McCoy v. McCoy

── McCoy v. McCoy ── Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon Date: May 13, 2026 Author: Kamins Category: General 532 May 13, 2026 No. 406 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON In the Matter of the Guardianship of Melanie Christine McCoy, aka Melanie Christine Willer. Melanie Christine McCOY, aka Melanie Christine Willer, Appellant, v. Spencer C. McCOY and Nina C. McCoy, Respondents. Multnomah County Circuit Court 24PR00539; A184829 Patrick W. Henry, Judge. Argued and submitted November 10, 2025. David Boyer argued the cause for appellant. Also on the opening brief was Disability Rights Oregon. Also on the reply brief were Meghan Apshaga and Disability Rights Oregon. George W. Kelly argued the cause and filed the brief for respondents. Before Tookey, Presiding Judge, Kamins, Judge, and Jacquot, Judge. KAMINS, J. Cite as 349 Or App 532 (2026) 533 KAMINS, J. In this guardianship case, appellant challenges the trial court’s judgment appointing her parents as co-guard- ians. In a single assignment of error, appellant contends that the trial court erred in concluding that she was inca- pacitated within the meaning of ORS 125.005(5). Because the facts do not establish that appellant was incapacitated under that statute, we reverse and remand with instruc- tions to enter an order terminating the guardianship.1 As discussed below, in determining whether to grant a guardianship, a court must determine three things: (1) whether the respondent is incapacitated; (2) whether appointment of a guardian is necessary to provide continuing care and supervision; and (3) whether the proposed guard- ian is qualified, suitable, and willing to serve. De La Cruz Gomez and De La Cruz, 342 Or App 659, 662, 577 P3d 1200 (2025). The dispositive issue here is whether the trial court correctly determined that appellant was incapacitated. We begin with a brief overview of adult guardianships. I. ADULT GUARDIANSHIPS An adult guardian is a person appointed by the court to promote and protect the well-being of an inca- pacitated adult. ORS 125.300(1)(a); ORS 125.305(1)(a). Guardians have a statutory duty to promote the protected person’s self-determination and to make decisions that the guardian reasonably believes the person would make if able. ORS 125.315(1)(g), (h). A guardian’s duties include provid- ing for the protected person’s “care, comfort, and mainte- nance.” ORS 125.315(1)(b). That may include establishing residence, taking reasonable care of the person’s personal effects, arranging for the protected person’s training or education, and making health care decisions. ORS 125.315 (1)(a) - (c). A guardianship proceeding begins with the filing of a petition. ORS 125.010(2). The petition must include 1 Because we conclude that the trial court erred in concluding that appellant was incapacitated, we do not need to address appellant’s additional arguments that the remaining statutory requirements for the appointment of a guardian were not satisfied. 534 McCoy v. McCoy identifying information about the respondent, the peti- tioner’s interest, identifying information and background disclosures regarding the proposed guardian, a statement that the proposed guardian is willing and able to serve, and information about any existing fiduciaries or legal represen- tatives for the respondent. ORS 125.055(2). When a person petitions for an adult guardianship, the court must appoint a court visitor. ORS 125.150(1)(a)(A) (“The court shall appoint a visitor upon the filing of a peti- tion in a protective proceeding that seeks the appointment of * * * [a] guardian for an adult respondent.” (Emphasis added.)); see also Spady v. Hawkins, 155 Or