Qualifications of Guardians Selected for Adults

1. Law
2. Georgia Code
3. Guardian and Ward
4. Guardians of Adults
5. General Provisions
6. Qualifications of Guardians Selected for Adults

1. Only an individual may serve as guardian of an adult, except in the event a public guardian or the Department of Human Services is appointed pursuant to subsection (b.1) of Code Section 29-4-3.
2. No individual may be appointed as guardian of an adult who:
   1. Is a minor, a ward, or a protected person;
   2. Has a conflict of interest with the adult unless the court determines that the conflict of interest is insubstantial or that the appointment would be in the adult's best interest; or
   3. Is an owner, operator, or employee of a long-term care or other caregiving institution or facility at which the adult is receiving care, unless related to the adult by blood, marriage, or adoption.
3. No entity may be appointed as guardian of an adult which:
   1. Has a conflict of interest with the adult unless the court determines that the conflict of interest is insubstantial or that the appointment would be in the adult's best interest; or
   2. Is a long-term care or other caregiving institution or facility at which the adult is receiving care.

(Code 1981, §29-4-2, enacted by Ga. L. 2004, p. 161, § 1; Ga. L. 2005, p. 509, § 2/HB 394; Ga. L. 2009, p. 453, § 2-2/HB 228.)

Editor's notes.

- Ga. L. 2005, p. 509, § 9/HB 394, not codified by the General Assembly, provides: "This Act shall become effective on July 1, 2005, and all appointments of guardians of the person made pursuant to former Title 29 shall continue in effect and shall thereafter be governed by the provisions of this Act."

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Editor's notes.

- In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, decisions under former O.C.G.A. § 29-5-2 are included in the annotations for this Code section.

Failure to explain reason for selection of county guardian.

- Probate court, when selecting a new guardian for appellant, erred in failing to consider appellant's next of kin; because the hearing was not recorded, and because the order failed to explain the reason the probate court selected the county guardian as the new guardian, the record supported appellant's argument that the probate court failed to consider the statutory preferences of former O.C.G.A. § 29-5-2(c) in naming a new guardian. In re Phillips, No. A02A2368, Ga. App. , S.E.2d (Oct. 9, 2002) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 29-5-2).

Cited in Twitty v. Akers, 218 Ga. App. 467, 462 S.E.2d 418 (1995); Gary v. Weiner, 233 Ga. App. 284, 503 S.E.2d 898 (1998).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 39 Am. Jur. 2d, Guardian and Ward, §§ 41, 42, 43, 46 et seq.

C.J.S.

- 57 C.J.S., Mental Health, § 135 et seq.

Download our app to see the most-to-date content.