## Facts

- Christine Samson executed a power of attorney for health-care decisionmaking that appointed her daughter, Elizabeth Kuitunen, as Christine’s primary health-care agent.
- Christine named her son Ludwig Samson as the first alternate agent and her son Bernard Samson as the second alternate if Kuitunen could not serve.
- Christine later developed dementia and became incapacitated.
- Acting under the power of attorney, Kuitunen arranged for Christine to live in a nursing home and continued making health-care decisions for her.
- Ludwig petitioned the district court to appoint him as Christine’s guardian “for all purposes,” which would replace or override the existing decisionmaking arrangement.
- Ludwig claimed Kuitunen’s care was not sufficient because she spent about two months each year out of state.
- Ludwig did not explain how Kuitunen’s periodic absences caused Christine’s needs to go unmet and did not submit medical evidence supporting the need for guardianship.
- The district court denied Ludwig’s guardianship petition, and Ludwig appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court erred by denying a petition for a full guardianship when the incapacitated person had a valid, functioning health-care power of attorney and the petitioner presented no specific evidence of inadequate care.
2. Whether a family member’s general concerns about an agent’s periodic travel, without supporting facts or medical evidence, are enough to show that a guardianship is necessary and that other available arrangements are insufficient.

## Decision

- The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s order denying Ludwig Samson’s petition to be appointed guardian.
- The court concluded the record did not show that Christine’s needs were not being met under the existing power-of-attorney arrangement.
- The court held that Ludwig’s assertions about Kuitunen being out of state for part of the year, without concrete proof of harm or unmet needs, did not justify imposing a broad guardianship.

## Legal Principles

- Guardianship is a serious intrusion on an incapacitated person’s autonomy and should be ordered only when necessary to meet the person’s needs.
- Courts consider whether less restrictive options—such as a valid health-care power of attorney naming an agent—are available and working before appointing a guardian.
- The petitioner seeking guardianship bears the burden to present specific facts showing a guardianship is needed and that other arrangements are not sufficient.
- General allegations, speculation, or dissatisfaction with an agent’s choices—without evidence of neglect, failure, or unmet needs—do not establish the need for a “for all purposes” guardianship.
- Appellate review of a guardianship decision gives deference to the district court’s assessment of the evidence; absent a supported showing of necessity, denial of guardianship will be upheld.

## Conclusion

The court of appeals upheld the denial of Ludwig Samson’s request to become guardian because Christine Samson had previously authorized her daughter, Elizabeth Kuitunen, to make health-care decisions through a power of attorney, that arrangement was operating (including placement in a nursing home), and Ludwig provided no specific or medical evidence that Christine’s care was inadequate or that a full guardianship was required.


In re Guardianship of Samson, 2012 Minn. App. LEXIS 549 (2012)