Alabama Supreme Court Confirms Circuit Courts Can Check Probate Judges — A Win for Conservatorship Oversight

Families with a loved one under a conservatorship in Alabama got an important, if technical-sounding, piece of good news this week. On August 24, 2026, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled unanimously that circuit courts retain the authority to oversee probate courts, including the power to issue a writ of mandamus compelling a probate judge to vacate an order. The opinion, written by Justice Will Sellers, rejected the argument that a probate court operating under expanded local powers answers only to the Alabama Supreme Court itself, with no circuit-court check in between.

That may sound like a jurisdictional footnote. For anyone with a family member relying on a conservator, such as an adult with a severe disability, a person living with dementia, or a child receiving a settlement, it's the opposite. It means there remains a nearby, accessible court that can step in when a probate judge's order raises due-process concerns, rather than requiring families to appeal all the way to the state's highest court to get a hearing.

How the Case Reached the Supreme Court

The dispute traces back to Jefferson County, where Probate Judge Yashiba Blanchard ordered a forensic audit of roughly 146 conservatorship cases in January 2026. The accounting fees tied to that audit were uncapped and were to be charged directly against the individual accounts under conservatorship, the very funds meant to support the vulnerable people the audit was ostensibly protecting.

According to reporting cited in the case, the 146 cases broke down as follows: 14 were guardian-only matters with no money involved; 77 had already been closed with final settlements examined by court staff (75 of which had final judgments that would ordinarily limit the court's jurisdiction to revisit them); 18 had completed final hearings and were simply awaiting closing paperwork; and 37 remained genuinely open.

Attorneys Ripon Britton Jr. and Gregory H. Hawley, who represent conservators in a number of these cases, challenged the audit order. They argued it lacked case numbers and specific findings, violated due process, exceeded the probate court's authority, and ran afoul of Alabama Rule of Civil Procedure 53, which requires notice, a defined scope, and case-specific findings before a court can order this kind of sweeping accounting review. Their attorney, Alan Duke, put the objection plainly: "Nobody objects to auditing a conservator. The objection is to auditing cases the court had already audited and closed, without notice or cause, and charging an uncapped fee to the protected persons."

When Britton and Hawley took the matter to circuit court, Judge Elisabeth French dismissed it on March 30, 2026, citing earlier Alabama Supreme Court precedent suggesting that only the state's highest court, and not a circuit court,  could review a probate order. That dismissal is what the Supreme Court has now reversed, sending the case back to Judge French for consideration on the merits.

It's worth being precise about what the Supreme Court did and didn't decide: the ruling does not determine whether Judge Blanchard's audit order was itself lawful, and it does not adjudicate the separate judicial-ethics complaint against her, discussed below. It decides only that a circuit court has jurisdiction to hear the audit challenge in the first place, thereby restoring a layer of judicial review that the earlier dismissal had effectively closed off.

The Broader Context: A Judge Facing Ethics Charges

This ruling doesn't exist in isolation. The audit order is also cited as evidence in a formal complaint the Judicial Inquiry Commission has filed against Judge Blanchard, alleging seven violations of judicial ethics standards. Judge Blanchard was suspended from the bench in May 2026 after a 120-page complaint accused her of, among other things, failing to hear any involuntary commitment hearings during her first nine months in office, capping her docket at four cases a day, and retaliating against attorneys who crossed her.

The complaint frames the January 2026 audit order, the one now headed back to circuit court, as part of a pattern directed specifically at Attorneys Britton and Hawley: Blanchard had filed a State Bar complaint against Britton in October 2025 seeking his suspension or disbarment, the Bar declined to act on January 26, 2026, and the forensic-audit order followed just three days later, on January 29, i.e., the same day Blanchard filed a police report claiming she felt threatened by Britton.

Separately, and this is worth flagging as a matter of sourcing, since it comes from news reporting on county and court records rather than from anything the Supreme Court reviewed or ruled on,  records examined by WBRC found that a discretionary fund under Blanchard's control, built from $11 recording fees on county property transactions and worth an estimated $7.3 million when she took office in January 2025, had been drawn down substantially. Reporters' review of those records found at least $637,000 paid to one communications firm, over $142,000 in broadcast advertising, and dozens of personal reimbursements to the judge herself. A state audit of that fund began in March 2026, and Blanchard's trial before the Court of the Judiciary is scheduled for November 2026. She denies wrongdoing and, through her attorney, has declined to comment specifically on the conservatorship case. None of this spending, and none of the ethics allegations, was before the Supreme Court in the ruling discussed above; the Court decided only a jurisdictional question.

