CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Appointment of a Kinship Guardian

This case involves a kinship guardianship petition filed by foster parent T.H. for L.N.G.'s children, N. and T., after years in foster care. The court found a systematic and catastrophic failure by the Family Court and the foster care system to recognize and address severe parental alienation against the biological father, L.N.G. Despite L.N.G.'s diligent efforts for reunification and the dismissal of previous termination of parental rights proceedings against him, the children's minds were poisoned against him by the biological mother and acquiesced in by the foster mother. The court reluctantly granted the kinship guardianship to T.H. due to no other viable placement, but imposed strict conditions aimed at rectifying the parental alienation and ensuring L.N.G.'s involvement in his children's lives. These conditions include providing L.N.G. with T.H.'s address, keeping him apprised of the children's whereabouts, consulting him on educational decisions, enrolling the children in therapy for parental alienation, and facilitating visitation with L.N.G. as recommended by the therapist.

Parental AlienationKinship GuardianshipFoster Care System FailureTermination of Parental RightsChild CustodyFamily ReunificationJudicial DiscretionExpert TestimonyChild Protective ServicesCourt Orders with Conditions
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Guardianship of Dameris L.

Cruz Maria S. filed a guardianship petition for her intellectually disabled daughter, Dameris L., in 2009. Dameris later married Alberto R. and became pregnant, leading to a complex dispute between Cruz and Alberto over Dameris's care. Following mediation, Cruz and Alberto were appointed co-guardians. The family relocated to Pennsylvania due to housing issues, and the court eventually terminated the guardianship, noting Dameris's progress and the robust support network she developed. The decision emphasized the constitutional principle of "least restrictive alternative" and international human rights advocating for "supported decision making" over "substituted decision making" for persons with disabilities.

Supported Decision MakingGuardianship TerminationIntellectual DisabilitiesDue ProcessLeast Restrictive AlternativeHuman RightsUN Convention on the Rights of Persons with DisabilitiesSCPA Article 17-AMental Hygiene Law Article 81Parental Rights
References
18
Case No. 01-14-01004-CV
Regular Panel Decision

in the Guardianship of Lonnie Phillips, Jr., an Incapacitated Person

This document is an Appellees Index filed in the First Court of Appeal in Houston, Texas, for an appeal originating from the Galveston County Statutory Probate Court (Case No. PR-74571). The appeal involves Kevin Campbell as the appellant against Catherine N. Wylie and M. Brandon Maggiore as appellees. The underlying probate case concerns the guardianship of Lonnie Phillips, Jr., an 87-year-old individual deemed incapacitated. The index compiles various trial court orders and legal references related to this guardianship, including the appointment of temporary and permanent guardians, applications for the sale of real property, and motions concerning medical directives such as a Do Not Resuscitate order. Key issues within the guardianship involve the management of Mr. Phillips's estate, disputes among family members (Kevin Campbell and Ava Phillips) regarding financial decisions and care, and the roles of appointed legal and medical professionals. The case also highlights instances of alleged misuse of funds and calls for immediate action to protect Mr. Phillips's physical well-being and estate.

GuardianshipIncapacitated PersonProbateMedical DecisionsReal Property SaleAttorney FeesFamily DisputeElder CareDementiaDo Not Resuscitate
References
52
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 07, 2003

In re Department of Social Work of Beth Israel Medical Center

The Supreme Court, New York County, granted a guardianship petition for an appellant under Mental Hygiene Law article 81. The appellant, an incapacitated person, through her counsel Mental Hygiene Legal Service (MHLS), demanded a jury trial, but the lower court denied it, conducting a preliminary hearing and finding a prima facie case for guardianship. On appeal, the order was unanimously reversed. The appellate court found that the appellant was improperly denied her statutory right to a jury trial and an opportunity to develop a factual record, citing procedural errors. The matter was remanded for a jury trial to properly ascertain the facts regarding the necessity of a guardian.

GuardianshipIncapacitated PersonMental Hygiene LawJury TrialDue ProcessProcedural ErrorAppellate ReviewBeth Israel HospitalMental HealthDementia
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Guardianship of Mark C.H.

This case addresses whether New York's SCPA article 17-A, governing guardianship for persons with mental retardation and developmental disabilities, meets constitutional standards without requiring periodic reporting and review. The facts involve Mark C.H., an adult with profound autism and mental retardation, for whom a $3 million trust existed but whose guardians (petitioner, his late mother's attorney, and a corporate bank) initially failed to use funds for his benefit, leading to suboptimal care. The court, applying the Mathews v Eldridge test and considering international human rights norms, found that the significant infringement on a ward's liberty interests necessitates periodic oversight. Consequently, the court held that article 17-A must be read to include a requirement for yearly reporting and judicial review for guardians of the person. The guardianship for Mark C.H. was granted to the petitioner with this new yearly reporting obligation.

