Kimberlee N. DeFazio, Esq. filed a petition on behalf of United Health Services Hospitals, Inc. ("UHS") on January 22, 2024, seeking the appointment of a guardian of the person and property of J.W., an alleged incapacitated person. The Court issued an order to show [*2]cause dated January 26, 2024, appointing Mental Hygiene Legal Service (3rd Dept.) as counsel for J.W. and setting the hearing in this matter for February 15, 2024. The order to show cause appointed Nancy J. Williams, Commissioner of the Broome County Department of Social Services (DSS), as temporary guardian of J.W., with the authority to apply for Medicaid on his behalf and assist in discharge planning, but without the authority to agree to J.W.'s discharge from UHS without his consent.

The hearing convened at the Courthouse on February 15, 2024, at which time Mental Hygiene Legal Service (3rd Dept.), Jordan Charnetsky, Esq., of counsel, appeared with J.W.; Kimberlee N. DeFazio, Esq. appeared on behalf of the petitioner, via Microsoft Teams; and C.W., J.W.'s mother, appeared. The Court heard testimony from Charles Shaw, UHS nursing assistant, as part of the petitioner's case-in-chief. J.W. and C.W. testified on behalf of J.W.'s case. J.W. essentially expressed, in open Court, his preference for his mother to make decisions on his behalf if he is unable to do so.

At the close of the hearing, the Court reserved on its ultimate decision as to whether to appoint a guardian for J.W. and, if so, who will be appointed as guardian. Based on the testimony received, the Court determined that the Tioga County Department of Social Services was a more appropriate agency to handle J.W.'s affairs on a temporary basis, based on his residency in Tioga County prior to his admission to UHS. The Court issued an order dated February 23, 2024 discharging Nancy J. Williams as temporary guardian and instead appointing Shawn Yetter, Commissioner of the Tioga County DSS, as temporary guardian of J.W. with the same limited authority as granted to Broome DSS in the order to show cause, including the ability to choose J.W.'s place of abode independent of his consent.

The Court invited counsel to submit written summations. Mr. Charnetsky submitted a closing argument dated March 8, 2024, and Ms. DeFazio submitted a closing argument dated March 12, 2024. The Court received and reviewed both submissions.

The Court received and reviewed an interim status update filed on behalf of the temporary guardian, sworn to on March 12, 2024, which indicates a Tioga County DSS caseworker made an initial contact with J.W. and discussed the need to find appropriate placement for J.W.; the temporary guardian has scheduled an assessment of J.W. with the New York State Office for People with Development Disabilities; and J.W. remained at UHS at that time.

On March 19, 2024, Ms. DeFazio submitted a supplemental affirmation, indicating that J.W. still remains at UHS; efforts to place J.W. locally have not been successful due to recent behaviors he has engaged in; and the temporary guardian declined a bed offer for a skilled nursing facility in New Jersey based on J.W.'s disagreement with this as a discharge plan. Mr. Charnetsky also submitted a supplemental affirmation, reaffirming the position that there are resources in place that obviate the need for a guardian and that discharge to his mother's home is J.W.'s preferred option. The Court's decision follows.

J.W. has been a social admission at Binghamton General Hospital, a hospital operated by UHS, since August 28, 2023. Charles Shaw is a licensed social worker at UHS who has worked with J.W. since his admission in August 2023, meeting with him "formally" seven times, and many more times in an informal way. Mr. Shaw testified that J.W. was brought to the hospital by the police department following an incident in which he allegedly threatened his mother with a [*3]knife. J.W. received a psychiatric evaluation upon his presentation to the hospital and was cleared psychiatrically but admitted to the medical floor despite not needing acute care. Mr. Shaw indicated that the reason for the admission was the lack of a safe discharge plan, due to the incident between Mr. Shaw and his mother, who live in the same apartment. J.W. is currently, and has been since admission, medically ready for discharge from the hospital.

