## Facts

- Maureen Davis was the subject of repeated public-health complaints and “self-neglect” referrals from about 1976 through 1999.
- Over the years, social services repeatedly went to Davis’s home and offered assistance with her health and living conditions, but Davis refused help and would not allow entry.
- In 1999, Cleveland Police Officer Riley saw Davis outside her home, dirty and disheveled, with open sores on her face and arms; Davis refused Riley’s offer of medical aid.
- Riley also observed that Davis’s home appeared filled with garbage and smelled rancid, and he reported his observations.
- The City of Cleveland obtained a search warrant for Environmental Health Department inspectors to enter the home, accompanied by Cuyahoga County Adult Protective Services (CCAPS).
- Davis attempted to prevent entry and insisted everything was fine.
- Inside, officials found the home filthy and hazardous: garbage and feces from Davis’s 16 pets, insect and rodent infestation, and shut-off electricity.
- Inspectors also found multiple cans of kerosene buried in the garbage, creating a fire hazard.
- Davis was transported to the psychiatric ward at St. Vincent’s Charity Hospital.
- A three-person cleaning crew, wearing protective gear, took about ten days to clean the home.
- CCAPS filed a probate petition seeking appointment of a guardian, alleging Davis was mentally incompetent.
- At the hearing, two doctors who examined Davis testified that she suffered from dementia, delusions, and severe obsessive-compulsive disorder, and that she was mentally incompetent.
- The probate court found Davis incompetent and appointed a guardian of her person. Davis appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the probate court abused its discretion by finding Davis suffered from a mental impairment so severe that it rendered her incapable of caring for herself or her property.
2. Whether the probate court abused its discretion by failing to properly consider less restrictive alternatives to guardianship.

## Decision

- The court of appeals affirmed the probate court’s finding of incompetency, concluding the record contained competent, credible evidence supporting the determination.
- The court of appeals affirmed the appointment of a guardian, rejecting Davis’s argument that the condition of her home was an insufficient basis and concluding the probate court did not err in declining lesser measures given Davis’s repeated refusal of services.

## Legal Principles

- Under Ohio guardianship law, a court may find an adult “incompetent” when a mental impairment leaves the person incapable of caring for self or property.
- Appellate review of a probate court’s incompetency and guardianship determinations is for abuse of discretion; the judgment will be upheld if supported by competent, credible evidence.
- A probate court may consider both professional medical testimony and nonmedical evidence (such as self-care, behavior, and the safety and sanitation of the home) when deciding incapacity.
- Although courts should consider less restrictive options, a guardianship may be warranted where voluntary interventions are ineffective because the person refuses entry, rejects services, or otherwise cannot safely function without formal authority.

## Conclusion

The Eighth District affirmed the guardianship because the probate court had competent, credible evidence—particularly the doctors’ diagnoses and the extreme, dangerous living conditions—showing Davis could not care for herself, and her long history of refusing assistance supported the court’s decision not to rely on less restrictive alternatives.


Davis v. Cuyahoga County Adult Protective Services, 2000 WL 1513752, 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 4754 (2000)