Why This Matters for Aging-in-Place and Elder Law Planning

For families navigating guardianship or conservatorship, whether in Alabama or elsewhere, this case is a useful reminder of a few things that rarely get discussed until something goes wrong.

First, oversight of conservators is legitimate and necessary; the problem in this case was never that audits happen, but how and against whom they were ordered. A conservator who is properly discharging their duties has nothing to fear from a well-scoped, properly noticed accounting review. What families should watch for is an audit or any court order   that lacks a defined scope, skips notice, or imposes open-ended costs on a protected person's own funds.

Second, jurisdictional questions are not just lawyer technicalities. Whether a circuit court, rather than only a state supreme court, can review a probate judge's order determines how realistic it is for an ordinary family to actually get a decision reviewed. A remedy that technically exists only at the state's highest court is, for most families, no practical remedy at all. This ruling keeps a more accessible venue open.

Third, this case is a reminder that the professionals overseeing a loved one's conservatorship-  the conservator, the attorney, and the court itself- operate within a system of checks that can and does break down, and that families and their advocates benefit from knowing those checks exist. Anyone currently involved in a conservatorship or guardianship matter in Alabama or another state should ask their elder law attorney what avenues of review are available if a court order affecting a protected person's account appears to be improperly scoped, uncapped in cost, or issued without adequate notice.

Even a well-run, properly reviewed conservatorship is still a court-managed substitute for aging-in-place planning, i.e., powers of attorney, health care directives, and funded trusts, that could have kept those same decisions within the family in the first place. That's the deeper, preventive lesson this case offers, and it's worth turning into a concrete checklist.

Building the Checks Before You Need a Court's

None of the steps below require a legal background; they require reviewing documents before a crisis makes guardianship or conservatorship the only available option.

• Keep durable powers of attorney and health care directives current, specific, and properly executed. A document signed a decade ago, naming an agent who has since died or moved away, does little to prevent a court from stepping in.

• Consider supported decision-making agreements or carefully drafted instructions before authority is stripped by a court. Many states, including Alabama, recognize less restrictive alternatives to full guardianship or conservatorship.

• Fund the trust, not just sign it. A revocable living trust that never had assets retitled into it won't keep a probate court out of the picture when it matters.

• Treat "closed" as a word that should mean something. If a professional fee gets charged against a loved one's account tied to a case that was already closed and settled, that's a signal to call an elder law attorney, not a routine administrative matter.

• Ask, in advance, who reviews the reviewer. Before agreeing to any conservatorship or guardianship arrangement, ask what court sits above the one making day-to-day decisions, and how a family could challenge an order it believes is wrong.

Looking Ahead

The underlying merits in this case, whether Judge Blanchard's audit order was lawful, will now be argued back in Jefferson County Circuit Court, and the separate ethics case against her proceeds on its own track toward a November trial. We'll follow both as they develop. But the more durable takeaway for readers of this blog isn't about Jefferson County at all: it's that the best time to decide who controls a loved one's money and medical care is before any court is asked to decide it for you. The documents above are how families keep that choice for themselves, and this case is a good reminder to check that those documents are actually in place, current, and funded, rather than waiting to see whether a circuit court will be there to help if something goes wrong.

Sources: Jennifer Horton, WBRC, "Alabama Supreme Court rules circuit courts can check a probate judge's power; why it matters to you" (Aug. 24, 2026); WBRC, "Records show suspended Jefferson County probate judge spent millions on PR firms, advertising, personal expenses while court fell behind" (July 21, 2026); NASGA – Stop Guardian Abuse blog.

Michigan’s New Guardianship Protections: Comparison with Ohio and Missouri

In July 2026, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer signed two bipartisan bills, Senate Bill 585 and Senate Bill 586, aimed at strengthening protections for adults under guardianship. These measures, welcomed by advocates including the National Association to Stop Guardian Abuse (NASGA), address two common points of ward vulnerability in guardianship cases: the sale of a protected person’s real estate and changes to their residence.

