In Re Guardianship of Il

── In Re Guardianship of Il ── Court: Michigan Court of Appeals Date: May 20, 2026 Category: General If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports. STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS In re Guardianship of IL. PAUL LETISSIER, MICHELLE HAIGHT, and UNPUBLISHED RENEE BOOGREN, Guardian of IL, a legally May 20, 2026 protected individual, 9:18 AM Appellees, v No. 377144 Oakland Probate Court TERESE SHELLEDY, LC No. 2021-399681-GA Appellant. Before: TREBILCOCK, P.J., and CAMERON and LIEVENSE, JJ. PER CURIAM. Appellant, Terese Shelledy, appeals as of right the probate court’s order denying her request to be reinstated as guardian. We affirm. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND IL has four adult children: Paul LeTissier, Michell Haight, Renee Boogren, and Shelledy. The siblings have a contentious relationship and split into essentially two factions: LeTissier and Shelledy, and Haight and Boogren. After Haight petitioned to appoint a conservator for IL, the siblings ultimately entered into a settlement agreement that made LeTissier conservator and Shelledy guardian. But as time went on, tensions between the siblings impacted Shelledy’s actions as guardian until Haight ultimately petitioned to remove her. As bases for her petition, Haight alleged that Shelledy: (1) moved IL to a new care facility without telling Haight or Boogren; (2) imposed severe restrictions on Haight’s and Boogren’s visits that did not apply to LeTissier, including prohibiting them from taking IL outside of the facility; (3) had repeatedly taken away Haight’s access to IL’s medical records; and (4) failed to respond to Haight’s and Boogren’s concerns about IL’s medical problems. In addition, Haight had to petition for access to surveillance cameras in IL’s room at the care facility. Shelledy, who lives in Wisconsin, had -1- installed cameras in IL’s home, and then in her room at the facility when she moved, for IL’s welfare, but refused to give Haight or Boogren access. At a hearing, the probate court noted that Shelledy sounded “very controlling[,]” and warned that she was in danger of being removed if she continued her behavior. After Shelledy’s actions remained unchanged, the probate court held another hearing. IL was not present, nor was she represented by counsel, and no one was sworn in to give their statements. In light of Shelledy’s failure to heed the probate court’s warning, it removed her as guardian and appointed Boogren to replace her. LeTissier moved for reconsideration, arguing that IL had not been properly informed and represented in the proceedings concerning Shelledy’s removal. The probate court granted the motion and made Boogren a temporary guardian, pending appointment of a full guardian after a proper hearing. Shelledy now appeals.1 II. STANDARDS OF REVIEW “We review the probate court’s dispositional rulings for an abuse of discretion.” In re Guardianship of Redd, 321 Mich App 398, 403; 909 NW2d 289 (2017). “A probate court abuses its discretion when it chooses an outcome outside the range of reasonable and principled outcomes.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). “We review the probate court’s findings of fact for clear error.” Id. “A factual finding is clearly erroneous when this Court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). Finally, we review questions of statutory interpretation de novo. Id. at 404.