In re Izzo

• Decision Date: 17 April 2015
• Docket Number: No. 53A05–1407–GU–320.,53A05–1407–GU–320.
• Citation: 31 N.E.3d 1047 (Table)
• Parties: In re The GUARDIANSHIP OF Sharon IZZO, Appellant.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

31 N.E.3d 1047 (Table)

In re The GUARDIANSHIP OF Sharon IZZO, Appellant.

No. 53A05–1407–GU–320.

Court of Appeals of Indiana.

April 17, 2015.

Frederick A. Turner, Bloomington, IN, Attorney for Appellant.

Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General of Indiana, Frances Barrow, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.

MEMORANDUM DECISION

BRADFORD, Judge.

Case Summary¹

[1] In the spring and summer of 2013, Indiana Adult Protective Services (“APS”) received calls concerning seventy-seven-year-old Appellant Sharon Izzo, calls expressing doubt that Izzo was able to make appropriate health care and financial decisions. In February of 2014, APS petitioned for the appointment of a guardian over Izzo's person and estate. After a first hearing, the trial court appointed a guardian ad litem (“GAL”) and temporary guardian. Following a second hearing, the trial court found that Izzo suffered from cognitive problems and mental illness and that she was not capable of making appropriate personal and financial decisions. The trial court appointed a guardian for Izzo's person and estate. On appeal, Izzo contends that APS introduced insufficient evidence to sustain the trial court's judgment. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In May and June of 2013, APS received calls regarding Izzo and expressing doubts that she could make appropriate health care and financial decisions. On June 25, 2013, Physician's Assistant Vanessa Beard examined Izzo and later opined that Izzo was incapacitated at the time and that “[d]ue to cognitive problems and mental illness she [was] not able to care for herself without assistance.” Ex. 1. The report was signed by neurologist Dr. Jamie Bales. On July 8, 2013, APS opened an official investigation into Izzo's situation.

[3] On December 10, 2013, Dr. Jameson Way examined Izzo and later submitted a report, in which he found Izzo incapacitated and diagnosed her with schizoaffective disorder and frontal lobe dysfunction. On February 10, 2014, APS filed a “verified petition for appointment of guardian over person and estate of incapacitated person” regarding Izzo. Appellant's App. pp. 6–8. On March 11, 2014, the trial court held a hearing, after which it appointed Terri Francis as GAL and Elizabeth Ruh as temporary guardian for Izzo. On April 14, 2014, Dr. Way issued another report, in which he stated that he had examined Izzo again, still found her to be incompetent, and noted her history of schizoaffective disorder, neuropathy, COPD, depression, and urinary incontinence.

[4] On April 21, 2014, GAL Francis filed a report, during the preparation of which she interviewed twenty-four persons and reviewed the court file on Izzo's case. Dr. William Schmalz, who was seeing Izzo every four weeks to monitor her medications, wrote a letter indicating his belief that Izzo was in need of a guardian. Ruh told GAL Francis that she was concerned that Izzo's daughter Elizabeth Izzo was causing Izzo unnecessary stress by micro-managing her care. Wendy Scott of APS told GAL Francis that she believed a guardian would insulate Izzo from the “family drama[,]” including her son Bill Izzo borrowing money from Izzo. Appellant's App. p. 31.

[5] Elizabeth and her daughter Michelle White both told GAL Francis that they believed Izzo needed a guardian. Elizabeth and White expressed concerns about Izzo's diet, a neighbor that may have stolen pain medication from Izzo, Izzo's ability to properly care for her cat, and their belief that Izzo's neighbors were intoxicated and could not “look in on Mrs. Izzo.” Appellant's App. p. 31. Elizabeth and White believed that Izzo could no longer balance her checkbook or handle her financial affairs.

[6] GAL Francis registered concern that three medical professionals had opined that Izzo was in need of a guardian and with the number of allegations that family members were too involved in Izzo's affairs. GAL Francis recommended that a guardian be appointed to assist in Izzo's financial and personal affairs, noting that “[a] guardianship would allow the children to be just that, children to Mrs. Izzo.” Appellant's App. p. 36.

[7] On June 10, 2014, the trial court held a second hearing. Ruh opined that Izzo was in need of a guardian because she was, at times, unable to recall exactly what her doctors had told her and there had been “significant confusion”...