Browse cases by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Other
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Torts
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
In re Guardianship of Van Sickle
No. 03-C-1757 (N.D. Sup. Ct. filed, Nov. 15, 2004) ; Clearinghouse Number: 55815
Description
Retired Federal Judge’s Son Appeals Appointment of Father’s Corporate Guardian Placement in Facility
Abstract
Son is appealing the court appointment of a corporate guardian and
conservator for his father, a retired federal judge, and placement
of his father in a basic care facility. Asserting that father was
incapacitated due to dementia, petitioner-appellees--two of
father’s other children--sought appointment of a guardian and
conservator for him. After a hearing in the father’s absence
and over son’s objections, the court appointed a corporate
guardian according to a stipulation by petitioners, father’s
original attorney, and the guardian ad litem. Guardian thereafter
moved father from a private residence to a locked dementia unit in
a basic care facility, which father opposed. The court denied a
show-cause motion as to removing guardian and setting aside
guardian’s placement decision and later denied son’s
motion for a new trial. On appeal to the North Dakota Supreme
Court, appellant son argues, among other points, that the trial
court should have required father’s attendance at the
guardianship hearing and received direct testimony from father,
abused its discretion by refusing to allow son to participate at
the hearings on the show-cause motion, should have placed the
burden on petitioners to show that a less restrictive alternative
was unavailable, erred in not placing father in the least
restrictive alternative, and failed to give son preference for
appointment as guardian after other family members had waived their
preference. Appellant father argues that the stipulation was
invalid and that guardian unlawfully placed father in the facility.
Amicus curiae AARP argues that the lower court should have applied
North Dakota’s statutory standards to ensure father’s
right to self-determination.
