## Facts

- Sharon Kowalski suffered severe brain injuries in a 1983 automobile accident, leaving her wheelchair-bound with impaired speech and significant memory loss.
- Before the accident, Sharon lived for about four years with Karen Thompson in a committed same-sex relationship; they exchanged rings and named each other as insurance beneficiaries.
- In 1984, both Thompson and Sharon’s father, Donald Kowalski, petitioned for guardianship; Thompson agreed to Donald’s appointment.
- After appointment, Donald obtained court approval to terminate Thompson’s visitation and moved Sharon to a distant facility.
- A court-ordered multidisciplinary evaluation later found Sharon could reliably communicate “yes/no” and consistently expressed a desire for contact with Thompson and, if possible, to live with her; visitation was restored.
- Donald later sought to be relieved as guardian for health reasons, requiring appointment of a successor guardian.
- Thompson petitioned to be appointed guardian and presented substantial medical testimony supporting Sharon’s consistent preference for Thompson and Thompson’s ability to meet Sharon’s needs.
- The trial court denied Thompson’s petition and appointed Karen Tomberlin, a family friend who had not petitioned for guardianship and indicated she would not care for Sharon outside an institutional setting.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Thompson’s guardianship petition despite medical evidence that the ward could reliably express and consistently maintained a preference for Thompson as guardian.
2. How much weight a court must give a ward’s expressed preference for a guardian when reliable medical evidence shows capacity to form and communicate that preference.
3. Whether the trial court properly applied Minnesota’s “best interests” standard in selecting a successor guardian.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the trial court’s order and remanded with instructions to appoint Karen Thompson as Sharon Kowalski’s guardian.
- The court held that the trial court misapplied the best-interests standard by failing to give sufficient weight to Sharon’s reliably expressed preference.
- The court found the record strongly supported Thompson’s appointment, including extensive medical testimony, compared to largely non-medical opposition with limited contact with Sharon.
- The court viewed the appointment of a non-petitioning, reluctant guardian as inconsistent with the evidentiary record and the ward-focused statutory inquiry.

## Legal Principles

- When medical evidence establishes that a mentally incapacitated ward has capacity to express a preference regarding the identity of a guardian, the court should give that preference great weight.
- Guardianship determinations must be centered on the ward’s best interests, informed by reliable evidence and the ward’s ascertainable wishes, rather than relatives’ preferences or discomfort.
- A court abuses its discretion when it discounts competent evidence of the ward’s stable, expressed preference and selects a guardian not supported by the record as best serving the ward’s welfare.

## Conclusion

The court required appointment of Thompson as guardian because the ward could reliably communicate her preference and consistently chose Thompson, and the best-interests analysis demanded substantial weight be given to that preference in light of strong medical evidence supporting Thompson’s caregiving role.


In re Guardianship of Kowalski, 478 N.W.2d 790 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991)