Mr. Shaw indicated J.W. can ambulate on his own; eat on his own; call and place meal orders; dress himself with some prompting and assistance; shower on his own after prompting; and use the bathroom on his own. Mr. Shaw opined that J.W. could not manage his medications on his own; not make or get to a doctor's appointment on his own; and was unable to relay any information about his finances. J.W. remembers who Mr. Shaw is but cannot recall the substance of conversations they have. J.W. was medically deemed to lack capacity for discharge planning and medical decision making by Dr. McCann, a UHS psychiatrist, as of August 28, 2023. J.W. is diagnosed with a major neurocognitive disorder and has cognitive limitations consistent with dementia.

Mr. Shaw indicated the hospital's safe discharge plan for J.W. would be discharge to a skilled nursing home. Referrals for placement have been sent out without any current offer, though three local nursing facilities were delaying a decision pending the outcome of this proceeding. Mr. Shaw has discussed discharge planning options with J.W., whom he indicates cannot understand the conversation. Mr. Shaw has also discussed discharge planning with C.W., who wants J.W. discharged to her apartment.

Mr. Shaw stated the hospital's position is that this is not a viable discharge plan because following the incident that led to J.W.'s hospitalization an order of protection was put in place by the local court, precluding any contact between J.W. and his mother. Mr. Shaw also testified that J.W. requires daily, constant supervision, and the hospital is concerned with C.W.'s ability to provide such supervision.

C.W. currently lives in a one-bedroom apartment in Waverly, New York, with a reclining sofa and air mattress for sleeping arrangements. C.W. has visited J.W. at the hospital, under supervision by hospital security. C.W. was herself recently admitted to the hospital for eight days for a health issue. Mr. Shaw confirmed that the hospital would have concerns about a discharge to C.W.'s home even if the order of protection were not in effect.

J.W. testified in opposition to the petition. During his testimony, J.W. was questioned about a power of attorney naming C.W. as agent, and a health care proxy naming C.W. as agent, both executed by J.W. on February 9, 2024, under the supervision of his counsel in this proceeding, after the filing of this petition. In his direct testimony, with some prompting, he expressed recollection of signing these documents, which were admitted into evidence. J.W. clearly indicated he wants his mother to make decisions on his behalf if he is not able to make his own decisions. J.W. was not able to say where he currently was, could not say whether he currently takes medications, and indicated he just wants to be able to work again.

On cross-examination, J.W. was unable to explain what a health care proxy or power of attorney is. He could not recall going over the documents or the involvement of his court-appointed counsel in the preparation and execution of them. He stated he does not want to go to a nursing home and wants to return home with his mother. He was unable to say how long he has been in the hospital, and does not remember his social worker, Charles Shaw, who testified [*4]immediately before him.

C.W. testified that she is willing to act as agent for J.W. pursuant to the health care proxy and power of attorney. She said that the order of protection was extended for at least three months past its initial December 2023 expiration. She does not want the order of protection in place and has participated in the unsuccessful efforts to not have it extended.^[FN1] She testified that she lied to the police when she called them to her home in August 2023 and told them J.W. was threatening her with a knife. She thought the order of protection would keep J.W. out of her house for one day or a few days. She expresses she would feel safe with J.W. returning to her home. She indicated she believes he can manage his finances and appointments, and he receives Social Security Disability income and Medicaid coverage. She also testified that J.W. previously had a stroke, which has led to his currently difficulty with clear verbal communication. She admitted that she did not get J.W. medical attention when he was complaining of vision issues leading up to the stroke.

On cross-examination, C.W. reaffirmed that she lied when she said J.W. had a knife in his hand on the date of the August incident. She admitted they were bickering, that J.W. was angry, and "got in my face." She agreed to the order of protection at its outset. She admitted she has allowed J.W. to drive her vehicle though he does not have a driver's license.

When J.W. was admitted to the hospital, she and J.W. were living in Owego in an apartment from which she was later evicted for nonpayment of rent. She stated she affirmatively stopped paying the rent. She currently resides in Waverly and confirmed that if she were to go into the hospital again or need to leave the apartment for any other reason, she does not know who could supervise J.W.

