Background
K.D.G.’s adult daughters petitioned for temporary and permanent guardianship and conservatorship while she was a patient at the Montana State Hospital, alleging cognitive and mental-health decline, medication problems, medical crises, impaired judgment, physical instability, and vulnerability to financial exploitation. The District Court entered an ex parte order appointing the daughters as temporary full co-guardians and co-conservators. Because the order did not restrict their authority over residence, they moved K.D.G. to an assisted-living facility in Utah.
K.D.G. promptly petitioned to prevent or reverse the move, asserting that she wanted to return to her home in Lincoln, Montana, or receive treatment in Helena. The District Court did not separately rule on that request. Proceedings were delayed as K.D.G.’s representation changed, replacement counsel sought preparation time, and a court-appointed physician and visitor completed evaluations.
At a contested hearing held before the temporary order expired, K.D.G. appeared with counsel, cross-examined the physician and visitor, presented witnesses, testified, and argued for control over her residence. The District Court found that she could not yet live alone safely, appointed her daughters as permanent full co-guardians and co-conservators, and continued her Utah placement until an appropriate alternative facility became available.
The Court’s Holding
The Montana Supreme Court affirmed, holding that K.D.G. received a constitutionally meaningful and sufficiently timely opportunity to contest her residence. Although her interest in returning to Montana was substantial and the delay was longer than desirable, the record did not show an arbitrary or indefinite refusal to provide review. Part of the delay resulted from counsel withdrawals, a conflict requiring reassignment, replacement counsel’s preparation request, and completion of the professional evaluations.
The March 21 hearing supplied the required process because K.D.G. participated with counsel, tested the petitioners’ evidence, presented her own evidence, and directly litigated the available residential alternatives while the petitioners retained the burden of proof. The Court emphasized that residential decisions by guardians remain subject to judicial review and that focused placement objections warrant direct and reasonably prompt consideration, but concluded that the lack of a separate earlier placement hearing did not violate due process on this record. The Court declined to consider K.D.G.’s request to vacate the original temporary order because she had not timely appealed that immediately appealable order.
Key Takeaways
- A temporary full guardian may establish a protected person’s residence inside or outside Montana unless the appointing court limits that authority, but the residence decision remains subject to judicial review.
- A delayed hearing following emergency guardianship action may violate due process, but courts assess the private interest, risk of error, reasons for delay, and adequacy of the process ultimately provided.
- A full contested hearing before expiration of the temporary order was constitutionally adequate here because K.D.G. had counsel, could challenge and present evidence, and directly litigated residence before the placement was continued permanently.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that an incapacitated adult’s residential placement implicates a substantial liberty interest, particularly when the placement separates the person from home, property, friends, and healthcare providers. Courts should directly and promptly address objections to a guardian’s placement choice rather than treating residence as exclusively the guardian’s decision.
At the same time, the ruling shows that the absence of a separate interim hearing is not automatically unconstitutional when later proceedings provide a full opportunity to litigate placement and the delay is tied to legitimate needs such as securing conflict-free counsel and obtaining professional evaluations. The memorandum opinion is noncitable and does not serve as precedent under the Montana Supreme Court’s internal rules.