What a Michigan Judge Must Find On the Record Before Appointing a Professional Guardian Over a Family Member

Michigan law starts from a simple premise: family comes first in adult guardianship. Under the Estates and Protected Individuals Code (EPIC), relatives have statutory priority, and courts are expected to honor that priority unless there is a legally supported reason not to.

Because of that, a judge cannot appoint a professional guardian simply because it seems easier, faster, or more convenient. The court must make specific findings on the record explaining why a professional guardian is appropriate and why a family member is not.

1. The Court Must Recognize the Statutory Priority of Family

EPIC provides a priority list for who should serve as guardian. Family members—spouses, adult children, parents, and other relatives—appear well before professional guardians.

A judge must acknowledge this priority and cannot skip over a family member without explaining why.

2. The Judge Must Find “Good Cause” to Bypass the Family Member

To appoint a professional guardian, the court must state good cause on the record for not appointing the relative who has priority. “Good cause” must be based on evidence, not assumptions.

Examples of good cause include:

• The family member is unwilling to serve

• The family member is unable to meet the ward’s needs

• The family member has a conflict of interest

• There is a history of abuse, neglect, or exploitation

• The family member’s plan of care is unsafe or inadequate

• Severe family conflict would harm the ward or disrupt care

The key is specificity. The judge must identify the actual reasons, not general statements like “family conflict exists” or “a professional would be better.”

3. The Court Must Explain Why Appointment of the Family Member Is Not in the Ward’s Best Interests

Even if a family member is willing and has priority, the court must determine whether appointing that person is in the ward’s best interests.

On the record, the judge must address factors such as:

• The ward’s expressed wishes

• The family member’s ability to provide consistent care

• Safety concerns

• The stability of the proposed living arrangement

• Whether the family member can manage medical, personal, and social needs

If the court concludes that appointing the family member is not in the ward’s best interests, it must explain why.

4. The Judge Must Explain Why a Professional Guardian Is in the Ward’s Best Interests

It is not enough to reject the family member. The court must also affirmatively find that a professional guardian is the most appropriate choice.

This includes findings that the professional guardian:

• Is qualified and suitable

• Has no disqualifying conflicts

• Can meet the ward’s needs more effectively than the family member

• Represents the least restrictive, most protective option under the circumstances

Michigan courts increasingly scrutinize professional guardians’ caseloads and oversight practices, so suitability must be addressed directly.

5. The Court Must Show That Appointing a Professional Guardian Is the Least Restrictive Option

Michigan law requires the court to choose the least restrictive alternative that meets the ward’s needs. When bypassing family, the judge must explain:

• Why family involvement is insufficient

• Why a professional guardian is necessary

• Why no less‑restrictive arrangement (e.g., limited guardianship, shared responsibilities, or supportive services) would work

This ensures the decision is grounded in the ward’s rights—not convenience.

Why These Findings Matter

These on‑the‑record findings protect:

• The ward, by ensuring the decision is evidence‑based

• Family members, by honoring their statutory priority

• The integrity of the guardianship system, by preventing unnecessary professional appointments

They also create a clear record for appeal or later modification.

Bottom Line

A Michigan judge may appoint a professional guardian over a family member only when the court makes detailed, specific findings on the record showing:

• The family member with priority is unsuitable or not in the ward’s best interests

• A professional guardian is the most appropriate and least restrictive option

• The appointment protects the ward’s safety, rights, and well‑being

These safeguards ensure that professional guardians are used only when truly necessary.

Educational Disclaimer

This page is intended for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For advice specific to your situation, please consult a qualified attorney. Of course you an contact me for a consultation at support@JMcCowanLaw.com or 248 871 7644