In considering this Article 81 petition for the appointment of a guardian, the Court must undertake a three-part analysis. First, the Court must examine whether the alleged incapacitated person ("AIP") has limitations which render him unable to provide for his personal needs, including food, clothing, shelter, health care, safety, or to manage his property and financial affairs. MHL §81.02. If such limitations exist, the Court must then consider whether the AIP has sufficient resources in place, either through efforts of the AIP, others, or statute, that adequately address those needs, obviating the need for a guardian. MHL §§81.02(a)(2), 81.03(a). Finally, if there are limitations that are not adequately addressed by available resources, the Court must consider who should be appointed as guardian, and the scope of the guardian's powers, consistent with the least restrictive alternative standard. MHL §81.01; see also Matter of Kurt T., 64 AD3d 819, 821-822 (3d Dept 2009); Matter of May Far C., 61 AD3d 680, 680 (2d Dept. 2009).

When the Court appoints a guardian based on a finding of the AIP's incapacity, the determination must be based on clear and convincing evidence and requires an additional two-part finding. The Court must find the AIP is likely to suffer harm because he is unable to provide for his personal needs and/or property management, and that the AIP does not "adequately understand and appreciate the nature and consequences of such inability." MHL §81.02(b). In [*5]reaching its determination, the court must give primary consideration to the person's "functional level and functional limitations," including an assessment of the person's ability to manage the activities of daily living related to property management, such as money management and banking; his understanding and appreciation of the nature and consequences of any inability to manage these activities; his preferences, wishes, and values regarding management of these affairs; and the nature and extent of the person's property and finances, in the context of his ability to manage them. See Matter of Maher, 207 AD2d 133 (2d Dept 1994); MHL §§ 81.02(c); 81.03(h). The court must also assess, in pertinent part, "the extent of the demands placed on the person . . . by the nature and extent of that person's property and financial affairs;" any mental disability and the prognosis of the disability; "any medications with which the person is being treated and their effect on the person's behavior, cognition and judgment;" and "other relevant facts and circumstances." MHL §§ 81.02 (c)(4); (d).

The mandate of Article 81 is that the Court must consider J.W.'s personal wishes, preferences and desires, allowing him to make the decisions affecting his life, to the extent he is able to. MHL §81.01; In re Matter of Cheryl B. K., 45 Misc. 1227 (A) (Sup Ct, Broome County 2012). The Court must be careful not to unduly substitute its judgment, or that of others, for J.W.'s judgment. Id.; Matter of Williams, 194 Misc 2d, 793 (Sup Ct, Suffolk County 2003). Article 81 cases are replete with references to respecting the AIP's wishes to the extent possible. Williams, supra; Cheryl B. K., supra; In re Pfluger, 181 Misc 2d, 294 (Sur Ct, New York County 1999). The Court should "approve any act as long as it falls within the range of reasonable actions for a given situation." Pfluger, supra, at 299. Whether to appoint a guardian is a matter of discretion requiring the Court to determine if the AIP actually needs one. Matter of Daniel TT, 39 AD3d 94 (3d Dept. 2007).

The Court finds that petitioner has met its burden, by clear and convincing evidence, that J.W. has limitations that impact his ability to appropriately address his personal and financial affairs, that he does not adequately understand the impact of those limitations, and that he would be at risk of harm if a guardian were not appointed for him. MHL §81.02(a). Mr. Shaw credibly testified as to J.W.'s limitations in completing certain activities of daily living. J.W.'s ability to remember and communicate are compromised. He is unable to provide any financial information. He requires some prompting even for the activities he is able to complete on his own at the hospital, to know to address them. J.W. is unable to effectuate his discharge from the custody of UHS, as he has been a social admission there for nearly seven months. He presented no evidence to dispute the hospital's medical determination that he is unable to engage in discharge planning. The discharge plan he wants—to return to the home of his mother—is not an appropriate one, as evidenced both by Mr. Shaw's testimony and the testimony of C.W.. J.W.'s proposed discharge is not even a legally allowable plan due to the order of protection currently in place.

