In the Matter of the Guardianship of S.h., a Minor Tamera Grace Troesken, Appellant v. Larry He — Danielson, J…

Summary

Justice Danielson, dissenting, would affirm the circuit court’s denial of Tamera’s petition because the circuit court applied the required burden and did not clearly err in finding that the guardianship remained necessary. He also maintained that the parental-interest presumption was properly recognized and rebutted, and that the majority improperly substituted its judgment for that of the probate court. Justice Baker, concurring, agreed that reversal was required but would rely on a different analysis, concluding that withdrawal of consent established that the guardianship was no longer necessary and that the guardians failed to rebut the parental presumption.