pick Anakin up, he had "swelling and bruising on [his] right side." After Anakin stated that he wanted to report the incident, police arrived at the home, interviewed Anakin, and arrested Hazelton shortly thereafter.
Following Marty's testimony, Hazelton testified before the court. The judge questioned Hazelton, who indicated that he was petitioning to be Anakin's guardian because he believed "that [Anakin's] needs [were] being met with [his] control or care." He also described the circumstances of the domestic assault incident. Hazelton explained that prior to the incident, he caught Anakin stealing and Anakin lied about it. He stated that he believed Anakin was "going to take a swing at [him]" because Anakin's hands were clenched, so he "went to slap him . . . and [his hand] caught [Anakin] in the eye which resulted in [] swelling." Hazelton explained that after the incident, he and Anakin resolved their issues and "hugged it out." But Legacies' staff "kept egging him on to call the police" and so Anakin did.
Hazelton also testified that he always provided Anakin with the medication he needed and believed any incidents where Anakin ran out of medication were due to his doctor's failure to prescribe enough medication to last until Anakin's next scheduled appointment. Hazelton denied that he ever kept medication from Anakin or failed to contact Anakin's doctor to obtain more medication.
Following the hearing, the district court agreed with the parties that the appointment of a guardian was in Anakin's best interests. With regard to who the appropriate guardian was, the judge indicated that she would take the matter under advisement and issue a written decision "sooner rather than later."
The district court issued a written order the next day. It concluded that Anakin required a guardian to establish a residence, to "[g]ive any necessary consent to enable . . . necessary medical or other professional care, counsel, treatment or service," and to apply "for any assistance, services, or benefits available to [him] through [the] government." Turning to the question of who should serve as Anakin's guardian, the court indicated that although there is a statutory presumption favoring a parent over a professional guardian, the court nevertheless believed that it was in Anakin's best interests to appoint a professional guardian. The district court's order specifically referenced the domestic violence incident between Anakin and Hazelton as the basis for the appointment of a professional guardian.
Following the district court's filing of its written order, but allegedly before notice of the order was sent to the parties, Hazelton filed two letters with the district court. The first letter, filed on September 12, was written by Dr. Annette Smick, the Medical Director at the Hiawatha Valley Mental Health Center and one of Anakin's physicians. The letter sought to explain the missing medication issue raised at the guardianship hearing. Dr. Smick explained that Anakin running out of medication was due to her cancellation of appointments because of her "need to provide supervision for nurse practitioners or interns." She indicated that neither Anakin nor Hazelton knew that they could call her office for refills and instead mistakenly believed that an appointment was needed.
The letter also implied that the domestic violence altercation was attributable to Anakin's lack of medication. Dr. Smick stated that when Anakin is "not treated with a mood stabilizing medication, he demonstrates significant irritability and anger outbursts which contributed to [the] altercation." She concluded that Anakin was not in any danger while living with his father and stated that she believed it would be in Anakin's best interests if the district court appointed Hazelton to serve as Anakin's guardian.
It is unclear if Dr. Smick was referring to the domestic abuse incident between Anakin and Hazelton or a different incident because the letter only states that "[a]n altercation between Anakin and Ted occurred when Anakin was off [his] medication[]." But because there is nothing in the record that describes an additional domestic assault incident, we will assume that Dr. Smick was referring to the May 2019 incident.
The second letter, filed on September 19, came from Anakin's former caregiver, who alleged that she believed it would be in Anakin's best interests to have his father appointed guardian because of their ongoing relationship and because "Anakin deserves and needs to be appointed a guardian he knows and trusts."
There is no indication that the district court reviewed or considered the two letters Hazelton filed. Appellants, pro se, now appeal the district court's decision to name a third-party to serve as Anakin's guardian.
Appellants filed a reply brief with a motion for acceptance in May 2020. We grant the motion to accept because Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 126.02 authorizes this court to accept the late reply, and because acceptance of the brief would not prejudice respondent since the brief does not raise any new issues.