What the New Michigan Protections Require

The new law requires a professional appraisal (conducted within the prior six months by a licensed appraiser) before a court may approve the sale of real estate belonging to a person under guardianship or conservatorship. If the court approves a sale below the appraised value, it must justify on the record why the sale is in the person’s best interest.

The law also requires a guardian to obtain court approval before changing the residence of a person under guardianship in most cases. The guardian must demonstrate that the move is in the person’s best interest, explain why it is the least restrictive appropriate setting, describe efforts made to keep the person in their home, and address the impact on relationships and activities. The court must make specific findings.

These are targeted, practical reforms focused on two high-risk decision points where abuse or overreach can quickly strip a person of their home and remaining independence.

Are These Protections Unique? Comparison with Ohio and Missouri

The Michigan protections are not entirely unique, but they tighten and clarify safeguards that vary in strength and specificity across states.

Ohio, for example, already requires court involvement for the sale of a ward’s real estate in most situations. Guardians generally must either obtain consents from the spouse and next of kin and meet an 80%-of-appraised-value threshold (for certain consent sales), or file a formal land-sale action in probate court. 

Appraisals are commonly required or expected. Ohio law also emphasizes consideration of less-restrictive alternatives before guardianship is imposed. However, Ohio does not appear to have as explicit a statutory mandate as Michigan’s new rule requiring a recent professional appraisal and on-the-record justification for any below-appraisal sale in the specific context of a protected person’s home. 

Residence changes are subject to the guardian’s duties and court oversight, but Michigan’s new bill imposes more detailed pre-move petition and best-interest findings requirements.  The weakness in Ohio law is in applying the "least restrictive means" test at the appointment of a guardian, and not requiring it specifically for changes of residency.  In order to protect a ward, a family member or agent would have to contest the change of residency, and a court may simply approve these on recommendation of a guardian in the best interest of the ward.  In short, there is no requirement that a guardian or court assure that a change of residence to an institution is the least restrictive alternate possible. 

Missouri law requires similarly court approval for the sale of real property belonging to a protectee in supervised matters and generally expects the sale price to meet a threshold related to appraised value (commonly referenced as not less than three-fourths in many supervised contexts). Guardians and conservators must act in the protectee’s best interest, and the 2018 reforms (SB 806) strengthened the least-restrictive-alternative principle and reporting requirements. Missouri does not appear to have a recently enacted, narrowly tailored statutory requirement comparable to Michigan’s mandatory recent professional appraisal plus explicit on-the-record justification for below-value sales, nor the same detailed pre-move petition process for residence changes that Michigan just adopted.

Michigan’s new laws are incremental, though, rather than rather than revolutionary. They add clearer, more specific procedural guardrails around two decisions that frequently lead to rapid depletion of a person’s assets and loss of their home. Ohio and Missouri already require court oversight of real-estate sales and impose best-interest standards, but Michigan’s 2026 bills make the appraisal requirement and the residence-change findings more explicit and harder to bypass.

Michigan’s new requirements are welcome incremental protections. They do not, however, eliminate the need for proactive planning. The most effective way to avoid the risks associated with guardianship, i.e., the loss of independence, sacrifice of family input and control, loss of the home, rapid asset depletion, and limited recourse, remains the execution of well-designed estate planning documents such as trusts with aging-in-place and guardianship advanced directives, powers of attorney, and supported decision-making arrangements, carefully drafted and deployed before capacity is lost. Once a court has appointed a guardian, even improved statutory safeguards operate after the fact and depend on judicial oversight that varies in rigor. The Michigan legislation underscores a recurring theme: when guardianship becomes the default response, protecting the person’s remaining property and preferred residence requires specific, enforceable procedural hurdles. Families and advisors in Ohio, Missouri, and elsewhere should note both the progress and the continuing gaps.Thanks to the National Association to Stop Guardianship Abuse (NASGA) for highlighting the signing of the Michigan law. 

