Background
Barbara Falbo (“Mother”) petitioned the Jackson County probate court in July 2024 to be appointed guardian of her adult son, Canaan Davis (“Son”), alleging he lacked capacity to meet his essential needs due to mental illness. The probate court appointed counsel to represent Son, and a bench trial was held in January 2025. Son’s counsel contested the petition, and Son exercised his statutory right to remain silent and presented no evidence.
Mother offered two witnesses. A treating psychiatrist testified that she had diagnosed Son with schizophrenia, treated him during a June 2024 emergency hospitalization, and believed a guardian would help him remain medication adherent. However, on cross-examination she conceded that the last time she had seen Son was nearly seven and a half months before trial and that, without knowledge of his current condition, she could not opine on which intervention was most appropriate at the time of trial. Mother herself testified about Son’s 2023 diagnosis, prior psychiatric holds, and his stopping medication in October 2023, but acknowledged she had not spoken to Son since May 2024 and had no information about his condition — or his medication compliance — while he was incarcerated at the time of trial.
The probate court denied the petition, finding that Mother had failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Son was incapacitated at the time of the hearing, because neither witness had knowledge of his current condition. Mother appealed, raising a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge and arguing the trial court erred by refusing to shift the burden of proof to Son once she had presented a prima facie case.
The Court’s Holding
The Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, affirmed the denial. On the sufficiency challenge, the court held that because Mother bore the burden of proving incapacity by clear and convincing evidence under § 475.075.9, the probate court was not required to find substantial evidence supporting its ruling against her — when a fact-finder simply disbelieves the party with the burden, judgment for the other side follows without affirmative supporting evidence. The court further held that the record independently supported the denial: Missouri law requires proof of incapacity as it exists at the time of the hearing, and Mother’s evidence spoke only to Son’s condition seven or more months earlier, with nothing connecting those past episodes to his condition at trial.
On the burden-shifting argument, the court rejected Mother’s contention that she had established a prima facie case — the probate court expressly found she had not — and held that § 475.075.9 unambiguously places and keeps the burden on the petitioner throughout the proceeding. The court also rejected any suggestion that Son’s exercise of his statutory right to remain silent under § 475.075.10(5) could generate an adverse inference against him; to permit such an inference would reduce the statutory right to a meaningless formality.
Both of Mother’s points on appeal were denied and the probate court’s judgment was affirmed in full.
Key Takeaways
- In Missouri guardianship proceedings, the petitioner bears the burden of proving incapacity by clear and convincing evidence at all times; the burden never shifts to the respondent, even after a putative prima facie showing.
- Incapacity must be proven as of the date of the hearing — stale evidence of prior psychiatric episodes, without evidence tying those episodes to the respondent’s current condition, is legally insufficient.
- A respondent’s exercise of the statutory right to remain silent under § 475.075.10(5) cannot be used to draw an adverse inference or otherwise assist the petitioner in meeting the burden of proof.
- A petitioner challenging a bench-trial judgment against the burden-bearing party cannot rely on a standard substantial-evidence challenge; the trial court may simply disbelieve the petitioner’s evidence and rule accordingly.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the high evidentiary bar Missouri courts apply before stripping an adult of fundamental liberty through guardianship. Practitioners filing guardianship petitions must ensure their evidence reflects the proposed ward’s condition at or near the time of trial — diagnosis history and past hospitalizations alone will not suffice if the record is silent on current functioning. The opinion also serves as a reminder to schedule medical evaluations and gather updated records close to the hearing date.
The court’s treatment of the right to remain silent carries broader significance: it confirms that the legislature’s grant of that right in § 475.075.10(5) carries real substance, and that courts may not permit petitioners to exploit a respondent’s silence as a substitute for affirmative proof of incapacity.