## Facts

- Patrick Atkins lived with Brett Conrad in a committed same-sex relationship for about twenty-five years; Patrick’s parents disapproved of the relationship.
- In 2005, Patrick suffered a ruptured aneurysm and related brain injury, leaving him significantly incapacitated and requiring long-term institutional care.
- Brett continued visiting and assisting with Patrick’s care; Patrick’s parents attempted to prevent contact.
- Before his incapacity, Patrick wrote his family urging acceptance of his sexual orientation and affirming his relationship with Brett.
- Brett petitioned to be appointed guardian of Patrick’s person and estate; Patrick’s parents intervened and sought appointment as co-guardians.
- Brett later withdrew his request for guardianship of the estate but continued to seek guardianship of Patrick’s person or, alternatively, court-ordered visitation.
- A guardian ad litem recommended that continued contact with Brett was beneficial to Patrick and that an order should guarantee regular access regardless of who served as guardian.
- The trial court appointed Patrick’s parents as co-guardians of Patrick’s person and estate, denied Brett visitation, proceeded without Patrick’s physical presence or an in-court interview, placed a Charles Schwab account into the guardianship estate, and denied Brett’s request for estate-paid attorney fees.
- After appointment, the parents terminated all contact between Brett and Patrick.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by appointing Patrick’s parents, rather than Brett, as guardians of Patrick’s person.
2. Whether the trial court erred by denying Brett visitation or contact where the evidence addressed Patrick’s best interests.
3. Whether the trial court erred by proceeding without Patrick’s physical presence at the guardianship hearing or interviewing him.
4. Whether the trial court erred by allocating Patrick’s Charles Schwab account entirely to the guardianship estate.
5. Whether the trial court erred by denying reimbursement of any portion of Brett’s attorney fees and litigation expenses from the guardianship estate.

## Decision

- Affirmed the appointment of Patrick’s parents as co-guardians of Patrick’s person and estate; the selection was within the trial court’s discretion.
- Reversed the denial of visitation/contact; the record showed overwhelming evidence that continued contact with Brett was in Patrick’s best interests.
- Affirmed proceeding without Patrick’s physical presence; the right to be present was treated as waived under the circumstances.
- Affirmed allocation of the Charles Schwab account to the guardianship estate based on the evidence of ownership.
- Reversed the complete denial of attorney fees and costs; remanded for determination of a reasonable partial award payable from the estate for fees incurred in good faith for Patrick’s benefit.
- Disposition: affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions to order visitation and determine the fee amount.

## Legal Principles

- Guardianship determinations are governed by the incapacitated person’s best interests, and trial courts have broad discretion in choosing among suitable guardians; reversal requires an abuse of discretion.
- Appointment as guardian does not confer unreviewable authority to restrict a ward’s significant personal relationships; guardian decisions remain subject to best-interests review.
- Where overwhelming evidence shows that contact with a long-term partner benefits the ward, a court should order visitation notwithstanding guardians’ opposition.
- A ward’s statutory right to attend a guardianship hearing may be waived, particularly when medical condition and the record show no resulting prejudice.
- Asset classification for a guardianship estate is a fact-bound determination upheld if supported by the evidence.
- A guardianship estate may be charged with reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred in good faith to protect or advance the ward’s interests; denying all reimbursement can be error.

## Conclusion

The appellate court deferred to the trial court’s selection of the parents as co-guardians but held that severing contact between the ward and his long-term partner was inconsistent with the ward’s best interests, requiring an order for visitation and a remand to award reasonable partial attorney-fee reimbursement from the guardianship estate.


In re Guardianship of Atkins, 868 N.E.2d 878 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007)