“Paper Prisons”: Guardianship Can Strip Away Independence — But Proactive Planning Can Protect It

The term “paper prison” describes the harsh reality faced by too many older adults under guardianship: court-ordered arrangements intended to protect them can instead remove their autonomy, isolate them from family, and control, and/or deplete their assets, all while claiming to act in their best interest.
A blog post from the National Association to Stop Guardianship Abuse (NASGA) highlights one such case in Missouri. Barbara Chaffee, a widow, has been under guardianship for four years since her husband’s death. Despite no evidence of incapacity requiring full guardianship, she has been unable to access her own savings or make basic decisions about her daily life. Her story echoes the Missouri case we examined earlier in “Paper Prisons: A Missouri Man’s Battle Against Guardianship Abuse and Why Prevention Starts with Planning.”
These accounts reveal a troubling pattern: systems designed as safety nets can become mechanisms of control when oversight is weak and incentives misaligned.One Widow’s Experience
Barbara Chaffee lived independently after her husband’s passing. A concerned report to Adult Protective Services led to an investigation, and ultimately, the appointment of a professional guardian. What followed was a gradual loss of control. The guardian restricted family contact, managed her finances with limited transparency, and placed her in a facility far from her familiar surroundings. Court records and family accounts show Barbara repeatedly expressed her desire to return home with support, yet those wishes were overridden.
Her situation is not unique. NASGA and other advocates have documented hundreds of similar cases in Missouri and across the country, where guardianships are granted with minimal hearings and limited ongoing review.  Institutional care is too often the choice of professional guardians seeking to offload the burden of contact and oversight of a troublesome or burdensome ward. Parallels to Broader Systemic Issues
Both Barbara’s case and the earlier Missouri veteran’s story share common elements: a relatively low threshold for initiating guardianship, isolation from family members who offer support, and significant financial decisions made with little accountability. In too many instances, professional guardians or agencies with connections in the probate system exercise broad authority, while families face steep legal hurdles, and sometimes penalties,  when they push back or simply demand that their care choices be honored. 
National data underscores the scope of the problem. A significant percentage of guardianships proceed without full evidentiary hearings, and oversight remains inconsistent. For those hoping to age in place, the consequences can be especially damaging: guardians may deny access to home- and community-based services, accelerate moves to facilities, or deplete resources that could have supported independent living.The Human and Financial Toll
When guardianship goes wrong, the effects extend far beyond the individual:

• Asset Control and Depletion: Homes are sold, and funds are directed toward court costs and professional fees rather than care.
• Family Separation: Loved ones are labeled “interfering,” fracturing support networks at the exact time they are most needed.
• Loss of Dignity: Daily life becomes regimented, with limited personal choice and increased health issues linked to isolation and institutional settings.  

These outcomes are not inevitable. They often stem from reactive rather than proactive approaches to aging.  Planning goes a long way to in preventing guardianships, and most importantly, retaining family control of assets in the worst cases where a guardian is appointed. Practical Steps to Safeguard Independence
The most effective protection is planning before a crisis occurs:

• Settle a Trust:  A trust can be drafted, in most states, to make assets unavailable to a court-appointed guardian.  More importantly, a trust and related documents can reduce the need and risk of guardianship. 

• Supported Decision-Making (SDM) Agreements: These allow trusted individuals to help with decisions while preserving legal rights. They can serve as strong evidence against the need for full guardianship.
• Comprehensive Estate Planning: Durable powers of attorney, revocable trusts, and Medicaid Asset Protection Trusts (MAPTs) help ensure your wishes are followed, and assets are shielded appropriately.
• Clear Family Communication: Regular, documented discussions about care preferences reduce misunderstandings and make it harder for outsiders to intervene.
• Early Legal Review: Work with an experienced elder law attorney to understand your state’s guardianship laws and build documents that reflect your values.

Attending targeted workshops or consulting resources from organizations like NASGA can also help families recognize warning signs early.Moving Forward with Awareness
Stories like Barbara Chaffee’s are difficult to read because they show how quickly independence can be lost. Yet they also serve as a powerful motivator for action. By combining legal tools such as SDM agreements and trusts with open family planning, you can help ensure that aging remains a time of choice and dignity — not control or regret.
If you or a loved one is navigating guardianship concerns or simply wants to plan thoughtfully for the future, reaching out to a qualified elder law attorney is one of the strongest steps you can take. For additional support and advocacy, organizations like the National Association to Stop Guardianship Abuse offer valuable resources.
Planning today can prevent tomorrow’s “paper prison.” Your independence is worth protecting.