SSRGA recently succeeded in obtaining reversal of a trial court order that denied a grandmother’s petition to be appointed as the guardian advocate of her developmentally disabled adult grandchild and granted a competing petition filed by the grandchild’s father.
During the disabled woman’s childhood, she had lived with her mother and father until they separated in 2001. After the separation, she lived with her mother and still visited her father occasionally. Her maternal grandmother saw her frequently and was always involved in her life. In late 2020, the child, her sibling, and her mother moved into her maternal grandmother’s home. In the fall of 2021, her mother moved out and left the child and the child’s sister in the care of the maternal grandmother.
The child’s father later filed a petition to be appointed guardian advocate of his daughter. Her maternal grandmother and sister (who by that time was an adult) filed a competing petition. The child’s mother opposed the father’s petition and consented to the petition filed by the grandmother and sister.
The trial court held two hearings on the competing petitions. At the first hearing, the court heard testimony from the father and the grandmother. The grandmother testified about how her granddaughter had begun using a letterboard device to communicate starting in 2020. The child also testified using her letterboard device. She gave alarming testimony that she wished to see her father, but did not wish to visit his home because she said that another family member living there had engaged in inappropriate behavior with her. The trial court continued the hearing upon learning that DCF was conducting an investigation regarding those allegations.
The second hearing occurred approximately 14 months later, presided over by a successor judge who took judicial notice of the prior hearing. The trial court heard testimony from a number of witnesses. The child’s maternal grandmother testified regarding the extensive amount of care she provides for her grandchild and the grandchild’s living situation. In contrast, the father testified that he knew nothing about his daughter’s medical providers, educational providers, or her friends. He testified that he never requested information about them. The father also did not know what school his daughter currently attended and how he planned to address her schooling. The father and his girlfriend both doubted his daughter’s use of the letterboard to communicate, and the program associated with it. The court also heard testimony regarding the daughter’s refusal to visit her father at his home beginning in January of 2020.
Following the hearing, the trial court rendered an order appointing the father as the guardian advocate. The trial court found that the circumstantial evidence suggested the grandmother limited the father’s access to the child. The trial court also found that the father had the ability to meet the child’s unique needs. The grandmother appealed the order to the Second District Court of Appeal (“DCA”).
SSRGA represented the grandmother on appeal to the Second DCA. We argued that the trial court failed to consider evidence that the child wished to remain with our client. We further argued that the evidence showed that the father had disregarded the child’s safety concerns and abuse allegations, as well as her form of communication. We maintained that there was no evidence to support the court’s finding that he would meet the child’s social, medical, and communication needs.
The appeals court agreed with SSRGA’s arguments and issued a written opinion. The opinion included a lengthy and detailed discussion of the testimony given at the hearings. The appeals court noted that, although the trial court found that our client had limited the father’s access to the child, our client and other family members had actually encouraged the child to visit her father but she became overwrought and refused to go. The appeals court also found that the trial court improperly failed to consider the child’s own testimony given at the first hearing, and had mistakenly found that the child’s wishes had only been “relayed by her counsel.” The appeals court noted that the father admitted that the alleged abuser still lived at his home, and he offered no plan to address the child’s safety concerns.
The appeals court held that the evidence failed to support the trial court’s finding that the father could meet the grandchild’s safety concerns and unique communication needs. The appeals court reversed the order that appointed the father as guardian advocate. The appeals court remanded for further proceedings and instructed that the trial court could receive additional evidence. This favorable result for our client will allow her to continue her efforts to be appointed as the guardian advocate and ensure her granddaughter remains safe and properly cared for.
* Opinion not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing *