ÿWPC© '-(“à$ÿàÞÀ¹¨÷[,ð’ïkÇsÜ­COÉSÀ³šÃíP31]á©ÕòåPäß‘M´ø±VË8‘s¬ ì1Pb»h“ÏNG_ I†‹Yª†–äP? Î{ï}9¿è÷¼Ó@z{lAÖ¨„šÇúU*“sJyte´¶¶oå¥@æ%Ò©šØþ#7½£ó#®ŽËЉ9;®˜ÞK~÷ÔiOPì°!–e¬(ò»”ñ¹€‘¨Ûtàu^YŒIe¢”#Þ•£–ƒ>Á¿ª=|{™( ½Çãó»š0ܤһÅÊÇö¬)Û¤ ÚØ%côç„T¿^ Qåþ’®Ö‹0ˆB€B7rd7øµ_³ «ôÑDK/¸~gØúæ¿ æ…¶y !G£-<Œ@M×¢’yGýBWH.Z’ ÀC⨇±Ê“]cø}Ç•gAè­ëEû®wÃùÓ[äq»=½Ð’/ÃÙQžßæ¶Ñô:+?´L‹º1ÙþáÅéÍÛµ?±‡‰g„dµåU¢“©ôX–MªoëÀ7ÿ©ãO½¤Ã ¨‹6D©s÷Œ¯ð[Œ8ýK܉U©"`îóDÃiy¨ûÄcZPšË¢|÷^LWá+&ÐîÌšsKOÿò”-âÍ)#!>UN_ %­ 0(³U >ÛÞw@÷47 K Z m\ Ås 0l8 0D¤ âè NÊ U@Ì ^  0:RRRRR 02ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ BŒ˜HP LaserJet III (2nd Floor)Ø,,,,,Ø,0xÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ &Times New Roman ÔÝ ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€The€Restatement€also€added€a€third€jurisdictional€basis€ð"ð€placing€€jurisdiction€in€a€stateÐ ° Ðin€which€the€person€is€neither€domiciled€nor€present,€if€two€or€more€persons€who€are€personallyÏsubject€to€the€jurisdiction€of€the€state€and€are€competing€for€custody.€This€third€jurisdictionalÏprerequisite,€if€adopted€by€any€state,€could€be€problematic€for€the€putative€ward,€since€it€wouldÏallow,€for€example,€€two€family€members€in€one€state,€each€seeking€guardianship€of€a€third€partyÏresiding€in€another€state,€to€invoke€the€jurisdiction€of€a€state€in€which€the€allegedly€incompetentÏperson€is€neither€present€nor€domiciled.€à À à ÿEE£EPDDÀe -ñŠ 3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ »Ý ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€The€authority€of€a€guardian€to€determine€the€residence€of€a€ward€is€beyond€the€scope€ofÐ ° Ðthis€Q€&€A.€For€an€interesting€discussion€of€the€issue€see€òòIn€the€Matter€of€M.R.óó,€628€A.€2d€1274Ð œì Ð(N.J.€1994)(vacating€a€trial€court€order€placing€adult€ward€with€her€guardian€mother€when€wardÏexpressed€a€preference€to€live€with€her€father).€((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ØÝ ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€The€rules€about€a€guardianððs€authority€to€control€a€wardððs€property€in€another€state€areÐ ° Ðalso€beyond€the€scope€of€this€short€paper.€Because€in€most€cases€guardians€do€not€have€authorityÏover€property€in€other€states,€òòHoyt€v.€Spragueóó,€103€U.S.€613€(1881),€a€ward€may€have€differentÐ ˆØ Ðguardians€in€different€states,€a€situation€which€is€confusing€at€best.€*Ͼ¦ `(CG TimesScalableXu -c6‚‚ 4Body TextÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓ , ÓÓ  ÓÓ–ÓÓÓÔ€XXÔÔ€&&ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓ , ÓÓ  ÓÓ–ÓÓÓÔ€XXÔÔ€&&ÔÔ  Ô .‚‚ ,POINTÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓ , ÓÓ  ÓÓ–ÓÓÓÔ€XXÔÔ€&&ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓ , ÓÓ  ÓÓ–ÓÓÓÔ€XXÔÔ€&&ÔÔ  Ô dÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÓ  Óò òINTERSTATE€GUARDIANSHIñÿññþñSñþññÿñññPSÐ ° ÐññññññÌññññññó óÌÔ‡XÔ¸XXXÔPrepared€for€Ô_ÔNAPASÔ_Ô€by€Ð ˆØ ÐCenter€for€Public€Representation€ÌNorthampton,€Massachusetts€Ô#†XÓXXXÔ¸¤#Ôò òññó óÐ h¸ ÐññÓ  ÓññÌÌññÌññññà  àQ.€Recently,€we€learned€that€several€individuals€who€have€sought€our€assistance€haveÏguardians€who€were€appointed€in€other€states.