In re: Guardianship of the Estate of David Tracy Platz, Jr. ( 2014 )

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2012).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A14-0895
In re: Guardianship of the Estate of David Tracy Platz, Jr.
Filed December 22, 2014
Affirmed
Peterson, Judge
Stearns County District Court
File No. 73-PR-14-2259
Stacy M. Lundeen, Waite Park, Minnesota (for respondent David Tracy Platz, Jr.)
Janelle P. Kendall, Stearns County Attorney, Lotte Rose Hansen, Assistant County
Attorney, St. Cloud, Minnesota (for respondent Stearns County)
David Tracy Platz, Sr., Brenda Kuschel, Albany, Minnesota (pro se appellants)
Considered and decided by Reyes, Presiding Judge; Peterson, Judge; and Reilly,
Judge.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
PETERSON, Judge
In this appeal from an order appointing Presbyterian Family Foundation as
guardian for appellant-parents’ profoundly disabled son, appellants argue that the district
court abused its discretion by appointing a non-family member as guardian. We affirm.
FACTS
David Tracy Platz, Jr. (David) is an eighteen-year-old non-verbal autistic man who
has been described as having a “significant autism spectrum disorder.” David “has been
diagnosed with Disruptive Behaviors Disorder – not otherwise specified, Autistic
Disorder, Moderate Mental Retardation and a suspicion of a diagnosis of General
Anxiety Disorder.” David’s parents, pro se appellants David Platz, Sr. and Brenda
Kuschel, challenge a May 9, 2014 district court order that appoints Presbyterian Family
Foundation as David’s guardian.
David was placed out of appellants’ home in April 2012 after Stearns County
Human Services (Stearns County) filed a petition alleging that he is a child in need of
protection or services. The petition sets forth a troubled family history that includes a
prior out-of-home placement for David due to his aggression and high needs, appellants’
inability to provide adequate supervision or support for him, and numerous instances of
county and law-enforcement involvement and interventions with the family due to
altercations in the home or other safety concerns. The petition highlights appellants’ use
of physical restraints on David, domestic abuse and verbal altercations between
appellants that had a negative effect on David’s behavior, and David’s escalating physical
violence toward appellants, including hitting his father in the head with a brick, attacking
him with a knife, and bruising his mother.
With appellants’ consent, David was placed in the permanent custody of Stearns
County in September 2012. At that time, David was six feet tall, weighed almost 300
pounds, and, according to the petition, was diabetic. He began to reside at Opportunity
2
Matters, a 24-hour supervised-care facility that offers educational services to people with
cognitive or physical challenges.
In February 2014, the district court denied appellants’ motion to modify David’s
placement to permit him to reside in their home, finding that it was not in David’s best
interests to do so. Appellants and Stearns County each petitioned for appointment of a
guardian for David in April 2014 when David was nearly 18 years old. The district court
held a guardianship hearing on May 9, 2014. At the hearing, the district court heard
testimony from appellants, the guardian ad litem, and David’s attorney.
David Platz, Sr. testified that David “made a lot of progress in the last few years”
and acknowledged that David has “done well” since his placement at Opportunity
Matters. But he asked for David to return to the family home because he and his wife
were able to provide for their son, would be the best advocates for their son, could
respond quickly to David’s needs and would be willing to cooperate with Stearns County
in “acquiring help,” and because it was a financial strain for the family to travel to a town
30 miles away three or four times a week to visit David. David Platz, Sr. also testified
that he had taken an 18-week anger-management course and that he and his wife had
participated in marital counseling.1 But David’s father also admitted that he had no
services in place at home to address David’s needs.
Brenda Kuschel testified that “David’s aggressions have gone down a lot” since
his out-of-home placement, and she admitted that the family could not quite provide
1
The record also includes references to mother’s participation in a women’s support
group and individual therapy.
3
David 24-hour supervised care, although she believed they could offer more activities to
him because they live on a farm. Appellants both testified about David’s approximately
120-pound weight loss during the 22 months that David was placed out of home and
acknowledged that when he was in their care they used food as a tool “for learning.”
The guardian ad litem, Karen Novak, was appointed to represent David on August
14, 2012, and reported visiting him monthly. She testified that Opportunity Matters is
doing a “great job of taking care of [David] and watching him, monitoring him very
closely.” She testified that David’s aggression was “reduced,” he seemed comfortable
and happy at Opportunity Matters, his social and educational needs were met there,
appellants were rude to staff, and she feared that David would regress if returned to
appellants’ care. Novak also testified that it was in David’s best interests to have a “state
guardian” and recommended that David stay at Opportunity Matters. David’s attorney
was unable to effectively communicate with David and provided no evidence to the court
as to David’s wishes or concerns.
The district court determined that David’s impairment made him incapacitated and
in need of a guardian and that no less-restrictive alternative to guardianship existed. The
district court also found that Presbyterian Family Foundation is “the most suitable and
best qualified among those available and willing to discharge the trust and is not excluded
from appointment pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 524.5-309(c).” At the close of the
guardianship hearing, the district court gave its reasons for choosing to appoint
Presbyterian Family Foundation, rather than appellants, as David’s guardian:
4
I haven’t heard anything about really any negativity
about how he’s been doing. I mean, it seems like you agree
he’s been thriving. He lost over 100 pounds, you know, he’s
learning how to sign, his anger is down dramatically.
....
