In Re Guardianship of Kowalski - The Case

The Case

The Minnesota Court of Appeals begins its analysis by citing the applicable guardianship statutes, which provided that the court should make a guardianship decision based on the best interests of the ward. "Best interests of the ward" is defined in the statute, but requires the court to consider the reasonable preference of the ward or conservatee if a preference can be determined.

With the statute in mind, the court stated that Sharon Kowalski has stated a clear preference for Thompson to be her guardian, citing the study by the Miller-Dwan specialists. The court noted that the three witnesses opposed to Thompson's appointment were all lay witnesses with no medical training. In regard to Thompson's qualifications to serve as a guardian, the court stated that testimony from multiple witnesses established that Thompson had been loving and caring when dealing with Sharon and was able to take care of her on a day to day basis. Finally, the court also addressed the lower court's concern that Thompson was involving Sharon in multiple gay and lesbian public events (as the case had generated considerable media attention) that her family testified she might not otherwise choose to attend. The court said that the lower court's reliance on this in its guardianship decision was misguided, as the record indicates that Sharon enjoyed these events and even received an award at a National Organization for Women meeting.

The court concluded that while the trial court has wide discretion in guardianship proceedings, the court abused its discretion in this case in denying Thompson's petition against the weight of evidence. The court removed Tomberlin from Sharon Kowalski's guardianship and appointed Thompson in her place.