In Re Guardianship of Virginia Black (Elizabeth Black & Jonathan Black, Appellants)

VERMONT SUPREME COURT Case No. 22-AP-153
109 State Street
Montpelier VT 05609-0801
802-828-4774
www.vermontjudiciary.org

Note: In the case title, an asterisk (*) indicates an appellant and a double asterisk (**) indicates a cross-
appellant. Decisions of a three-justice panel are not to be considered as precedent before any tribunal.

ENTRY ORDER

APRIL TERM, 2023

In re Guardianship of Virginia Black } APPEALED FROM:
(Elizabeth Black* & Jonathan Black*) }
} Superior Court, Washington Unit,
} Civil Division
} CASE NO. 636-11-18 Wncv
Trial Judge: Robert R. Bent

In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

This case involves a dispute between siblings Elizabeth and Jonathan Black and their
sister Deborah Black regarding the guardianship of their mother Virginia Black. On appeal,
appellant Elizabeth Black claims that the civil division erred in denying her requests to terminate
the guardianship or, in the alternative, appoint her as guardian. We affirm.

The court found the following. Virginia1 was born in September 1926. She was a high-
functioning individual through most of her life. In 2012, she had a stroke and developed aphasia,
resulting in a disputed level of cognitive impairment. Virginia’s aphasia causes profound
language-comprehension deficits. Elizabeth lives with Virginia and has been Virginia’s primary
caretaker since her stroke. In 2016, Deborah, who is a physician, moved to establish an
involuntary guardianship for Virginia under 14 V.S.A. § 3063. Elizabeth opposed the request.
The probate court appointed an evaluator, who concluded that a guardian was necessary as
Virginia was unable to make her own decisions regarding personal, medical, legal, or financial
matters. The probate court granted the request for an involuntary guardianship over Elizabeth’s
opposition. The probate court also appointed an attorney for Virginia and approved Deborah as
the guardian. Elizabeth appealed to the civil division, but later withdrew her appeal after the

1
Because many of the individuals involved in this case have the same last name, we
identify those involved using first names but intend no disrespect.
parties agreed to the appointment of Richard Knowles as guardian.2 In 2018, guardian Knowles
withdrew, and the probate division appointed an attorney, Susan Buckholz, as financial guardian
and Deborah as guardian for medical treatment.

Elizabeth subsequently moved to terminate the guardianship and the probate court denied
the request. Elizabeth then appealed to the civil division. A court-appointed evaluator assessed
Virginia. The evaluator met with Virginia on several occasions and spoke with her. Although
Virginia was able to communicate about passing pleasantries, she was not able to respond
correctly to questions about people Virginia knew or to identify her lawyer, legal guardian, or
former doctor. The evaluator determined that Virginia was not able to manage the complexities
of directing her own personal care and financial matters, and concluded that Virginia could not
make or communicate reasoned decisions. The evaluator recommended continuing the
guardianship. Elizabeth opposed the evaluator’s recommendation and urged the court to
consider that Virginia’s desire was to dissolve the guardianship.

Following four days of hearings, the civil division issued a written order. The civil
division found that Elizabeth assisted her mother with matters of daily living but had thwarted
efforts of the court-appointed guardian ad litem to meet with Virginia and had pushed aside her
sister Deborah, a physician, who was Virginia’s guardian for medical matters. The court further
found that Elizabeth worked hard to end the guardianship and estranged her siblings Deborah
and David from their mother. The civil division found no merit to Elizabeth’s contentions that
her sister and sister’s lawyer falsified evidence or that there was a conspiracy against her. The
civil division credited the evaluator’s report and testimony regarding Virginia’s capabilities. The
court further found that Virginia did not have the capacity to independently make decisions
regarding whether she should have a guardian and who it should be. The court concluded that
there were no grounds to dissolve the guardianship and denied Elizabeth’s request to be
appointed guardian.