The Court also finds that J.W. does not have effective resources in place to address his personal or property needs. J.W. executed a health care proxy and power of attorney appointing his mother as agent, though in Court he was unable to explain what they were and did not recall completing them. While the Court has some concern about J.W.'s ability to have executed those documents in the first place, the petitioner has not sought their revocation. The greater concern pertains to the ability of the named agent, C.W., to act as an effective resource for J.W. The Court finds that C.W. is not an effective resource to address J.W.'s needs as presented in this [*6]hearing. Her testimony was not credible. She does not seem to accept the extent of J.W.'s limitations and the needs created by those limitations. She admitted to lying to the police regarding the incident between her and J.W. She did not get J.W. medical attention leading up to his stroke. Her home does not appear to be suitable for both her and J.W. to reside in, and, again, an order of protection remains in place preluding J.W. residing in C.W.'s home. The Court finds that C.W. is also not an effective resource for J.W., as an agent under the health care proxy or power of attorney, with respect to effectuating his discharge from the hospital.

The Court also finds that C.W. would not make a suitable guardian. J.W. effectively nominated C.W. to be considered for appointment as his guardian, should the Court appoint one. "In the absence of a [written, acknowledged] nomination in accordance with section 81.17 of this article, the court shall appoint a person nominated by the person alleged to be incapacitated orally or by conduct during the hearing or trial unless the court determines for good cause that such appointment is not appropriate." MHL § 81.19(c); Cheryl B.K., supra at *3. "[I]t is well established that family members are to be preferred in selecting an appropriate guardian for an incapacitated person." Matter of G.W.C., 4 Misc 3d 1004(A), 1004A (Sup Ct, Tompkins County 2004), citing Matter of Robinson, 272 AD2d 176, 709 (1st Dept 2000). "The appointment of a family member is preferrable, but if a suitable family member is not availab[le], it is within the court's discretion to appoint an outsider." In re Estate of Gustafson, 308 AD2d 305, 307 (1st Dept 2003). The established preference for a relative may be overridden by a showing that the proposed guardian-relative has rendered inadequate care to the incapacitated person, has interests adverse to the incapacitated person or otherwise is unsuitable to exercise the powers necessary to assist the incapacitated person. Id.

The Court finds that C.W. is unable to exercise as guardian the powers necessary to assist J.W. with respect to his discharge and placement for the same reasons the Court concluded she is not an effective agent for J.W.

The Court hereby appoints the Commissioner of the Tioga County Department of Social Services as guardian of the person and property of J.W., with the authority enumerated below, tailored to effectuate J.W.'s discharge and placement. The Court will leave the health care proxy naming C.W. as agent in place, as she is best equipped to make medical decisions on J.W.'s behalf. The power of attorney will also not be revoked, as that relief was not requested, and the document does not appear to act as an evident impairment to the appointed guardian's authority to discharge and place J.W.^[FN2]

The guardian will be granted the authority to decide the place of abode of J.W., who remains placed at UHS. The Tioga County DSS, as temporary guardian, has declined a bed offer at a skilled nursing facility in New Jersey. It is the Court's understanding that this offer was declined based on J.W. not being agreeable to such a discharge plan. A guardian granted personal needs authority is tasked with "afford[ing] the incapacitated person the greatest amount of independence and self-determination with respect to personal needs in light of that person's functional level, understanding and appreciation of that person's functional limitations, and personal wishes, preferences and desires with regard to managing the activities of daily living." [*7]MHL 81.20(a)(7).

A guardian must take the incapacitated person's wishes into account when making personal needs decisions like choosing place of abode. The incapacitated person's wishes are but one factor that the guardian considers when making such decisions. Such consideration for a stated preference by an incapacitated person must be weighed against the person's functional level, understanding, and appreciation of his own limitations; the less an incapacitated person appreciates and has insight into such limitations, the less it can be said the incapacitated person can express a reasonable desire regarding managing his activities of daily living, including choosing a place of abode.

It is an untenable situation for the guardian to continue to refuse discharge to any skilled nursing facility and continue J.W.'s stay in a hospital setting indefinitely. That is the current situation and the basis of the petitioner's application for a guardian, which has been granted. Getting J.W. discharged and placed is his key proven limitation. The Court anticipates that upon the guardian addressing that limitation, which will evidently include use of the granted financial powers to identify and marshal assets, apply for Medicaid and redirect J.W.'s income, a petition for discharge may be appropriate. J.W.'s resources, found ineffective for discharge and related purposes but left in place otherwise and preferable to him, may obviate the need for a long-term guardianship.

