Mother Removed as Guardian for Coaching Daughter to Lie in Court

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirms the removal of a co-guardian, finding her unfit to continue serving when she coached her developmentally disabled daughter to lie to support her petition in court. In Re the Matter of the Guardianship of Sarah Turner, Mary Luedtke v. Deborah Hubers, (Ind. App., No. 22A-GU-475, July 13, 2022).

Ms. Sarah Turner is an incapacitated adult, and her mother, Ms. Mary Luedtke, served as her sole guardian. In 2011, Luedtke moved to Florida and left Ms. Turner with her sister, Ms. Deborah Hubers, who became co-guardian.

In 2014, Ms. Luedtke returned to Indiana and later began to disagree with Ms. Hubers about the appropriate educational program for her daughter. In 2020, Ms. Luedtke asked Ms. Hubers to withdraw as Turner’s co-guardian. When she refused, Ms. Luedtke petitioned the court to have her removed. Ms. Hubers counter-petitioned, asking that Ms. Luedtke be removed instead.

The trial court conducted hearings in 2021. Ms. Turner testified and was unable to state her age, although she did respond to questions. She said she was in court “to get Aunt Debbie off the guardianship” and that Ms. Hubers was “trying to control their lives.” She added that her educational program was unsafe and claimed she had returned a birthday card to Ms. Hubers with a handwritten message.

Ms. Turner’s long-term program specialist testified, however, that Ms. Turner did not have the ability to independently draft a letter or card, as she could only write her name, copy a letter, or have her hand guided to write something.

The trial court ordered the removal of Ms. Luedtke as co-guardian. The trial court found Ms. Turner’s testimony was coached and rehearsed, and said it was “extremely disturbed” that Ms. Luedtke had coached a developmentally disabled ward to lie in her favor in court. It concluded that while there was no estate mismanagement, Ms. Luedtke was unsuitable to continue serving as her daughter’s co-guardian.

Ms. Luedtke appeals on the sole issue of whether the trial court abused its discretion.

Findings and orders issued in guardianship proceedings are within the discretion of the trial court, according to the Court of Appeals. It states that the findings of the trial court have evidentiary findings supporting the conclusion that co-guardian Ms. Luedtke coached and manipulated the testimony of an incapacitated adult ward of the court.

It affirms that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in removing her as Ms. Turner’s co-guardian.

Access the full text of this decision.