The Role of Institutional Guardianship Services in Probate Courts: Safeguarding Autonomy Through Clear Aging-in-Place Planning

As seniors and their families plan for aging in place, the involvement of probate courts and institutional guardianship services can become a pivotal and often contentious issue, particularly when a senior’s capacity is questioned. A recent Michigan Court of Appeals decision, In re Guardianship of CY, No. 370828 (Mich. Ct. App. June 12, 2025), illustrates the courts’ broad discretion in appointing professional guardians, even when it contradicts a senior’s expressed wishes. For seniors and their families, this case underscores the vital need to establish clear objectives before incapacity arises, especially given the routine cooperation and collaboration between probate courts and institutional guardians, which can overlook the risks of institutional care and the value of aging in place.

The Court’s Opinion in In re Guardianship of CYThe case involved CY, a 93-year-old woman with dementia whose husband passed away in 2020. CY had designated her son, Leon Jukowski, as her patient advocate and medical power of attorney, expressing a clear preference for him to oversee her care. However, her daughters petitioned the probate court to appoint one of them, Lesley Yolkowski, as guardian, alleging that Leon failed to act in CY’s best interests, neglected her care, and did not cooperate with family or medical professionals. CY, through counsel, opposed the petition, asserting she was not incapacitated and, if a guardian was needed, preferred Leon.
The probate court found CY incapacitated, determining she required more supervision than Leon could provide. Evidence showed her health had declined, her home and person were dirty, she was not taking medications, and Leon had hired an unqualified caregiver. The court deemed Leon unsuitable, but given CY’s objection to her daughters’ involvement, appointed a professional guardian. On appeal, the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, citing Michigan Compiled Laws § 700.5306, which allows courts to override a patient advocate designation if it’s not in the individual’s best interests. The court highlighted Leon’s lack of communication, poor care arrangements, and CY’s deteriorating condition as justification, concluding that a professional guardian was critical to her well-being.
This ruling reflects the court’s discretion to prioritize perceived safety over a senior’s autonomy, a power vested in probate courts to protect vulnerable individuals. It also reveals, however, a system where institutional guardians are favored when family dynamics or care quality are questioned, often without fully exploring the senior’s perspective.The Risks of Unchecked Court DiscretionSeniors and their families often underestimate the risks posed by probate courts’ near-unlimited discretion in guardianship matters. Courts, working closely with institutional guardianship services, can appoint professional guardians with little regard for a senior’s prior choices, especially when evidence of incapacity, such as neglected hygiene or medication non-compliance,is presented. This discretion is particularly pronounced in aging-in-place scenarios, where the desire to remain at home becomes a flashpoint of controversy.
Aging in place is a common source of dispute because courts and professionals may view a senior’s choice to stay home, despite challenges, as evidence of impairment rather than a valid preference. In CY’s case, the dirty home was noted, but no safety violations (e.g., clutter, inaccessibility, hoarding, or sanitation risks) were cited, which might have been emphasized if present, as they are highly dispositive in guardianship rulings. Instead, the court interpreted her condition and Leon’s care as justification for professional intervention, dismissing her wish to have her son and other non-professionals assist her. 
This selective use of her decisions, honoring her preference for Leon when it supported the need for a guardian, but rejecting it when it favored home care, suggests a confirmation bias. Professionals and courts may assume seniors are incapable of sound judgment precisely when they exercise autonomy, overlooking the senior’s assessment that home-based care’s benefits (connection to community, autonomy) outweigh its difficulties.The Overlooked Risks of Institutional CareMost courts and professionals dismiss the risks of institutional care as unavoidable, yet evidence suggests otherwise. Institutional settings expose seniors to:

1. Negligent Treatment: Inadequate monitoring or medication errors (a 2014 Inspector General Report reported that nearly one in three seniors are injured or killed by negligent nursing homes).
2. Assault by Employees/Contractors: Physical or emotional abuse by staff (see "Institutional Care: America's Most Vulnerable Seniors Raped and Sexually Abused").
3. Assault/Injury by Peers: Violence or accidents involving other residents (see, "Resident-to-Resident Aggression in Long-Term Care Facilities: An Understudied Problem)."
4. Infection Risks: Outbreaks like COVID-19 or MRSA, amplified in congregate settings (see, "Infection Control Citations Exceed 12,000 Amid Pandemic; SNF Ratings Stagnant").
5. Improper Transport: Injuries from unsafe movement between facilities (see "Man Transported to SNF But Dropped Off at Wrong Location Found Alive Three Days Later," and "Transport Risk Often Overlooked as Risk of Institutional Long-term Care").

1. Security Risks:  Elopement, theft, assault, and sexual abuse are common security risks in institutional settings (see, "Security Risks while at Nursing Homes and Assisted Living Facilities"). 

These risks, often avoidable with proper oversight, are wholly preventable through home-based care tailored to the senior’s needs. Studies and reports indicate that home care, when managed effectively, reduces these hazards while preserving a senior's dignity. Yet courts like the one in CY’s case, rarely weigh these alternatives, favoring institutional solutions that align with professional guardianship services’ capabilities.  Given that a court often works closely with these services, a court can substitute familiarity for risk assessment in reflexively preferring institutional options.The Vital Need for Clear ObjectivesThe In re Guardianship of CY decision serves as a stark reminder that without clear, preemptive planning, seniors risk losing control over their aging-in-place goals. Probate courts’ routine partnership with institutional guardians can lead to decisions that prioritize safety over autonomy, especially when family care is deemed inadequate. To counter this, seniors and families must establish a robust plan before incapacity arises:

• Legal Documents: Draft a durable power of attorney, healthcare directive, advanced directive for dementia, and living will, specifying preferences for home care and designating a succession of trusted individuals (e.g., Leon in CY’s case, but also the daughters, if suitable, in succession) as decision-makers.

• Deploy a Trust: A properly drafted and funded trust can help prevent guardianship control of assets.  Separating a guardianship estate from your assets serves as a disincentive for non-family guardians since their compensation is often directly related to the value of the guardianship estate that the guardian administers.  More, a trust can keep your family in control of resources to protect you, whether that means paying for practical, medical, or legal needs. 
• Communicate Intent: Document and share the desire to age in place, detailing why home care aligns with personal values, to guide courts if intervention is needed.
• Regular Updates: Review plans with an elder law attorney to reflect changing health or family dynamics.
• Alternative Arrangements: Use trusts or private care agreements to fund and structure home-based support, reducing reliance on guardianship.
• Education: Learn about local probate processes to anticipate and address potential biases toward institutional care.

By setting clear objectives, seniors can mitigate the court’s tendency to override their wishes, ensuring that aging in place remains a viable option. For instance, if CY had a detailed care plan supported by legal documentation, the court might have considered Leon’s role more favorably, or considered another family member rather than defaulting to a professional guardian.Empowering Seniors Through Proactive PlanningThe In re Guardianship of CY ruling, while grounded in the court’s duty to protect, highlights a system where institutional guardianship can overshadow a senior’s autonomy, particularly in disputes regarding aging in place. Courts and professionals may exhibit confirmation bias, using a senior’s home-care choice as evidence of incapacity while ignoring the avoidable risks of institutional settings. For seniors and families, the lesson is clear: proactive planning with a clear statement of objectives is vital. By working with an elder law attorney to craft tailored legal tools, families can honor a senior’s wish to remain at home, balancing safety with independence and avoiding the pitfalls of institutional care. This approach not only empowers seniors but also challenges the probate system to respect their informed choices.
Act now; don't let a legal system dictate where you age.