Now, therefore, in furtherance of this decision, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, that SHAWN YETTER, Commissioner of the Tioga County Department of Social Services, and/or their designees and/or successors in office, with offices located at 1062 State Route 38, Owego, New York 13827, is hereby appointed guardian (the "Guardian") of the person and property of J.W.; and it is further

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, that the temporary guardianship authority granted to Shawn Yetter, Commissioner of the Tioga County Department of Social Services, by order dated February 23, 2024, is terminated; and it is further

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, that filing of a bond by the Guardian be dispensed with; and it is further

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, that for good cause shown, the record of these proceedings is sealed and may only be opened or inspected upon further order of the Court, except for the Guardian, the attorneys of record for the parties, and the Court Examiner; and it is further

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, that the Guardian will file the designation required by Section 81.26 of the Mental Hygiene Law; and it is further

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, that pursuant to Section 81.27 of the Mental Hygiene Law, within five days after the guardian has filed the designation, a Commission in the due form of law shall be issued by the Clerk of the Court; and it is further

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, that the Guardian shall send a copy of the signed guardian order to the Supreme Court Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, P.O. Box 7288 Capital Station, Albany, New York 12224-0288, and to the Broome County Court Examiner, Jo A. Fabrizio, Esq., 84 Court Street, Suite 201, Binghamton, NY 13901; and it is further

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, that the Guardian shall file a copy of the Commission [*8]with the Court and shall serve a copy on the Court Examiner promptly upon issuance; and it is further

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, that the authority of the Guardian shall extend to all of the property of J.W., both real and personal; and it is further

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, that all persons are hereby directed and commanded to deliver to the Guardian upon demand and presentation of a certified copy of the Commission, all personal property of J.W. of every kind and nature which may be in their possession or under their control; and it is further

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, that pursuant to Sections 81.21 and 81.22 of the Mental Hygiene Law, the Guardian shall have the following powers constituting the least restrictive form of intervention consistent with J.W.'s functional limitations:

a) Transact any banking business including establishing checking accounts, savings accounts, certificates of deposit, collecting, negotiating, depositing, withdrawing, endorsing checks, drafts, or any negotiable instrument and any incidental powers related thereto.

b) Marshal all income and assets, and exercise the necessary incidental powers to effectuate such power including the power to open and inventory safe deposit boxes, and the power to redirect and open any and all mail directed to J.W.

c) Prepare, complete, and sign all tax returns, and pay the tax due as shown by said returns; appear on behalf of J.W. before Federal, State and Local taxing authorities; prosecute, defend and settle all tax claims, litigation, assessments and levies relating to any taxing authority or any type of tax.

d) Establish, terminate, change or complete any transaction regarding pension retirement incentives, IRA/Keogh/SEP and similar plans, programs and annuities.

e) Compromise, forgive, collect, prosecute, pay, and settle bills and debts with creditors and debtors.

f) Endorse, collect, negotiate, deposit and withdraw Social Security, pension or annuity benefit checks.

g) Apply, negotiate, prosecute and settle actions, claims and arbitrations for government entitlements and benefits of all kinds with any governmental administration or agency. Any settlement for the payment or receipt of more than $10,000 shall require the approval of the Court.

h) Convey, release or assign any other interests of J.W. in tangible personal property with a value less than $1,000.

i) Enter into, rescind, assign, repudiate any and all contracts.

j) Authorize access to or release confidential records.

k) Retain attorneys, accountants, auctioneers, appraisers, property managers and real estate brokers and pay the necessary disbursements and fees for such individuals in amounts not to exceed $1,500 per year.

l) Pay or pre-pay the funeral expenses of J.W.

m) Lease real property for the benefit of J.W.

aa) Determine who shall provide the personal care, health care and assistance for the personal needs and health of J.W.; to enter into contracts for the same and pay such persons, firms or corporations.

bb) Make decisions regarding social environment and other social aspects of the life of J.W.

cc) Determine whether J.W. should travel or should have a license to drive an automobile.

dd) Make decisions regarding education of J.W. and participation in mental health programs and the necessary powers to implement such decisions.

ee) Choose the place of abode of J.W., consistent with the Findings pursuant to Section 81.15 of the Mental Hygiene Law, including the power to move J.W. to a nursing home or other residential facility as those terms are defined in the Public Health Law Section 2801, and consistent with the factors set forth in Section 81.22(a)(9) of the Mental Hygiene Law.