DECISION
I. The district court did not abuse its discretion by appointing a professional guardian.
"The appointment of a guardian is a matter within the discretion of the district court and will not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of that discretion." In re Guardianship of Autio, 747 N.W.2d 600, 603 (Minn. App. 2008). "A reviewing court is limited to determining whether the district court's findings are clearly erroneous, giving due regard to the district court's determinations regarding witness credibility." In re Guardianship of Wells, 733 N.W.2d 506, 510 (Minn. App. 2007), review denied (Minn. Sept. 18, 2007). If there is reasonable evidence to support the findings of fact, this court should not disturb those findings. Fletcher v. St. Paul Pioneer Press, 589 N.W.2d 96, 101 (Minn. 1999). This court does not stand in a position to retry the case and assess the evidence as the district court did. See Grant v. Malkerson Sales, Inc., 108 N.W.2d 347, 351 (Minn. 1961) (explaining that even when there is conflicting evidence and the appellate court "might find the facts to be different" if it were the fact-finder, that is not its role).
Appointment of a guardian "is a matter peculiarly for and within the discretion of the appointing court, and . . . although generally a court will select a family member as a guardian, this is not mandatory, since the interests of the ward are paramount." In re Guardianship of Fingerholtz, 357 N.W.2d 423, 426 (Minn. App. 1984) (quotation and citation omitted), review denied (Minn. Feb. 6, 1985); see also Autio, 747 N.W.2d at 603 (stating that the district court "need not appoint a family member as guardian if it determines that the best interests of the proposed ward will not be served").
The parties agree that it is appropriate for a guardian to be appointed for Anakin; they disagree as to the proper party to appoint as guardian. See Minn. Stat. § 524.5-309 (2018) (setting forth factual bases for appointment of a guardian). The guardianship statute provides that a district court may appoint a guardian only if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that "the respondent is an incapacitated person" and his "identified needs cannot be met by less restrictive means." Minn. Stat. § 524.5-310(a) (2018). In appointing a guardian, the district court must consider persons in the following order of priority:
(1) a guardian . . . currently acting for the respondent in this state or elsewhere;Minn. Stat. § 524.5-309(a) (2018). The statute provides further that "[t]he court, acting in the best interest of the respondent, may decline to appoint a person having priority and appoint a person having a lower priority or no priority." Minn. Stat. § 524.5-309(b) (2018). The party opposing appointment of a person with priority must establish that appointing an individual with a lower priority is not in the best interests of the ward by a preponderance of the evidence. Wells, 733 N.W.2d at 512.
(2) a health care agent appointed by the respondent in a health care directive . . .;
(3) the spouse of the respondent or a person nominated by will or other signed writing . . .;
(4) an adult child of the respondent;
(5) a parent of the respondent, or an individual nominated by will or other signed writing . . .;
(6) an adult with whom the respondent has resided for more than six months before the filing of the petition;
(7) an adult who is related to the respondent by blood, adoption, or marriage; and
(8) any other adult or a professional guardian.
Appellants argue that the district court abused its discretion by failing to appoint Hazelton to serve as Anakin's guardian. They contend that Minn. Stat. § 524.5-309(a) gives Hazelton priority over a professional guardian and the domestic violence incident relied on by the district court was insufficient to support appointing a party with a lower priority. Although we note that appellants are correct that Hazelton has priority over a professional guardian pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 524.5-309(a), we emphasize that we have previously found that a district court does not abuse its discretion by failing to appoint someone with priority as guardian when there is evidence in the record of inter-family conflict between the ward and the petitioning party. See Fingerholtz, 357 N.W.2d at 424-25 (affirming a district court's appointment of a professional guardian following evidence in the record that the party with priority physically and verbally abused the ward); Wells, 733 N.W.2d at 508 (affirming the district court's conclusion that "appointment of a neutral third-party guardian was in the ward's best interests" after the record showed "long-standing" inter-family personal conflicts between the ward and the ward's daughters).
Here, all parties agree that a domestic violence incident occurred between Anakin and Hazelton in May 2019 following a dispute over money, in which Hazelton punched or slapped Anakin. Although appellants argue that the catalyst of the incident was Anakin's alleged theft, they do not dispute that an incident occurred. This type of family conflict is sufficient to support a finding that appointing Hazelton as Anakin's guardian was not in Anakin's best interest. See Wells, 733 N.W.2d at 511 (explaining that "specific evidence of tangible harm" to the ward is not required to establish that appointing a party with lower priority is in the ward's best interest). We therefore conclude that the district court's finding that Hazelton's appointment was not in Anakin's best interests and that a professional guardian was the most suitable and qualified person to serve as Anakin's guardian is supported by the record and is not clearly erroneous.
