In re Guardianship of Stevenson, 26168.

• Decision Date: 09 January 2013
• Docket Number: No. 26168.,26168.
• Citation: 2013 S.D. 4,825 N.W.2d 911
• Parties: In the Matter of the GUARDIANSHIP and Conservatorship OF Nicole Trina STEVENSON.
• Court: South Dakota Supreme Court

825 N.W.2d 911

2013 S.D. 4

In the Matter of the GUARDIANSHIP and Conservatorship OF Nicole Trina STEVENSON.

No. 26168.

Supreme Court of South Dakota.

Considered on Briefs Nov. 6, 2012.

Decided Jan. 9, 2013.

Marty J. Jackley, Attorney General, Daniel J. Todd, Special Assistant Attorney General, Pierre, South Dakota, Attorneys for appellee Guardian South Dakota Department of Social Services.

John A. Hamilton, South Dakota Advocacy Services, Inc., Sioux Falls, South Dakota, Attorneys for appellee protected person Nicole Trina Stevenson.

Richard L. Johnson, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, Attorney for appellant Mother Dolores G. Overholtzer.

Thomas M. Keller, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, Attorney for appellee Father Wayne Stevenson.

KONENKAMP, Justice.

[¶ 1.] The circuit court ordered a mother's removal as guardian and conservator for her disabled adult daughter, after the mother failed to address adequately her daughter's obesity and transition to more independent living. The mother appeals.

Background

[¶ 2.] Nicole Trina Stevenson was born in 1985 with cerebral palsy and developmental disabilities. Dolores Overholtzer and Wayne Stevenson are Nicole's biological parents. They were married at the time Nicole was born, but divorced in 1995. After Nicole turned 18, a California court appointed Dolores as Nicole's guardian and conservator. In 2006, Wayne and Dolores stipulated that Dolores and Nicole could move to South Dakota with Dolores's new husband, Harry Overholtzer.

[¶ 3.] In August 2007, Dolores petitioned for guardianship and conservatorship in South Dakota. Wayne objected, contesting jurisdiction and requesting appointment as Nicole's guardian or co-guardian. Wayne also sought appointment of an attorney for Nicole. After a hearing, the court appointed William H. Golden to represent Nicole, and deferred ruling on the petition for guardianship. Golden was directed to conduct an investigation and make a recommendation to the court. He issued a letter report, dated October 29, 2008. In November 2008, Dolores was appointed Nicole's guardian and conservator. Wayne was granted visitation to be exercised through South Dakota Achieve.

[¶ 4.] Dolores and Wayne were unable to cooperate on visitation. Wayne felt Dolores deliberately frustrated his scheduled visits. Dolores insisted that Nicole was capable of making her own decisions and that Nicole did not want to visit with her father. Wayne claimed Dolores was not acting in Nicole's best interests because she allowed Nicole to gain an immense amount of weight over the years. Nicole weighed over 300 pounds. Dolores believed Nicole's weight gain was a result of medication, inability to exercise, and genetics.

[¶ 5.] In January 2010, Golden was permitted to withdraw as Nicole's attorney because he had obtained new employment. No new attorney was appointed. In April, Wayne petitioned for (1) removal of Dolores as Nicole's guardian, (2) appointment of the South Dakota Guardianship Project or another independent party as Nicole's guardian, (3) determination of conservatorship, and (4) appointment of an attorney for Nicole.

[¶ 6.] At a hearing in June 2010, Wayne called Golden to testify. His October 2008 report was admitted into evidence. Golden informed the court through his report and testimony that Nicole was highly dependent on Dolores and that transition to an independent living facility would be in Nicole's best interests. He cited the fact that when the parties lived in California, they agreed that it would be in Nicole's best interests to transfer to an independent living situation. Golden also reported that Dolores had influence over Nicole's contact with Wayne, which caused Nicole great anxiety, although Golden did not believe Dolores was “overtly attempting to prevent Nicole from visiting with her father[.]” Golden recommended that (1) an outside guardian be appointed for Nicole; (2) Dolores should act as conservator; and (3) visitation be allowed between Wayne and Nicole, but it should not be “forced.” Visitation had “caused undue anxiety for Nicole and [had] been counterproductive in her relationship with her father.”