€Are€guardianship€orders€from€other€states€validÏhere?ññññÌÌññññà  àAññññà  àññññ.ññ€In€our€mobile€society,€P&As€may€increasingly€be€faced€with€questions€about€the€validityÏof€a€guardianship€order€from€another€jurisdiction.€It€is€not€unusual€for€people€with€disabilities€whoÏhave€guardians€to€be€sent€to€another€state€to€obtain€specialized€services.€A€program€in€NewÏHampshire,€for€example,€provides€residential€services€to€individuals€with€head€injuries€from€aÏscore€of€states.€Long€term€care€facilities€and€residential€schools€in€Massachusetts€serve€manyÏpeople€who€have€guardians€appointed€by€New€York€courts.€Likewise,€individuals€who€areÏdischarged€from€institutions€in€one€part€of€a€state€(where€a€guardian€was€appointed),€may€move€toÏcommunity€living€situations€in€another.€People€with€disabilities€may€also€choose€to€relocate,€withÏor€without€their€guardiansðð€permission.׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€Some€wards€may€live€in€one€state€but€have€property€inÐ à  Ðanother.׃@×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð |Ì ÐÌà  àFor€people€who€move€from€state€to€state,€the€issue€is€one€of€conflicts€of€state€laws.€ArticleÏIV,€ðð€1€of€the€United€States€Constitution€requires€courts€in€each€state€to€accord€ð ðfull€faith€andÏcreditðð€to€judgements€of€courts€in€other€states.€However,€that€requirement€is€not€absolute.€AÏcourt,€for€example,€need€not€give€full€faith€and€credit€to€a€judgment€that€was€rendered€by€a€courtÏwithout€jurisdiction.€òòUnderwriters€Natððl€Assurance€Co.€v.€North€Carolina€Life€&€Accident€&Ð T ÐHealth€Ins.€Guar.€Assoc.óó,€445€U.S.€691€(1982).€Some€courts,€citing€to€the€ð ðprotectiveðð€nature€ofÐ ð@ Ðguardianship,€have€refused€to€give€full€faith€and€credit€to€foreign€decrees€if€the€ð ðbest€interestsðð€ofÏthe€ward€who€is€present€in€the€state€require€the€state€to€intervene.€See,€Vicki€Gottlich,€Finders,ÏKeepers,€Losers,€Weepers:€Conflict€of€Laws€in€Adult€Guardianship€Cases,€23€ClearinghouseÏReview€1415€(1990).€ÌÌà  àGenerally,€€jurisdiction€to€appoint€a€guardian€rests€with€the€state€in€which€the€person€isÏdomiciled€or€is€present.€The€Restatement€(Second)€of€Conflicts€of€Laws€recognized€those€twoÏcriteria€(domicile€and€presence)€to€ensure€that€the€states€will€be€able€to€protect€vulnerable€peopleÏâ âwithin€their€borders.€Restatement€(Second)€of€Conflicts€of€Laws€ðð€79€€(1971)(applying€same€ruleÐ <"Œ  Ðto€children€and€adults).׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€Consequently,€a€Kansas€court€refused€to€give€full€faith€and€credit€to€aÐ ° Ðâ âNebraska€guardianship€decree€which€was€entered€when€the€ward€was€€domiciled€in€Kansas.ÏòòÔ_ÔMorrisseyÔ_Ô€v.€Rodgers,€óó21€P.2d€359€(1993).€A€Maryland€Court€refused€to€credit€an€order€of€aÐ ˆØ ÐFlorida€court€appointing€the€newly€Florida„domiciled€wife€of€a€Maryland€resident€as€his€guardian,Ïeven€though€the€wife€had€submitted€to€the€jurisdiction€of€the€Florida€court€at€a€time€she€was€hisÏguardian€pursuant€to€a€Maryland€order.€The€wife€could€not€place€her€husbandððs€person€under€theÏjurisdiction€of€another€state€while€he€remained€in€Maryland.