In the Matter of the Guardianship of Timothy Monkhouse , 919 N.W.2d 636 ( 2018 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 17-1099
Filed May 2, 2018
IN THE MATTER OF THE
GUARDIANSHIP OF TIMOTHY
MONKHOUSE,
TIMOTHY MONKHOUSE,
Ward-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Craig E. Block,
Associate Probate Judge.
Timothy Monkhouse appeals the probate court order establishing a limited
guardianship. AFFIRMED.
Magdalena B. Reese of Cooper, Goedicke, Reimer & Reese, P.C., West
Des Moines, for appellant.
Carl Monkhouse, Johnston, pro se appellee.
Kristina Moxley-Monkhouse, Johnston, pro se appellee.
Lynn C. H. Poschner of Borseth Law Office, Altoona, guardian ad litem for
minor child.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Doyle and Bower, JJ.
2
BOWER, Judge.
Timothy Monkhouse appeals the probate court order establishing a limited
guardianship. Timothy claims the petitioners, his parents, failed to prove a
guardianship was necessary. We find substantial evidence supports the
establishment of a guardianship limited to medical decisions, access to medical
information, and determining living arrangements. We affirm the probate court.
A petition for involuntary guardianship is tried at law. Iowa Code § 633.33(2016). The probate court’s factual findings are binding on appeal if they are
supported by substantial evidence. Iowa R. App. P. 6.904(3)(a), see also In re
Guardianship of Murphy, 397 N.W.2d 686, 688 (Iowa 1986).
Timothy Monkhouse was born in 1988. In his late teens Timothy began to
show signs of schizophrenia, including auditory and visual hallucinations. Timothy
was involuntarily committed on six different occasions and has been arrested
multiple times. Timothy does not believe he suffers from schizophrenia and would
often stop taking his medication. While not on his medication Timothy had an
established pattern of hallucinations, paranoia, and refusing to eat.
At the time of the hearing, Timothy had recently been committed at
Broadlawns Medical Center. While committed at Broadlawns, Timothy had
refused to eat for some time. After leaving Broadlawns, Timothy transitioned to a
structured housing facility run by Eyerly Ball. However, Timothy did not feel the
placement was necessary or helpful. He returned to his parents’ home, and he
was regularly attending medical appointments and taking his medication.
The probate court established a limited guardianship allowing Timothy’s
parents to make medical decisions, access Timothy’s medical information, and
3
determine his living arrangements. The probate court specifically found “Timothy
can, for all practical purposes, function as an individual when he is properly
medicated and is on those medications.” Timothy now appeals.
Timothy claims his parents did not establish that a guardianship was
necessary. He points to his ability to live on his own, make day-to-day decisions
regarding his life, care for himself, manage his money, and attend medical
appointments. However, the probate court noted
Most of the problems stem from one; lack of
acknowledgement of the issue and lack of appreciation for what
medication does or doesn’t do for you. It’s like an alcoholic who
doesn’t realize they have a problem or denies they have a problem,
but continues the same pattern. And until they recognize the issue
and get treatment, it’s just a vicious cycle.
And it’s apparent to me you’re in that vicious cycle. You do
well for a period of time and then you repeat the process and you’re
back into Broadlawns or whatever else that gets you back on the
regulated medications to the point where they say you don’t need to
stay there; we’re going to send you home.
But the conditions have always been you’re going to take your
meds. And then you quit taking them.
Testimony by Timothy’s father showed Timothy had a pattern of refusing to
take his medication. During testimony Timothy himself admitted he did not believe
he was schizophrenic and did not believe medication helped him. We find the
guardianship was supported by substantial evidence. Pursuant to Iowa Court Rule
21.26(1), (a), (b), and (e), we affirm the probate court.
AFFIRMED.