Appellants also argue that the district court abused its discretion by relying on Hazelton's alleged failure to provide Anakin medication as a basis for appointing a professional guardian. But it does not appear that the district court relied on the lack of medication to support its determination that Hazelton serving as Anakin's guardian was not in Anakin's best interests. Rather, the district court based its decision on the physical altercation between Anakin and Hazelton.
Appellants next argue that the district court abused its discretion by failing to consider Anakin's preferences for guardianship. Appellants are correct that a district court may consider a ward's preference in addition to the ward's best interests when determining guardianship. Id. at 511. But a district court may determine that a ward's best interests outweigh his preferences. Id. Here, the district court considered Anakin's expressed preferences that Hazelton be appointed guardian, but found that appointing Hazelton would not be in Anakin's best interests because of a recent physical altercation between the two. This decision is supported by the record and is not erroneous.
II. The district court abused its discretion by admitting hearsay statements into evidence but the error was harmless.
Appellants also argue that the district court abused its discretion by admitting hearsay testimony from Anakin's social worker in support of appointing a professional guardian. Hearsay is an out-of-court statement "offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted." Minn. R. Evid. 801. Generally, hearsay is not admissible. Minn. R. Evid. 802. However, the rules provide express exceptions for statements that are sufficiently trustworthy. See Minn. R. Evid. 803, 804.
Here, the statements that appellants appear to be referencing are statements made by Anakin's social worker during her testimony regarding the domestic violence incident. Specifically, during the guardianship hearing, Anakin's social worker testified that Legacies' staff informed her about the domestic assault incident and she was prepared to testify about it. Hazelton objected to this line of questioning on hearsay grounds, but the district court overruled the objection, indicating that "[s]ome limited hearsay is appropriate in these types of hearings."
Both appellants and respondent agree, and we conclude, that the statements by Anakin's social worker were hearsay statements admitted into evidence by the district court without an express exception. Neither appellants nor respondent point to, nor can we find, what hearsay exception the district court relied on when it admitted the statements. We note that probate proceedings are civil in nature and are governed by the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure, including the rules governing hearsay statements. Minn. Stat. § 524.1-304(a) (2018); In re Conservatorship of Smith, 655 N.W.2d 814, 818 (Minn. App. 2003). Therefore, the district court abused its discretion by admitting the statements made by Anakin's social worker without a proper hearsay exception.
Respondent contends that any error in admitting the social worker's statements was harmless and therefore does not entitle appellants to relief. On appeal, appellants must show both an error and that they were prejudiced by the error. Kallio v. Ford Motor Co., 407 N.W.2d 92, 98 (Minn. 1987). Harmless error is to be disregarded. Minn. R. Civ. P. 61.
We agree with the county that any error in admitting the statements was harmless. Our review of the record reflects that the statements made by Anakin's social worker were largely confirmed by Hazelton during his testimony. Both parties testified that a physical altercation occurred between Hazelton and Anakin following a dispute over money. Both parties also testified that Legacies' staff found Anakin shortly after the incident with a swollen eye, and police arrested Hazelton after Anakin reported the incident. The parties disagreed on the catalyst of the incident and whether Anakin wanted to report the incident to police, but it does not appear that the district court relied on these differences when determining whether appointing a professional guardian was in Anakin's best interests. Rather, the district court concluded that appointing a professional guardian was in Anakin's best interests because a physical altercation occurred between Anakin and Hazelton. Because Hazelton provided extensive testimony regarding the incident and confirmed that it took place, we conclude that any error by the district court in admitting the statements was harmless.
Appellants' brief to this court also raises several issues that were not raised before the district court, including the following issues: (1) the credibility of the social worker's testimony, (2) the district court's alleged consideration of other child protective reports between Hazelton and Anakin, (3) the district court's alleged bias, (4) whether Anakin's court-appointed attorney was properly discharged, and (5) whether the district court abused its discretion by failing to leave the record open so that appellants could supplement the record with letters from Dr. Smick and Anakin's caregiver. Because appellate courts do not address issues or theories not raised in district court, see Thiele v. Stitch, 425 N.W.2d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988), we do not consider any of these issues.
Because the district court's conclusion that Hazelton's appointment was not in the best interests of the ward is supported by the evidence and not clearly erroneous, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to appoint Hazelton as Anakin's guardian.
Affirmed; motion granted.