€€òòMack€v.€Mack,€óó618€A.2d€744€(Md.Ð 8 ˆ Ð1993).€ÌÌà  àLikewise,€the€Supreme€Judicial€Court€of€Maine€exercised€its€jurisdiction€over€a€MaineÏresident€with€a€Massachusetts€guardian€appointed€by€a€Massachusetts€Court.€The€Court€refusedÏto€appoint€a€temporary€guardian,€however,€finding€that€the€petitionerððs€allegation€that€the€wardÏhad€been€given€unauthorized€medication€was€insufficient€to€establish€the€extremely€seriousÏemergency€that€would€be€necessary€for€the€Maine€Court€to€act€to€protect€the€ward.€òòGuardianshipÐ ¬ü  Ðof€Winston,€óó607€A.2d€907€(Maine€1992).€Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àHowever,€in€a€contrary€finding,€Florida€courts€were€held€to€retain€jurisdiction€of€a€ward,Ïeven€though€the€ward€was€present€in€Massachusetts.€Ô‡XÓXXXÓÔA€Massachusetts€citizen€removed€herÐ \¬ Ðmother,€who€had€a€corporate€guardian€appointed€by€a€Florida€court,€from€a€Florida€nursing€homeÏto€Massachusetts€without€the€authority€of€the€guardian€or€the€Florida€court.€The€MassachusettsÏAppeals€Court€give€full€faith€and€credit€to€the€Florida€decree.òò€óó€òòGuardianship€of€ññ¢ññÔ_ÔEnosÔ_Ôññ£ññ,€óó670€N.E.2dÐ  p Ð967€(Mass.€App.€Ct€1966).€The€Appeals€Court€noted€that€ð ðcourts€have€declined€to€give€anotherÏjurisdictionððs€valid€guardianship€order€full€faith€and€credit€only€when€the€best€interest€of€the€wardÏrequired€otherwise.ðð€The€Court€noted€that€the€daughter€had€shown€no€reason€not€to€accord€fullÏfaith€and€credit,€that€the€Florida€venue€was€more€convenient€to€most€of€the€parties,€that€theÏdaughter€had€already€appeared€there€to€contest€the€appointment€of€the€corporate€guardian€(indeedÏthe€daughterððs€motion€to€remove€her€mother€to€Massachusetts€was€pending€there€when€she€wentÏto€the€nursing€home,€took€her€mother€and€brought€her€to€Massachusetts),€and€that€the€FloridaÏcourt€was€ð ðfully€capable€of€decidingðð€where€the€motherððs€well-being€would€be€best€served.Ô#†XÓXXXÓ”#ÔÐ €Ð ÐÌà  àFor€the€most€part,€when€a€ward€moves€from€one€place€within€a€state€to€another,€theÏguardianship€venue€moves€with€her.€Most€courts€cite€to€the€ability€of€the€closest€court€to€provideÏwhatever€protection€the€ward€may€need.€See,€òòIn€re€Miller,€óó620€P.2d€800,€803€(ññ¢ññÔ_ÔKanÔ_Ôññ£ññ.€1980)(citingÐ 0"€  ÐRestatement).€òòCfóó,€€òòSmith€v.€Young,€óó369€S.E.2d€798€(Ga.€1988)(jurisdiction€is€where€the€person€isÐ #l! Ðdomiciled;€however,€a€person€who€lacks€capacity€to€change€her€domicile,€remains€a€domiciliary€ofÏthe€county€where€she€was€initially€domiciled,€regardless€of€whether€she€has€moved).€€Ìà  àÐ à%0!$ Ðà  àTherefore,€when€a€ward€moves€from€one€state€to€another,€the€receiving€state€may,€butÏneed€not,€give€full€faith€and€credit€to€an€existing€guardianship.€Persons€under€guardianship€mayÏfind€their€rights€restricted€by€these€general€rules.€There€may€be€confusion€about€who€is€theÏguardian,€what€authority€the€guardian€has,€and€where€it€can€be€exercised.€P&A€attorneys€and€staffÏshould€check€local€case€law€and€statutes€to€determine€just€how€such€questions€may€be€resolved€inÏtheir€states.€€à ` àÐ L œ ÐÌ