The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the probate court’s decision appointing a professional guardian for an incapacitated individual whose son, her preferred guardian, had not acted in her best interests in his role as her patient advocate. In re Guardianship of CY, No. 370828 (Mich. Ct. App. June 12, 2025).
CY was a 93-year-old woman with three daughters and one son. She chose her son, Leon Jukowski, to have primary responsibility for her care as her patient advocate. After her husband died in 2020, CY’s daughters filed a petition in the probate court seeking the appointment of one of the daughters, Lesley Yolkowski, as CY’s guardian, alleging that CY suffered from dementia and that Leon, as CY’s patient advocate and agent under a medical durable power of attorney, had not acted in her best interest, had not ensured that CY was receiving adequate care, and had not cooperated with CY’s daughters.
CY, through counsel, objected to the petition for guardianship, asserting that she was not legally incapacitated, but if the court determined that a guardian was needed, she wanted Leon to be appointed as her guardian. She asserted that because she had listed Leon as her patient advocate and had repeatedly expressed her preference for Leon to act on her behalf, he should have priority to serve as her guardian.
The probate court found that the evidence indicated that CY was an incapacitated individual and needed a guardian, and that she required more supervision and care than Leon was willing or able to provide. The trial court appointed a professional guardian because Leon was an unsuitable guardian and the evidence showed that CY did not want her daughters to make decisions about her medical care. CY appealed, contesting the trial court’s appointment of a professional guardian on the basis that Leon was providing proper care as her patient advocate and medical power of attorney.
On appeal, the Michigan Court of Appeals found that the evidence demonstrated that CY was an incapacitated individual under Michigan law and that appointing a guardian other than Leon was vital to her continuing care and supervision. The evidence showed that Leon did not communicate with his sisters or medical professionals who provided care for CY, CY’s health had deteriorated following her husband’s death, Leon had hired an unqualified caregiver who did not provide proper care for CY, CY’s person and home were dirty, and CY was not taking her medications. The court found that although CY had indicated her preference for Leon to make medical decisions on her behalf, Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.5306 permits the court to appoint a different person to act as guardian for an individual who has designated a patient advocate who has not acted in the individual’s best interests. Based on the evidence, the court determined that appointing a guardian other than Leon was critical to CY’s well-being because Leon had shown that he was unwilling or unable to address her acute needs. Thus, the court affirmed, holding that the probate court was within its discretion to appoint another person as CY’s guardian despite CY’s designation of Leon as her patient advocate.
Subscribe to the Knowledge Bank.
