## Facts

- Elvira Medworth, age 87, lived in her Minneapolis home since the early 1950s and wished to remain there.
- After health decline (strokes and repeated falls), her nephew, Gary Peper, became responsible for her care and was appointed conservator of her person and estate in 1996.
- In January 1996, a physician concluded Medworth could remain at home only with 24-hour care; a social worker assessed home safety.
- Peper explored care options and sought caregivers by race after Medworth allegedly complained about African-American staff at a prior facility.
- When informed that home-care providers would not permit selecting caregivers by race, Peper did not pursue other in-home providers.
- Peper instead petitioned to move Medworth to a congregate-living facility in Wisconsin near relatives with an all-Caucasian staff.
- At the hearing, Medworth testified repeatedly that she wanted to stay in her home and claimed she had funds to pay for in-home care.
- The social worker testified Medworth could be safely cared for at home with proper supervision and assistance.
- Evidence showed Medworth had sufficient assets to pay for the Wisconsin facility, but no evidence addressed the cost of 24-hour in-home care.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by authorizing an out-of-state placement without adequate findings that the move served the conservatee’s best interests and overall welfare.
2. Whether the district court failed to consider less restrictive alternatives, including feasible in-home 24-hour care consistent with the conservatee’s stated preference.

## Decision

- The Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed the order authorizing the move and remanded.
- The court held the district court abused its discretion by failing to make sufficient findings that relocation was consistent with Medworth’s best interests and necessary to provide needed care and services.
- The court held the record did not show that less restrictive alternatives were adequately investigated or evaluated, particularly in-home care.
- The court noted evidentiary gaps, including the absence of evidence about the cost and feasibility of 24-hour in-home care compared to facility placement.

## Legal Principles

- A conservator’s authority to establish a conservatee’s place of abode must be exercised consistent with the conservatee’s best interests and overall welfare.
- Civil rights and personal freedom may be limited only to the extent necessary to provide needed care and services.
- Courts must consider the conservatee’s expressed preferences and require meaningful consideration of less restrictive alternatives before approving more restrictive placement.
- A placement decision requires an evidentiary basis; where in-home care is medically plausible, the record should address feasibility (including cost and availability) before ordering institutional or distant placement.

## Conclusion

The court reversed and remanded because the district court treated the need for 24-hour care as effectively dispositive without sufficiently weighing Medworth’s preference to remain at home, evidence that safe in-home care was possible, and whether less restrictive alternatives were feasible and necessary under a best-interests standard.


In re Medworth, 562 N.W.2d 522 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997)