And it is further

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, that pursuant to Section 81.20 of the Mental Hygiene Law the Guardian shall:

(a) exercise only those powers that the Guardian is authorized to exercise by order of the Court;

(b) exercise the utmost care and diligence when acting on behalf of J.W.;

(c) exhibit the utmost degree of trust, loyalty and fidelity in relation to J.W.;

(d) visit J.W. not less than four times per year;

(e) afford J.W. the greatest amount of independence and self-determination with respect to property management and personal needs in light of J.W.'s functional level, understanding and appreciation of her functional limitation, and personal wishes, preferences and desires; and it is further

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, that pursuant to Section 81.20 of Mental Hygiene Law the Guardian shall:

(a) preserve, protect and account for J.W.'s property and financial resources faithfully;

(b) determine whether J.W. has a will, determine the location of any will, and the appropriate persons to notify in the event of the death of the incapacitated person, and in such event notify those persons;

(c) use the property, financial resources and income of J.W. only to maintain and support J.W. and those dependent on J.W., if any;

(d) at the termination of the appointment, deliver the property of J.W. to the person or persons legally entitled thereto;

(e) file with the recording officer where any real property of J.W. is located the acknowledged statement required by §81.20(a)(6)(vi) of the Mental Hygiene Law;

(f) perform all other duties required by law; and it is further

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, that to the extent of the net estate available therefor, the Guardian shall provide for the maintenance, support and personal well-being of J.W.; and it is further

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, that pursuant to Section 81.39 of the Mental Hygiene [*9]Law the training of the Guardian is hereby waived; and it is further

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, that pursuant to Section 81.30 of the Mental Hygiene Law no later than ninety days after the issuance of the Commission to the Guardian, the Guardian shall file with the Court (at the office of the Broome County Clerk) an initial report in a form prescribed by the Court, a copy of which should be mailed to Broome County Court Examiner, Jo A. Fabrizio, Esq., 84 Court Street, Suite 201, Binghamton, NY 13901; and it is further

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, that the Guardian shall file during the month of May in the Office of the Clerk of the Court and the Broome County Clerk an annual report in the form required by Section 81.31 of the Mental Hygiene Law, a copy of which should be mailed to Broome County Court Examiner, Jo A. Fabrizio, Esq., 84 Court Street, Suite 201, Binghamton, NY 13901; and it is further

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, that upon the death of J.W. or upon any other termination of the guardianship, the Guardian shall file and serve a statement of death pursuant to Section 81.44 of the Mental Hygiene Law, and shall file the Final Report and Petition to be Discharged as Guardian, as required by Sections 81.33 and/or 81.34 of the Mental Hygiene Law; and it is further

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, that the Guardian shall not be compensated; and it is further

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, that pursuant to Section 81.16(e) of the Mental Hygiene Law a copy of this Order and Judgment shall be personally served upon and explained to J.W. in a manner which J.W. can reasonably be expected to understand by Mental Hygiene Legal Service (3rd Dept.); and it is further

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, that pursuant to §81.16(c)(3) of the Mental Hygiene Law, notice of all further proceedings with regard to this matter shall be given to the following persons/entities, unless otherwise directed by the Court: J.W.; TIOGA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES; C.W.; J.W.'s BROTHER; DIRECTOR OF ANY FACILITY IN WHICH J.W. RESIDES; and BROOME COUNTY COURT EXAMINER; and it is further

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, that pursuant to §81.16(c)(4) of the Mental Hygiene Law, notice of J.W.'s death, the intended disposition of the remains of J.W., funeral arrangements and final resting place (when that information is known or can be reasonably ascertained by the guardian) shall be given by the Guardian to the following persons: C.W. and J.W.'s BROTHER; and it is further

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, that pursuant to §81.16(c)(5) of the Mental Hygiene Law, notice of J.W.'s transfer to a medical facility shall be given to the following persons: C.W. and J.W.'s BROTHER; and it is further

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, that the duration of the Guardianship shall be until further Order of this Court.