Barbara Tanzer v. Alabama Department of Human Resources

── Barbara Tanzer v. Alabama Department of Human Resources ── Court: Supreme Court of Alabama Date: April 24, 2026 Author: Sellers Category: General Rel: April 24, 2026 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter. SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2025-2026 _________________________ SC-2025-0826 _________________________ Barbara Tanzer v. Alabama Department of Human Resources Appeal from Jefferson Probate Court (No. 24BHM00917) SELLERS, Justice. SC-2025-0826 Barbara Tanzer appeals from a judgment of the Jefferson Probate Court appointing a permanent conservator to manage her estate. We reverse and remand. I. Facts and Procedural History Barbara and her husband, Jerome Tanzer, were long-term residents of Massachusetts. Between 2023 and 2024, the Tanzers relocated to several states, including North Carolina, Florida, and Georgia. Barbara attributed the intervention of adult protective services as being one of the reasons she and Jerome moved so frequently. While in Georgia, Barbara executed a 15-month lease for an apartment in Birmingham, beginning April 8, 2024. Barbara leased the apartment so that Jerome could be evaluated and treated for an eye condition at the "UAB Callahan Eye Foundation." On April 15, 2024, the Alabama Department of Human Resources ("DHR") filed a petition with the probate court, pursuant to the Adult Protective Services Act ("the APSA"), § 38-9-1 et seq., Ala. Code 1975, alleging that Barbara, who was then 82 years old, was an "adult in need of protective services," as that term is defined in § 38-9-2, Ala. Code 1975, 2 SC-2025-0826 which is part of the APSA.1 The petition claimed, in relevant part, that Barbara had been found in her apartment soiled in urine; that she had been unable to ambulate; that she reportedly suffers from dementia; that she had been incoherent or unable to answer questions upon assessment; that she was unwilling or lacking in capacity to give consent to DHR to arrange for placement and/or other protective services; and, that there was no guardian or other person with the legal authority to assume responsibility for her assistance. The petition also sought the appointment of a temporary guardian ad litem and conservator, if necessary.2 To establish jurisdiction, the petition asserted that Barbara 1Section 38-9-2(2) defines an "adult in need of protective services" as "[a] person 18 years of age or older whose behavior indicates that he or she is mentally incapable of adequately caring for himself or herself and his or her interests without serious consequences to himself or herself or others, or who, because of physical or mental impairment, is unable to protect himself or herself from abuse, neglect, exploitation, sexual abuse, or emotional abuse by others, and who has no guardian, relative, or other appropriate person able, willing, and available to assume the kind and degree of protection and supervision required under the circumstances." 2DHR filed a separate petition, alleging that Jerome, who suffers from dementia, was also in need of protective services; however, this appeal concerns only Barbara. 3 SC-2025-0826 uses Alabama as a "significant-connection state," pursuant to § 26-2B- 203, Ala. Code 1975, a part of the Alabama Uniform Adult Guardianship and Protective Proce