[T]here are certain circumstances where I can look at
the best interests of the individual and appoint who I think –
somebody who wouldn’t have priority if I think that’s in their
best interest. And there’s also a case called the Guardianship
of Rhoda, R-h-o-d-a,2 and it’s from 2006 in the Court of
Appeals, and that talked about the fact that that individual
was thriving where they were and the parents said that they
would take them out of that placement if they were the
guardian, and similar to the Court then, I have major concerns
with that. It sounds like David, Jr.’s doing great where he is:
he’s becoming more independent, his anger has dropped
significantly, his weight has dropped significantly. These are
all very good things. And my concern, like the judge had in
that case, is that I would rather have the positive known,
which is Opportunity Matters, compared to the potential
unknown, which is returning him to your home. You haven’t
told me what you would do differently that wouldn’t lead us
to where we were less than, well, about two years ago, and
that’s a major concern for me. I don’t want him to regress.
DECISION
Appointment of a guardian “is a matter peculiarly for and within the discretion of
the appointing court, and . . . although generally a court will select a family member as a
guardian, this is not mandatory, since the interests of the ward are paramount.” In re
Guardianship of Fingerholtz, 357 N.W.2d 423, 426 (Minn. App. 1984) (quotation and
citation omitted), review denied (Minn. Feb. 6, 1985); see In re Guardianship of Autio,
747 N.W.2d 600, 603 (Minn. App. 2008) (stating that the district court “need not appoint
a family member as guardian if it determines that the best interests of the proposed ward
2
In re Guardianship of Rhoda, No. A05-567 (Minn. App. Mar. 28, 2006).
5
will not be served”). A district court’s guardian appointment is reviewed for abuse of
discretion. In re Guardianship of Wells, 733 N.W.2d 506, 508-09 (Minn. App. 2007),
review denied (Minn. Sept. 18, 2007). This court “defer[s] to the district court’s factual
determinations and credibility assessments.” In re Guardianship of O’Brien, 847 N.W.2d
710, 714 (Minn. App. 2014). A finding of fact is “clearly erroneous only if the reviewing
court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.”
Fletcher v. St. Paul Pioneer Press, 589 N.W.2d 96, 101 (Minn. 1999) (quotation
omitted).
The parties agree that it is appropriate for a guardian to be appointed for David;
they disagree as to the proper party to appoint as guardian. See Minn. Stat. § 524.5-310(2012) (setting forth factual bases for appointment of a guardian). The guardianship
statute provides that
the court, in appointing a guardian, shall consider persons
otherwise qualified in the following order of priority:
(1) A guardian, other than a temporary or emergency
guardian, currently acting for the respondent in this
state or elsewhere;
(2) A health care agent appointed by the respondent in
a health care directive that does not include
limitations on the nomination of the health care
agent as a guardian and is executed pursuant to
chapter 145C;
(3) The spouse of the respondent or a person
nominated by will or other signed writing executed
in the same manner as a health care directive
pursuant to chapter 145C of a deceased spouse;
(4) An adult child of the respondent;
6
(5) A parent of the respondent, or an individual
nominated by will or other signed writing executed
in the same manner as a health care directive
pursuant to chapter 145C of a deceased parent;
(6) An adult with whom the respondent has resided for
more than six months before the filing of the
petition;
(7) An adult who is related to the respondent by blood,
adoption, or marriage; and
(8) Any other adult or a professional guardian.
Minn. Stat. § 524.5-309(a) (2012) (emphasis added). The statute provides further that
“[t]he court, acting in the best interest of the respondent, may decline to appoint a person
having priority and appoint a person having a lower priority or no priority.” Minn. Stat.
§ 524.5-309(b) (2012).
We observe no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision to appoint
Presbyterian Family Foundation as David’s guardian. Although appellants were ranked
higher in the statutory order of priority, the district court provided valid reasons for
finding that it was in David’s best interests for a professional guardian, rather than his
parents, to be appointed as his guardian. The district court found that David’s needs are
currently satisfied by his placement at Opportunity Matters, and nearly every aspect of
his life has improved while residing there, including his health, education, social
adjustment, and behavior. While appellants want David to live at home with them and
there is no question that they love him, they have not demonstrated that they are prepared
to care for him. David Platz, Sr. stated that he had no services in place at home to ensure
7
proper supervision of David, and the guardian ad litem expressed concern that David
would regress if returned to appellants’ care. This, coupled with appellants’ prior
unsuccessful management of David’s care, supports the district court’s guardianship
decision. See Autio, 747 N.W.2d at 603-04 (appointing public guardian for mentally
disabled ward and denying ward’s brother’s petition for appointment as emergency
guardian when brother planned to reduce ward’s medications and substitute his own non-
efficacious medicines that treating physician said would cause ward to regress, and
brother could not cooperate with ward’s other caregivers); see also In re Schober’s
Estate, 303 Minn. 226, 230, 226 N.W.2d 895, 898 (1975) (stating, “[t]he best interests of
the ward should be the decisive factor in making any choice on [the ward’s] behalf”).
Appellants’ brief to this court also addresses other issues and complaints related to
David’s current placement, including past interactions with Stearns County, visitation,
purported bias of the guardian ad litem, the timing of David’s removal from appellants’
home, and appellants’ financial concerns about traveling for visitation. These issues were
not the subject of the guardianship hearing and are not before this court on appeal. Thiele
v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988) (“A reviewing court must generally consider
only those issues that the record shows were presented and considered by the [district]
court in deciding the matter before it”).
Affirmed.
8