In Re Guardianship of Is

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports. STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS In re Guardianship of IS. ODETA MUCAJ, UNPUBLISHED June 11, 2025 Appellant, 9:30 AM v No. 372484 Oakland Probate Court ELISABETH DERY, Successor Guardian of IS, a LC No. 2021-403561-DD legally protected person, Appellee, and SHALANDA C. LEGGS and HENRY SPAHIU, Other Parties. Before: BOONSTRA, P.J., and REDFORD and MARIANI, JJ. PER CURIAM. In this guardianship proceeding under the Mental Health Code (MHC), MCL 330.1001 et seq., appellant appeals as of right the trial court’s opinion and order modifying the guardianship of appellant’s daughter, IS, which provided that the court removed appellant as a partial coguardian of IS, and it appointed appellee, a professional guardian and IS’s partial coguardian, as sole partial guardian of IS. We affirm because the trial court reached the correct result, albeit under the improper statutory framework. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND A factual summary regarding the underlying guardianship proceedings was previously provided by a panel of this Court in In re Guardianship of IS, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued January 25, 2024 (Docket No. 367266), pp 1-2: -1-  In 2007, when IS was a young child, she was injured in a car accident and suffered a traumatic brain injury resulting in permanent disabilities requiring ongoing care into her early adulthood. In November 2021, shortly after IS’s 18th birthday, [appellant] filed a petition seeking appointment as IS’s plenary guardian. According to [appellant], IS had substantial functional limitations with self-care, mobility, economic self-sufficiency, receptive and expressive language, learning, and capacity for independent living. The probate court ordered an independent evaluation of IS, as required by the MHC, MCL 330.1612(3), and appointed IS an attorney. Following numerous adjournments, on October 6, 2022, the parties signed a temporary stipulated order agreeing that [appellant] and appellee . . . would serve as partial coguardians of IS. The parties also agreed to share guardianship duties in an arrangement designed to maximize IS’s independence. For instance, the order entitled [appellant] to make all of IS’s legal decisions, [appellee] to manage IS’s finances, and IS to determine her own educational and employment pursuits. The order also maintained IS’s current living arrangement and provided that IS and both her parents must be consulted about her medical treatment, with any disputes resolved by [appellee]. On October 17, 2022, the court entered a separate order granting [appellant’s] petition and appointing [appellant] and [appellee] as partial coguardians for a term of five years. This order provided that [appellant] and [appellee] had to file an acceptance of the coguardian appointment. [Appellee], but not [appellant], did so. Nonetheless, the probate court issued letters of guardianship to both individuals stating that they were appointed and qualified to act as partial coguardians of IS. In December 2022, the probate court issued a notice to [appellant] stating that she was not qualified to act as coguardian because she had not filed an acceptance of appointment. [Appellant] was then absent from the 90-day review hearing, during which both [appellee] and IS’s father expressed concerns regarding [appellant’s] conduct. They alleged that [appellant] had isolated IS and barred them from having any contact with IS. The probate court ordered [appellant] to allow IS to meet with [appellee] by January 31, 2023, and that if [appellant] refused to cooperate, a modification of the guardianship might be required. Before the next review hearing, IS’s appointed guardian ad litem (GAL) provided a report to the probate court that recommended removal of [appellant] as partial coguardian. On June 13, 2023, [appellant] was again absent from the review hearing. The GAL, [appellee], and IS’s attorney complained that [appellant] was prohibiting IS from exercising independence despite IS’s academic and personal achievements and that [appellant] purposely thwarted the parties’ efforts to contact or meet with IS. At the conclusion of the hearing, the probate court, on its own motion, removed [appellant] as partial coguardian and appointed [appellee]