GuardianshipDue ProcessMental RetardationDevelopmental DisabilitiesSCPA Article 17-APeriodic ReviewWard's RightsTrust Funds MismanagementMedical Care AccessConstitutional Law
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Kover

Attorneys Burton Citak and Donald L. Citak appealed orders that imposed sanctions and denied legal fees related to an article 81 guardianship proceeding for Eva Dworecki, an alleged incapacitated person. The attorneys were sanctioned for frivolous conduct, including making misrepresentations and false statements in court filings and arguments, and accusing the court of misconduct, despite previously consenting to the guardianship. The appellate decision, in this concurring opinion by Tom, J.P., found ample support for the Supreme Court's finding that the attorneys' conduct warranted sanctions. The matter was remanded for further proceedings to determine the appropriate costs, reduce the award to judgment, and set reasonable legal fees for the Citak firm's representation of Dr. Dworecki prior to the frivolous filings.

SanctionsAttorneysGuardianshipArticle 81Frivolous ConductAppellate ReviewProfessional MisconductLegal FeesCostsCourt Orders
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Prevost v. New York State Department of Social Services

The petitioners, maternal grandparents, initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge a determination by the State Commissioner of Social Services and the Warren County Department of Social Services. They sought to expunge a report from the State Central Register indicating inadequate guardianship concerning their grandson, Justin. Justin had been placed in foster care, and concerns arose about his behavior after monthly visits with the petitioners, prompting a psychiatrist to recommend discontinuing overnight visits. The psychiatric report detailed Justin's anger towards his grandmother and later allegations of diapering. Despite the petitioners' denials and claims of bias, the agency's decision to indicate inadequate guardianship was upheld after administrative review and a fair hearing. The court ultimately confirmed the determination, citing substantial evidence based on Justin's consistent accounts.

Child protective servicesInadequate guardianshipFoster careAdoption eligibilityCPLR article 78 proceedingAdministrative reviewExpungement of reportHearsay evidenceCredibility determinationSocial Services Law
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 02, 2007

In re Kurt T.

Respondent, suffering from a stroke, had initially granted his cousin, the petitioner, a durable power of attorney and made her his sole beneficiary. After revoking these and appointing a neighbor, petitioner sought to appoint a guardian for respondent's person and property under Mental Hygiene Law article 81. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding insufficient evidence of incapacity, but ordered respondent to pay 80% of the combined legal and court evaluator fees. On cross-appeal, the appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the guardianship petition but modified the fee apportionment, ruling that the petitioner must pay her own legal fees due to evidence of avarice and improper actions, while upholding the respondent and petitioner sharing the court evaluator's and respondent's court-appointed counsel's fees.

GuardianshipIncapacityMental Hygiene LawPower of AttorneyHealth Care ProxyFiduciary DutyFee ApportionmentCross-AppealsAppellate ReviewFinancial Exploitation
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Am

Following an initial guardianship proceeding where AM sought to be appointed guardian for AT, who was declared incapacitated, the court appointed TT as personal needs guardian and Frank G. D’Angelo, Jr. as property management guardian on April 2, 2007. AM subsequently filed a motion to reargue, seeking continued access to AT, permission to remain in AT's East Atlantic Beach home with gratuitous transfers, and attorney's fees. The court, in this opinion, re-evaluated its prior interpretation of Mental Hygiene Law § 81.16(f) and granted AM an award of $16,000 in counsel fees from AT's estate. The court also indicated willingness to entertain a schedule for AM's contact with AT, but adjourned the application regarding the real property and gratuitous transfers, pending further submissions and an accounting from AM regarding his management of AT's affairs and the sale of her Beekman Place property.

GuardianshipIncapacitated PersonReargument MotionMental Hygiene Law Article 81Property ManagementPersonal Needs GuardianFiduciary DutySubstituted JudgmentCounsel FeesEstate Planning
References
7
Case No. 2-06-217-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2007

in the Matter of the Guardianship of Virgie Louise Parker, an Alleged Incapacitated Person

The attorney ad litem for Virgie Louise Parker appealed the trial court's decision to appoint a guardian, challenging the admission of two physician's reports and the sufficiency of evidence regarding Parker's incapacitation. The Court of Appeals, Second District of Texas, Fort Worth, affirmed the trial court's judgment. The appellate court found that the physician's reports by Dr. Adolphus Ray Lewis and Dr. Edward A. Luke, Jr., were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule, distinguishing them from prior cases where reports were deemed untrustworthy. Furthermore, the court concluded that the jury's findings of Parker's incapacitation, the necessity of a guardian, and the protection of her rights were supported by legally and factually sufficient clear and convincing evidence, thereby overruling all of Parker's four issues.

GuardianshipIncapacitationElderly CareMedical EvidenceBusiness Records ExceptionHearsay RuleAppellate ReviewLegal SufficiencyFactual SufficiencyDementia
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 74 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational