## Facts

- L. C. Bailey’s daughters petitioned a probate court to be appointed co-guardians of Bailey’s estate, alleging chronic alcoholism and inability to manage his affairs.
- A physician, Dr. McCarty, examined Bailey three times, reviewed medical records, and consulted Bailey’s longtime treating physician.
- Dr. McCarty opined that Bailey had organic brain syndrome caused by alcoholism and was incapable of handling financial matters or making important decisions.
- The probate court found Bailey incompetent to manage business and financial affairs and appointed the daughters as co-guardians of the estate.
- Bailey appealed, challenging both statutory compliance and the evidentiary basis for the incapacity finding.

## Issues

1. Whether the guardianship order was invalid because the “professional evaluation” did not comply with Ark. Code Ann. § 28-65-212(b), which requires specific findings before an incapacity adjudication.
2. Whether the probate court’s finding of incapacity was clearly erroneous on the record.

## Decision

- The Arkansas Supreme Court reversed the probate court’s guardianship order and dismissed the guardianship proceeding.
- The Court held that Ark. Code Ann. § 28-65-212(b) imposes mandatory requirements for the professional evaluation supporting a guardianship.
- Because the evaluation did not contain all statutorily required findings, the statutory precondition for appointing a guardian was not met.
- Given the statutory deficiency, the guardianship could not stand regardless of the broader evidence concerning Bailey’s condition.

## Legal Principles

- In Arkansas adult guardianship proceedings, compliance with Ark. Code Ann. § 28-65-212(b) is mandatory.
- A professional evaluation used to support a finding of incapacity must include each of the specific findings required by the statute; omission of any required element invalidates the guardianship adjudication.
- A guardianship that restricts an adult’s control over property and decisionmaking authority may not be imposed absent satisfaction of statutory safeguards governing the evidentiary foundation for incapacity.

## Conclusion

The court reversed and dismissed the guardianship because the professional evaluation failed to include all findings required by Ark. Code Ann. § 28-65-212(b), making the probate court’s incapacity adjudication and appointment of co-guardians legally defective.


Matter of Bailey, 299 Ark. 352, 771 S.W.2d 779 (Ark. 1989)