When someone petitions the Arizona courts for appointment of a guardian of the person or conservator of the estate, an attorney is automatically appointed to represent the proposed ward. At the same time, a "court investigator" is appointed to evaluate the individual, assess the proposed placement, and file a report with the Court. The investigator is often referred to as "the eyes and ears of the court."

Washington state law is similar to Arizona’s, though the investigator is referred to as a "guardian ad litem." When Loren Stamm’s children filed a petition seeking guardianship over their father, the Washington procedures were followed and an attorney and a guardian ad litem were appointed.

The guardian ad litem met with Mr. Stamm, interviewed family members and friends, and decided that she wanted better medical evidence about his condition. The guardian ad litem arranged for an evaluation by a psychiatrist. The evaluation found Mr. Stamm was unable to manage his own financial affairs and that his health was at risk.

Mr. Stamm insisted on a jury trial on the guardianship, as was his right under Washington law (Arizona also gives a ward the right to a jury trial in guardianship matters, but the Arizona jury advises the judge, rather than actually deciding the case). The guardian ad litem testified at the trial about her impressions of Mr. Stamm’s capacity, though his attorney objected.

During the questioning, the guardian ad litem described her role in the proceedings. She was, she said, the "eyes and ears of the court." Mr. Stamm’s attorney immediately objected to the characterization, but the judge let it stand. The jury ultimately found Mr. Stamm to be incapacitated and appointed a guardian.

The Washington Court of Appeals considered the role of the guardian ad litem in its review of the case. Although Mr. Stamm had objected that the guardian ad litem should not testify at all, the court allowed her testimony to stand. Her background qualified her as an expert on Mr. Stamm’s needs, and she had received special training from the courts on how to act as guardian ad litem.

Her testimony about being the "eyes and ears of the court," however, was another matter. The appeals court ruled that a jury might believe that the guardian ad litem was acting for the trial court in telling them how to decide the case. Because of her offhanded self-description, Mr. Stamm’s guardianship order was reversed and sent back to the trial court for another trial. Guardianship of Stamm v. Crowley, June 1, 2004.

Epilogue: shortly after this report appeared, we heard from Oregon lawyer Margaret Dore about Mr. Stamm. "I am his attorney," she wrote to us. "On June 11, 2004, Loren Stamm's guardianship was terminated."

Would you like to subscribe to Elder Law Issues? Simply provide your e-mail address and name below, and click "Subscribe". At the same time, you may choose to also subscribe to The Voice, the newsletter of the Special Needs Alliance.

Privacy note: We do not ever use your e-mail address or name for any purpose other than to send out our subscription-based newsletter. You can rest assured that we will not sell, trade or share this information with any other person or entity. We have no ancillary or associated companies or entities to which we could provide your e-mail address, either.

© 1993-2009 Fleming & Curti, P.L.C.
330 N. Granada Avenue, Tucson, Arizona 85701
520-622-0400 /  FAX: 520-203-0240