Background
Brittany Judy, an adult with cerebral palsy and seizure disorders who requires around-the-clock care, was adjudicated incompetent in 2014. Her mother, Kimberly Judy, initially served as guardian but was removed in 2018 after Brittany was hospitalized with multiple-organ failure and Kimberly experienced health and mental-health problems. Attorney Jeannette Chu became guardian in 2019.
In 2025, Kimberly sought Chu’s removal and her own reappointment, while Chu moved to resign because of aggressive behavior by Brittany’s father, Steve Ferrieri, who lives with Kimberly. Advocacy and Protective Services, Inc. applied to become successor guardian. After a hearing, the probate court denied Kimberly’s application and appointed APSI, finding that Brittany was well cared for, happy, and content at her nursing facility and that an independent guardian better served her interests.
The Court’s Holding
The Second District affirmed, holding that the probate court did not abuse its discretion by denying Kimberly’s application and appointing APSI as guardian of Brittany’s person. Under Ohio law, a probate court may appoint a guardian when doing so is in an incompetent person’s best interest, and no statute requires preference for a relative over an unrelated guardian.
Ample evidence supported the probate court’s decision. Brittany required continuous care, expressed that she did not want Kimberly or Steve as her guardian, and enjoyed her current placement. The record also reflected Kimberly’s long-inactive nursing license, the lack of a Hoyer lift at her home, Steve’s prior felony abduction conviction and aggressive conduct toward the former guardian, and the probate court’s conclusion that moving Brittany home was not in her best interest.
Key Takeaways
- Ohio probate courts have broad discretion to select the guardian who best serves an incompetent adult’s interests.
- Family relationship alone does not create a statutory preference for appointment as guardian.
- The ward’s wishes, care needs, current well-being, proposed living arrangement, and household circumstances may support appointment of an independent guardian.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that guardianship appointments turn on the ward’s welfare rather than a relative’s desire to serve. A probate court may select an institutional or otherwise unrelated guardian when record evidence shows that independence and continuity of care better protect the ward.
On appeal, a challenger must show more than disagreement with the probate court’s weighing of the evidence. Where the record reasonably supports the best-interest determination, the appellate court will not treat the appointment as arbitrary or unreasonable.