2009-210, IN RE GUARDIANSHIP OF PETER R.

The respondent, Peter R., appeals an order of the Rockingham

the brief), for the respondent. to press. Errors may be reported by E-mail at the following address: Law Office of Rebecca McBeath, of Portsmouth (Rebecca S. McBeath on

Edward W. R., by memorandum of law, pro se.

No. 2009-210 editorial errors in order that corrections may be made before the opinion goes Rockingham County Probate Court Hampshire, One Charles Doe Drive, Concord, New Hampshire 03301, of any Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme Court of New ___________________________

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

page is: http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme. a.m. on the morning of their release. The direct address of the court's home reporter@courts.state.nh.us. Opinions are available on the Internet by 9:00

well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as discontinue his medication, resulting in harm to himself and possibly others, if

p. 2 record is sufficient to support the conclusion that the respondent will likely

soon as appropriate. the respondent’s condition has improved as a result of his hospitalization, the not establish the need for a guardianship. Although the evidence shows that cooperated with medical professionals. Therefore, he argues, the record does

hospital for a period not to exceed one year with a conditional discharge as

received adequate nutrition, has not committed any acts of violence, and has

probate court’s finding of incapacity.

suffers from a psychotic disorder and ordered him to be admitted to the Merrimack County Probate Court in which the court found that the respondent Hospital. He also introduced a January 14, 2009 notice of the decision of the The respondent next argues that since his hospitalization, he has culminating in his involuntary emergency admission to the New Hampshire

RSA 464-A:2, XI. Accordingly, we conclude that the record supports the suffer substantial harm due to his inability to provide for his health care. See the conclusion, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the respondent is likely to

erroneous that they could not be reasonably made. findings of fact of the probate court are final unless they are so plainly continue in his graduate school program, and was having behavioral problems, He further testified that the respondent had lost a lot of weight, was unable to medication recommended by his psychiatrist to treat a psychiatric disorder. A:8, IV (2004). The petitioner testified that the respondent refused to take incapacity beyond a reasonable doubt by competent evidence. See RSA 464presumption of capacity, and the petitioner bears the burden of proving safety. See id.; In re Guardianship of G.S., 157 N.H. at 473. There is a legal to provide for his personal needs for food, clothing, shelter, health care or suffered, is suffering, or is likely to suffer substantial harm due to an inability disability. See RSA 464-A:2, XI (2004). It refers to any person who has to introduce expert medical evidence. Incapacity is a legal, not a medical, the probate court’s findings of incapacity and need for a guardianship. The hearing was insufficient to establish his incapacity because the petitioner failed The respondent argues that the evidence submitted at the guardianship

(2008). reasonable doubt. See In re Guardianship of G.S., 157 N.H. 470, 473-74 proved the statutory components required for guardianship beyond a determine whether it supports the probate court’s finding that the petitioner challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, our task is to review the record to 154 N.H. 292, 296 (2006); RSA 567-A:4 (2007). Because the respondent

The respondent first argues that the evidence was insufficient to support

be incapacitated and that a guardianship was necessary. medical evidence in support of his petition. The court found the respondent to p. 3 3

health care power of attorney. the individual is not an appropriate candidate for a springing guardianship or a mental illness and has impaired judgment regarding his need for medication, concurred. BRODERICK, C.J., and DALIANIS, DUGGAN and CONBOY, JJ.,

restrictive alternative than a guardianship exists. the probate court to have found beyond a reasonable doubt that no less N.H. at p. 3 303. Upon this record, we conclude that it was not unreasonable for

476. We have held that when an individual has shown limited insight into his restrictive form of intervention. See In re Guardianship of G.S., 157 N.H. at available alternative resources exist, and that a guardianship is the least Finally, the respondent argues that the petitioner failed to prove that no

judgment about his medical treatment remains meaningfully impaired”). effectively treated it, supports the finding that his ability to exercise sound appreciate and consider the risks of interrupting a medication regime that has (“E.L.’s limited understanding of his mental illness, as well as his failure to a guardian is not appointed. See In re Guardianship of E.L., 154 N.H. at 299