## Facts

- Julia Waters lived for about five years in a rented apartment in an independent-living facility.
- During that time, Waters broke her wrist but refused physical therapy.
- Waters repeatedly refused to take prescribed medications.
- Waters’s apartment contained food trash and clutter, and she was known to sleep on the floor.
- An elderly-services organization offered assistance, but Waters refused the offered help.
- Waters later broke her hip and ignored the injury for several days before seeking medical attention.
- After hospitalization for the broken hip, Waters was transferred to an assisted-living facility for follow-up care.
- At the assisted-living facility, Waters refused physical therapy and refused psychiatric care.
- Waters wanted to return to her independent-living apartment and continued paying rent on it.
- A guardianship proceeding was initiated to determine whether Waters needed a guardian to manage her personal care.
- Waters argued she could dress and feed herself, that her refusals were due to stubbornness rather than incapacity, and that relatives had conspired to make her apartment appear messy.
- A doctor evaluated Waters and opined that she was physically impaired, suffered from psychosis, dementia, and paranoia, and was unable to care for herself.
- A court investigator concluded that Waters could not prepare her own food, handle her finances, drive, or manage her many medications, and recommended guardianship.
- Assisted-living staff provided testimony consistent with the doctor’s and investigator’s conclusions.
- The trial court found Waters’s testimony at the hearing sometimes incomprehensible, often nonresponsive to the questions asked, and consistent with paranoia and poor mental health.
- The trial court found Waters incompetent and appointed two co-guardians for her personal care.
- Waters appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the probate court’s incompetency determination (and related finding that Waters needed a guardian for personal care) was supported by sufficient evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
2. Whether the probate court erred by appointing co-guardians for Waters’s personal care in light of her asserted autonomy, including her wish to return to independent living and her refusal of recommended care.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed the probate court’s judgment.
- The court held the record contained competent evidence supporting the finding that Waters was unable to properly care for herself, including the physician’s evaluation, the investigator’s findings, corroborating facility testimony, and the trial court’s observations of Waters’s testimony and behavior.
- The court rejected Waters’s claim that the problems were merely stubbornness and upheld the probate court’s decision to appoint co-guardians for her personal care.

## Legal Principles

- Under Ohio guardianship law, a court may find an adult incompetent when, because of mental or physical illness or disability, the person is incapable of taking proper care of herself (and/or her property).
- Incompetency in a guardianship proceeding must be proven by clear and convincing evidence.
- On appeal, a reviewing court does not reweigh credibility and gives deference to the trial court’s ability to observe witnesses; an incompetency finding will be upheld when supported by competent evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
- A person’s stated ability to perform limited daily tasks does not prevent a finding of incompetency when the record shows impaired judgment and inability to safely manage medical needs and basic living conditions.
- A competent person has a liberty interest in refusing medical treatment; when a person is found incompetent under the guardianship statutes, the court may appoint a guardian to make personal-care decisions consistent with the ward’s best interests and the court’s orders.
- Probate courts may appoint co-guardians when the evidence supports that arrangement for the ward’s personal care and safety.

## Conclusion

The appellate court affirmed the probate court’s determination that Julia Waters was incompetent and required guardians for her personal care because the physician’s diagnosis, the investigator’s report, assisted-living testimony, and the trial court’s observations provided clear and convincing support that Waters could not safely care for herself, and the appointment of co-guardians was a proper exercise of the probate court’s authority.


In re Guardianship of Waters, 2013 Ohio App. LEXIS 4323 (2013)