[¶ 7.] At the conclusion of the hearing, the court issued an oral ruling. It recognized that “some questions have been raised with respect to this issue of independent living and the pace that [Dolores] is taking in preparing Nicole for that kind of adjustment ... [and] with respect to the issue of visitation by the father.” But the court decided not to order removal of the guardian at that time. Rather, it gave Dolores more time to work toward transferring Nicole to independent living.

[¶ 8.] In November 2010, Dolores petitioned the court to appoint an attorney to represent Nicole. Relying on SDCL 29A–5–309, Dolores asserted that Nicole desired an attorney to represent her and that it would be in her best interests if an attorney represented her, because her interests may be different from those of her parents in regard to guardianship and visitation. Wayne again sought to end Dolores's role as guardian and conservator. He alleged that Dolores failed to act in Nicole's best interests by allowing her weight to reach in excess of 300 pounds and failing to move her into independent housing. Wayne also asked for an attorney for Nicole.

[¶ 9.] At the November 2010 hearing, the court appointed attorneys Elizabeth Overmoe and John Hamilton of South Dakota Advocacy Services to represent Nicole. The court deferred the issue of terminating Dolores's role as guardian to allow Hamilton and Overmoe time to review the record and consult with Nicole and prepare a report for the court with their recommendations.

[¶ 10.] After Overmoe and Hamilton submitted their investigative report, a hearing was held in June 2011. Several witnesses testified. Overmoe and Hamilton questioned the witnesses and gave closing arguments. Their report, although previously given to the parties and the court, was not admitted into evidence. At the conclusion of the hearing, counsel for Dolores asked to cross-examine Hamilton about certain statements made in the investigative report. Counsel argued that Hamilton and Overmoe acted “in the role of an expert” when they prepared their report for the court. The court refused to allow them to testify. It concluded that Overmoe and Hamilton provided their report “in their role as advocate[s] for their client[.]” Noting that the document was not under oath, the court remarked that “[i]t may be little or no different than if they stood up and said what's in the best interests of their client in lieu of oral argument.”

[¶ 11.] In September 2011, the court issued findings of fact, conclusions of law, and an order terminating Dolores's appointment as guardian and conservator. Dolores appeals, asserting the court abused its discretion in removing her and barring her attorney from cross-examining Hamilton and Overmoe about their investigative report.

Analysis and Decision

[¶ 12.] Dolores argues that the investigative report was in the nature of an expert report because it contained facts and statements from other parties. By preventing her from questioning Hamilton and Overmoe, the court, she contends, denied her due process of law. Wayne responds that the report was never received into evidence and was considered by the court to be equivalent to an argument by counsel on behalf of Nicole. Moreover, Wayne argues that the court did not rely on the investigative report when terminating Dolores's role as guardian. From Wayne's point of view, the information in the report as “clearly cumulative and harmless[.]”

[¶ 13.] Attorneys Overmoe and Hamilton similarly argue that the information in the report was much the same as the other evidence offered at the hearing. They contend that any error in receiving the report was harmless, and if Dolores “wanted to have ‘authority’ to cross-examine, she should have requested that South Dakota Advocacy Services be appointed in some other capacity, such as guardian ad litem, court representative, etc.”

[¶ 14.] South Dakota courts have authority to “appoint an attorney for the person alleged to need protection, either upon the filing of the petition or at any time thereafter, if requested by the person alleged to need protection, if the person expresses a desire to contest the petition, or if the court determines that an appointment is otherwise needed to protect the person's interests.” SDCL 29A–5–309. Alternatively, if the protected person is not represented by an attorney, “the court shall either appoint a court representative to make an investigation and recommendation concerning the relief requested in the petition, or shall order the person alleged to need protection to attend the hearing on the petition.” Id. A “court representative” has the duty to “make a recommendation to the court concerning the relief requested in the petition and shall submit a written report unless the court otherwise orders.” SDCL 29A–5–310.

[¶ 15.] Here, the court appointed Hamilton and Overmoe to represent Nicole. It did not appoint them to be court representatives. Yet the court ordered them to “conduct such investigation as they deem necessary in order to provide the court with recommendations as to the best interests of Nicole Trina Stevenson.” Additionally, the court directed the attorneys for Wayne and Dolores to make available all relevant records in possession of the parties related to Nicole's visitation and independent living issues and ordered...