{¶ 18} The law is clear that a probate court, while not bound by a party's nomination of a guardian, must at least consider the nomination. In re Guardianship of MacHaney , 9th Dist. Summit No. 22088, 2004-Ohio-5956, 2004 WL 2535414, ¶ 15 ("the probate court abused its discretion in failing to dismiss the guardianship appointment of Joseph and in failing to consider Willie Mae's durable power of attorney in which she nominates Nathanial as her prospective guardian"); In re Medsker , 66 Ohio App.3d 219, 223, 583 N.E.2d 1091 (1990) ("the probate court was required to consider Papay's nomination" and "erred in selecting Daniel Medsker as guardian and in failing to consider Papay for this position"). {¶ 19} Rosenberger's nomination of Northwest Trustee as guardian, however, was not the basis on which it sought to intervene in the guardianship proceedings nor was such appointment requested.
Such failure has been held to constitute reversible error where the proposed guardian has been properly nominated. In re Guardianship of McHaney, 9th Dist. Summit No. 22088, 2004-Ohio-5956, ¶ 15 ("the probate court abused its discretion in failing to dismiss the guardianship appointment of Joseph and in failing to consider Willie Mae's durable power of attorney in which she nominates Nathanial as her prospective guardian"); In re Medsker, 66 Ohio App.3d 219, 223, 583 N.E.2d 1091 (8th Dist. 1990) ("the probate court was required to consider Papay's nomination" and "erred in selecting Daniel Medsker as guardian and in failing to consider Papay for this position").
{¶ 16} When a court considers a motion for appointment of a guardian, it must make a two-part determination: "(1) it must first determine that a guardian is required; and (2) it must also determine who shall be appointed guardian." In re Guardianship of Friend (Dec. 16, 1993), 8th Dist. No. 64018, citing In re Medsker (1990), 66 Ohio App.3d 219. In the absence of a written nomination by the ward of who shall be appointed guardian, the probate court is required to choose a guardian who will promote the best interests of the ward.
{¶ 6} When a court considers a motion for appointment of a guardian, it must make a two-part determination: (1 ) to first determine that a guardian is required for the potential ward or person for whom the guardian would act; and (2) to also decide who shall be appointed guardian. In re Medsker (1990), 66 Ohio App.3d 219; In re Guardianship of Simmons, Wood App. No. WD-02-039, 2003-Ohio-5416, ¶ 17; In the Matter of Constable (Mar. 30, 1998), Clermont App. No. CA97-11-101; R.C. 2111.01 et seq. It appears uncontested that the mother required a guardian.
{¶ 17} When a court considers a motion for appointment of a guardian, it must make a two-part determination: "(1) it must first determine that a guardian is required; and (2) it must also determine who shall be appointed guardian." In re Guardianship of Friend (Dec. 16, 1993), Cuyahoga App. No. 64018, citing In re Medsker (1990), 66 Ohio App.3d 219. In the absence of a written nomination by the ward of who shall be appointed guardian, the probate court is required to choose a guardian who will promote the best interests of the ward.
When a court considers a motion for appointment of a guardian, it must make a two-part determination: "(1) it must first determine that a guardian is required; and (2) it must also determine who shall be appointed guardian." In re Guardianship of Friend (Dec. 16, 1993), 8th Dist. No. 64018, 1993 Ohio App. LEXIS 6025, at *5, citing In re Medsker (1990), 66 Ohio App.3d 219. Probate courts have broad discretion when appointing guardians, and their decisions will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion. In re Guardianship of Owen, 11th App. No. 2001-L-013, 2001 Ohio App. LEXIS 5856, at *3, 2001-Ohio-8824; citing In re Estate of Bednarczuk (1992), 80 Ohio App.3d 548, 551.
Based upon the evidence presented at the hearing, a probate court must engage in a two part determination: (1) it must first determine that a guardian is necessary; and (2) it must determine who shall be appointed guardian. In re Medsker (1990), 66 Ohio App.3d 219. "The probate court's primary responsibility in choosing who shall serve as guardian is to ensure that the person appointed will promote the best interests of the ward."