Guardianship Appeal Statute is purely statutory

In Matter of Doze, 717 SW 3d 240 (2025), a Missouri Court affirmed the decision below appointing Queen Doze’s father as her guardian. The case began when Queen’s sister, Mariah Doze, filed a Petitioner for Appointment of a Guardian and/or Conservator. Mariah alleged that her sister, who was 21 years old, had an “intellectual disability and is fully unable to meet essential requirements for food, clothing, shelter, safety or other care and, as such, serious physical injury, illness or disease is likely to occur.” Mariah also alleged Queen “fully lacks the ability to manage her financial resources” and that nothing less intrusive than a guardianship and conservatorship would meet Queen’s needs.

The Court appointed an attorney to represent Queen. On January 23, 2023, the Court held an emergency hearing and concluded than an emergency guardianship was unwarranted. Meanwhile, DeAndre Doze, Queen’s father, filed a competing petition. DeAndre alleged “Queen is unable, by reason of autism spectrum disorder and intellectual disability to meet essential requirements for food, clothing, shelter, safety or other care such that serious physical injury, illness or disease is likely to occur.”

Queen’s lawyer waived jury trial. A hearing was held and DeAndre was appointed as Queen’s full guardian and conservator. Mariah appealed.

DeAndre argued Mariah had no standing to bring five of her arguments and that she waived the other two. The Court agreed.

Determining whether a party has standing is a threshold issue.” In re Estate of Whittaker, 261 S.W.3d 615, 617 (Mo. App. 2008). When a party lacks standing, a court has no jurisdiction to grant the relief requested. Id. “The right to appeal from a probate court’s judgment is purely statutory, and the applicable statutes are to be liberally construed since the law favors the right to appeal.” Matter of Walker, 875 S.W.2d 147, 149 (Mo. App. 1994).

“Two of Mariah’s points (Points III and IV) challenge the circuit court’s determination that Queen is totally incapacitated and disabled.” While Mariah could appeal these points, she waived them when she alleged “Queen has an intellectual disability and fully lacks the capacity to meet essential requirements for food, clothing, shelter, safety or other care” and fully lacked the ability to manage her finances.

The Court said “an appellant cannot take a position on appeal contrary to the position taken at trial,” and “remains bound to the position it took in the trial court.” “Because Mariah advocated (and even presented evidence to support) that Queen is totally incapacitated and disabled, she cannot now claim the circuit court erred in a finding Queen totally incapacitated and disabled. Mariah’s third and fourth points on appeal are denied.”

Mariah’s remaining arguments were dismissed for lack of standing.