In the INTEREST OF Edward William SPOHR, Protected Person, Appellant, and Fremont County Department of Human Services, Appellee.
Page 87
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Page 88
Fremont County District Court No. 18PR30057, Honorable
Stephen A. Groome, Judge
David
R. Brown Law LLC, David R. Brown, Canon City, Colorado, for
Appellant
Brenda
L. Jackson, County Attorney, Nicole L. Bartell, Assistant
County Attorney, Canon City, Colorado, for Appellee
OPINION
MARTINEZ[*], JUSTICE
[¶1]
Respondent,[1] Edward William Spohr, appeals the
district courts order appointing the Fremont County
Department of Human Services (Department) as his guardian. We
hold that the guardianship notice statute did not require
notice to the respondent by personal service of a rescheduled
guardianship hearing because he had proper notice of an
earlier scheduled hearing. We also hold that the evidence was
sufficient to support the district courts decision that the
respondents needs could not be addressed by less restrictive
means and that the court did not abuse its discretion by
refusing to continue the rescheduled hearing. Thus, we
affirm.
I.
Factual Background and Procedural History
[¶2]
Spohr is a seventy-nine-year-old resident at the Valley View
Health Care Center (Valley View). Prior to this case, the
district court had appointed the Department as Spohrs
guardian. On May 17, 2018, a prior division of this court
reversed the appointment for lack of jurisdiction because the
Department had failed to personally serve Spohr with notice
of the guardianship hearing. Spohr v. Fremont Cty. Dept
of Human Servs., 2018 COA 74, ¶ 30, 422 P.3d 625. The
Department petitioned the district court the next day to be
re-appointed as Spohrs permanent guardian and also as his
emergency guardian in the interim. It filed an amended
petition the following week to request only a permanent
guardianship, as it no longer considered an emergency
guardianship necessary.
[¶3]
The following week, on May 24, 2018, the district court
appointed a court visitor and ordered the visitor to conduct
an investigation into the allegations of the guardianship
petition pursuant to section 15-14-305(1), C.R.S. 2019. The
order specified that the hearing on the guardianship petition
would occur on June 12, 2018.
[¶4]
On May 31, the Department filed a notice of a personal
service affidavit. The attached personal service affidavit
stated that Spohr had been personally served with the
original and amended guardianship petitions, as well as a
hearing notice on May 25, 2018. The hearing notice stated
that the hearing on the guardianship petition would be held
on June 12, 2018. The visitor filed a report on June 7, 2018,
concluding that Spohr needed a guardian.
[¶5]
The court held a hearing on the petition on June 12, 2018. A
transcript of the hearing is not in the record, but the
parties agree that at the hearing the court appointed counsel
for Spohr and appointed the Department as Spohrs emergency
guardian. The court entered written orders of these rulings
the next day. The record indicates that the court continued
the hearing on the permanent guardianship appointment at
Spohrs request.
[¶6]
On June 14, the Department filed a notice of a
"continued hearing" on the petition for a
guardianship appointment, set for July 18, 2018. The
Department served the notice on Spohrs counsel
electronically. Spohr then requested that a professional
evaluation be performed to evaluate his current mental health
and ability to make his own decisions, and asked that the
July 18th hearing be continued so that a report on the
evaluation could be completed. The court granted both
requests.
[¶7]
The Department filed another notice of a continued hearing on
the guardianship petition,
Page 89
listing that hearings date as August 28, 2018. This was also
served on Spohrs counsel electronically.
[¶8]
A psychologist performed the professional evaluation and
filed a ten-page report, concluding that Spohr could not
effectively receive and evaluate complex information and that
a guardian was needed to ensure that his basic needs were met
and to protect his assets.
[¶9]
On August 28, 2018, the district court held a hearing on the
guardianship petition. The Department presented testimony
from a Department caseworker who worked with Spohr, a social
service director at Valley View, Spohrs physician, and the
psychologist who performed the professional ...