In re Guardianship of Thomas
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as In re Guardianship of Thomas, 2017-Ohio-8331.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT In the Matter of the Guardianship of Jacqueline A. Thomas, : : (Stephanie Thomas, No. 17AP-287 (Prob. No. 549364) : Appellant). : (REGULAR CALENDAR) D E C I S I O N Rendered on October 26, 2017 On brief:. Stephanie Thomas, pro se. APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, Probate Division TYACK, P.J. {¶ 1} Stephanie Thomas is appealing from a judgment entry journalized in the Probate Court of Franklin County. She assigns two assignments of error for our consideration: [I.] THE LOWER COURT ERRORED IN VIOLATING ORC 2111.13, AND 2109.24 AND 2101.24 [II.] THE LOWER COURT ERRORED IN NOT ALLOWING ANY OF THE QUALIFIED FAMILY TO BE GUARDIAN ON INRRELEVANT REASONING WHEN THEY MET THE ORC REQUIREMENT AND MADE RETALIATION THREAT AGAINST FAMILY IN STATEMENT FOR REQUESTING GUARDIANSHIP OF THEIR RELATIVE BY MAGISTRATE MORRIS. (Sic passim.) {¶ 2} At one time, Stephanie was the guardian for her sister Jacqueline Thomas. On March 2, 2016, Stephanie was removed based on a finding by a magistrate that Stephanie lacked the ability to make appropriate decisions for Jacqueline. Stephanie No. 17AP-287 2 appealed that decision to this appellate court and, in November 2016, we affirmed Stephanie's removal. {¶ 3} Since then, Jacqueline's mother applied to be guardian but was refused because the mother did not pass the background check and because she had pending criminal charges. {¶ 4} Then an uncle of Stephanie's applied to be named the guardian, but he changed his mind. The uncle changed his mind again. He tried to get the guardianship moved to an adjoining county, but the adjoining county refused to accept it. {¶ 5} In September 2016, the Franklin County Guardianship Service Board applied to be an interim guardian and was appointed guardian. The uncle then renewed his application to be named the guardian. Stephanie has also tried to be named the guardian again. Both were denied for separate reasons. {¶ 6} Stephanie filed several subsequent court documents but relief was denied on each for a variety of reasons, including the fact that Stephanie seems to be trying to practice law without a license. {¶ 7} Stephanie cannot represent the interests of others in a court of law. She cannot represent her sister, her mother, or her uncle. At most, she can represent her own interests, but she has provided no reason to believe that anything has changed since we affirmed her removal as guardian. {¶ 8} The assignments of error are overruled. The judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, Probate Division, is affirmed. Judgment affirmed. DORRIAN and HORTON, JJ., concur.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