Elizabeth appeals the civil division order and raises many issues.3 We do not address
Elizabeth’s accusations regarding the propriety of the costs incurred or charged by the guardian
or Virginia’s appointed attorney because these are beyond the scope of this appeal, which is

2
On appeal, Elizabeth asserts that when she agreed to this appointment and withdrew her
appeal, she did not understand what was meant by dismissing the appeal “with prejudice.” She
has not presented any basis to disturb that long-final dismissal.
3
Appellees argue that the appellants’ brief is inadequate because it fails to conform to
the requirements of the appellate rules by, among other things, failing to cite to authorities or
places in the record that support the argument. V.R.A.P. 28(e). Appellees note that there is a
very large record in this case and the lack of references impairs appellees’ ability to respond to
appellant’s general assertions. Appellees’ request to wholly disregard appellant’s brief for
failure to comply with the appellate rules is denied. The Court addresses the arguments that it is
able to ascertain from appellant’s brief.

2
limited to whether the civil division erred in denying Elizabeth’s request to terminate the
guardianship or appoint Elizabeth as guardian.4

An involuntary guardianship may be terminated or modified if there is “a change in the
ability of the person under guardianship to manage his or her personal care or financial affairs.”
14 V.S.A. § 3077(a)(4). On appeal, we will uphold the court’s findings “unless they are clearly
erroneous” and affirm its conclusions “as long as they are reasonably supported by the findings.”
Waterbury Feed Co. v. O’Neil, 2006 VT 126, ¶ 6, 181 Vt. 535 (mem.).

We first address the court’s decision not to terminate the guardianship. Elizabeth argues
that the court’s decision was erroneous. Her arguments question the quality and persuasiveness
of the evidence credited by the civil division. Among other claims, Elizabeth argues that her
sister Deborah lied and conspired with others to impose the guardianship, that the evaluator
relied on false information and the report was not credible, that several witnesses presented false
information, and that Virginia is able to effectively communicate and wishes to end the
guardianship. The civil division is charged with determining “the credibility of the witnesses
and the weight of the evidence,” and its findings will “not be set aside unless clearly erroneous.”
V.R.C.P. 52(a)(2). On appeal, this Court does not engage in factfinding and will not reevaluate
the evidence. See Sweet v. St. Pierre, 2018 VT 122, ¶ 13, 209 Vt. 1 (explaining that “it is not the
role of this Court to reweigh the evidence or assess the credibility of witnesses; such decisions
are left to the trial court as the trier of fact”). The civil division acted within its discretion here in
determining the weight and credibility of the evidence. Elizabeth has presented no basis to
invalidate any of the court’s findings regarding Virginia’s capability “to manage . . . her personal
care or financial affairs.” 14 V.S.A. § 3077(a)(4). Moreover, those findings support the civil
division’s conclusion that Virginia’s condition had not vastly improved and therefore there were
no grounds to terminate the guardianship.

We next turn to Elizabeth’s contention that the court erred in declining to appoint her as
guardian. The court found that Elizabeth is bonded to her mother and has demonstrated affection
and commitment to Virginia. Nonetheless, the court declined to appoint Elizabeth as guardian
because it found that Elizabeth would not follow court-imposed rules and expectations if they
conflicted with her beliefs. On appeal, Elizabeth disagrees with the court’s assessment and
argues that Deborah does not act in Virginia’s interest and Virginia’s health is jeopardized by
having Deborah as medical guardian. There are no grounds to reverse the civil division’s
decision to retain the current guardians. As explained above, although Elizabeth disagrees with
the court’s evaluation of the evidence, this is not a basis to reverse the court’s decision.5

4
This Court has considered the materials that were made part of the record on appeal as
defined in Vermont Rule of Appellate Procedure 10.
5
Elizabeth makes other assertions regarding the procedures in the civil division,
including that she was denied the opportunity to present certain testimony because the court did
provide a subpoena for her witness. Elizabeth has not demonstrated how this argument was
preserved below and therefore we do not address it. See In re Merritt, 2003 VT 84, ¶ 7, 175 Vt.
624 (mem.) (explaining that party must present issue “with specificity and clarity” to trial court
to properly preserve it for appeal (quotation omitted)).

3
Finally, we reject Elizabeth’s assertion that the judge was biased against her because he
credited evidence that she deems false and was not persuaded by her assertions. Adverse judicial
rulings do not in themselves amount to evidence of bias or partiality. Ainsworth v. Chandler,
2014 VT 107, ¶ 16, 197 Vt. 541. Elizabeth has not demonstrated any improper motivation of the
trial judge in this case.

Affirmed.

BY THE COURT:

Paul L. Reiber, Chief Justice

Harold E. Eaton, Jr., Associate Justice

William D. Cohen, Associate Justice

4