The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine held that adults who are the subject of guardianship or conservatorship proceedings have the right to effective assistance of counsel and may assert ineffective-assistance claims, but affirmed the probate court’s denial of a petition to terminate guardianship and its appointment of a conservator, where clear and convincing evidence supported both decisions and the petitioner suffered no prejudice from his attorney’s failure to obtain an independent psychological evaluation. In Guardianship of R., No. Cum-25-331 (Me. May 12, 2026).
R. had experienced multiple strokes and suffered from vascular dementia. He lived in an assisted living facility and required help with activities of daily living such as washing, dressing, and taking medications. In 2022, the probate court appointed the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) as R.’s guardian. In 2024, R. filed a petition to terminate the guardianship, and the DHHS filed a petition for the appointment of a conservator, nominating itself. The probate court denied R’s petition to terminate his guardianship and appointed the DHHS as his conservator. R. appealed, asserting that the probate court had erred in not terminating his guardianship and in appointing a conservator. He also argued that his attorney was ineffective.
The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine noted the probate court’s factual findings, including R.’s poor memory and lack of insight about his limitations; aggressiveness toward the staff at the assisted living facility; repeated falls and hospitalizations; a large inheritance from his deceased mother’s estate; and a history of giving money to a woman he had never met but believed was his girlfriend. The court determined that there was clear and convincing evidence supporting the probate court’s findings that termination of R.’s guardianship was inappropriate and that the appointment of a conservator was necessary.
The court also addressed R.’s contention that his attorney’s failure to obtain an independent psychological evaluation of him before the probate court hearing was prejudicially deficient. The court noted precedent holding that, where there is a right to counsel, there is also a right to effective counsel. For the first time, the court explicitly recognized that adults who are the subject of guardianship or conservatorship proceedings or who seek the termination of their guardianship or conservatorships—to whom the legislature has granted the right to court-appointed counsel—have the right to the effective assistance of counsel at all stages of the proceedings and may assert claims that their attorney was prejudicially ineffective.
The court adopted the standard set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984): To show ineffective assistance of counsel, a petitioner must demonstrate that their attorney’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and had an adverse effect on the outcome of the proceedings. Although Strickland involved an ineffective-assistance claim following a criminal conviction, the court found that individuals who are the subject of guardianship and conservatorship proceedings may face similar substantial deprivations of liberty; thus, the same test should apply.
The court further addressed the procedure for raising such claims. When there are no new facts in support of an individual’s ineffective-assistance claim, they may raise it on direct appeal. In cases in which the basis for the claim is not apparent from the record, the individual must file a motion for relief from judgment in the trial court pursuant to Maine Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6). The trial court’s findings will amplify the record if the motion is denied and the individual decides to appeal. In both situations, an individual pursuing an ineffective-assistance claim in guardianship or conservatorship proceedings must submit at least one affidavit that specifies the basis for the claim. Claims brought by direct appeal are subject to the deadlines set forth in the Maine Rules of Appellate Procedure. Individuals who file a Rule 60(b)(6) motion in a guardianship or conservatorship proceeding must do so within one year of the expiration of the time to file a notice of appeal from the judgment in the proceeding.
The court found that the basis for R.’s claim was apparent from the record and that it could assess his claim on direct appeal. It found that there were no facts in the record supporting R.’s assertion that an independent psychological assessment would have established that he had cognitive deficits that limited his ability to care for himself. Consequently, the court ruled that R. had suffered no prejudice from the lack of the assessment and his ineffective-assistance claim lacked merit.
The court affirmed the probate court’s judgment.
Subscribe to the Knowledge Bank.
