Background
T.M. is an adult ward whose mother served as guardian of his person from 2010 until 2020, when the Circuit Court removed her on an ex parte basis and appointed the Office of Public Guardian (OPG) as temporary, and later permanent, successor guardian. In 2021, the mother filed a first motion to remove OPG and be reinstated as guardian; the trial court denied that motion, finding no cause to remove OPG and the mother unsuitable to serve. In December 2024, the mother filed a second such motion. Following hearings in July and August 2025, the trial court again denied relief, ruling that the mother had failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that OPG was not acting in the ward’s best interests “or otherwise that there is cause to remove it as Guardian.”
The trial court acknowledged the mother’s concerns about OPG’s performance but found them insufficient to establish “good cause for removal,” and remained “uncomfortable” with appointing the mother as successor despite her noted improvements. The mother moved for reconsideration, was denied, and appealed to the New Hampshire Supreme Court, arguing principally that the trial court applied the wrong legal standard by grafting a “cause” requirement onto a statute that contains none.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court vacated and remanded. Writing for a unanimous court, Justice Donovan held that RSA 464-A:39, I(c) does not require a moving party to demonstrate “cause” for the removal of a guardian of an adult ward. The statute’s plain text prescribes a single inquiry: whether removal would be “in the ward’s best interests.” By adding a cause requirement, the trial court inserted language the legislature did not include, contrary to basic principles of statutory construction.
The court drew a pointed contrast with RSA chapter 463, which governs guardianship of minors and expressly requires removal “for cause.” The legislature’s deliberate use of that phrase in the minor-guardianship statute but not in the adult-guardianship statute confirmed that no cause requirement exists under RSA 464-A:39. The court also rejected OPG’s preservation and res judicata arguments, finding both unavailing. Because the trial court applied an incorrect legal standard, the court declined to reach the mother’s remaining arguments and remanded for proceedings under the proper best-interests framework.
Key Takeaways
- Under RSA 464-A:39, I(c), the sole statutory test for removing a guardian of an adult ward is whether removal is in the ward’s best interests — no separate showing of “cause” is required.
- While evidence of cause may inform a best-interests analysis, it is not a threshold requirement; a petitioner may prevail even absent wrongdoing by the incumbent guardian.
- The express “for cause” language in RSA chapter 463 (minors’ guardianship) versus its absence in RSA chapter 464-A (adults’ guardianship) signals a deliberate legislative choice that courts must honor.
- A party preserves a legal-standard objection for appeal by arguing for a different standard at the structuring hearing, even without using the precise legal terminology of the challenge.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies a significant question of New Hampshire probate law that had been generating confusion in the trial courts: petitioners seeking to displace an incumbent guardian of an adult — including public guardians — need not prove the guardian did something wrong. The governing question is simply what arrangement best serves the ward. That lower bar may open the door to more family members challenging public or professional guardians on grounds such as a ward’s preference, changed family circumstances, or the availability of a less restrictive alternative, without having to frame their case as an accusation of misconduct.
The ruling also serves as a reminder that probate courts are bound by the statute as written. Where the legislature chose not to import a “for cause” requirement into the adult-guardianship removal framework — as it did for minors — courts cannot supply that requirement on their own. Practitioners handling adult guardianship proceedings in New Hampshire should update their pleadings and evidentiary strategies to focus squarely on best-interests factors rather than on building a misconduct case against the sitting guardian.