In Re: F.S.

J-S28004-26 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37 IN RE: F.S., AN INCAPACITATED : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PERSON : PENNSYLVANIA : : APPEAL OF: S.S. : : : : : No. 1301 MDA 2025 Appeal from the Order Entered July 11, 2025 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County Orphans' Court at No(s): 2025-01083 IN RE: F.S., AN INCAPACITATED : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PERSON : PENNSYLVANIA : : APPEAL OF: S.S. : : : : : No. 1671 MDA 2025 Appeal from the Order Entered October 22, 2025 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County Orphans' Court at No(s): 2025-01083 BEFORE: KUNSELMAN, J., KING, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.* MEMORANDUM BY KUNSELMAN, J.: FILED: OCTOBER 29, 2026 S.S. appeals pro se from two orders entered by the orphans’ court regarding his mother’s guardianship. S.S. challenges the first order (at No. 1301 MDA 2025) adjudicating his mother (F.S.) an incapacitated person and appointing guardians for her person and her estate. He also challenges a ____________________________________________ * Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. J-S28004-26 subsequent order (at No. 1671 MDA 2025) granting a petition to approve the sale of F.S.’s home and personal property to pay for her nursing home care. We affirm both orders. The pertinent facts and procedural history are as follows. On April 23, 2025, Emma Darlene Groff (Groff) filed a petition seeking the appointment of an emergency guardian of the person and the estate of her mother, F.S. Following a hearing, the orphans’ court detailed its factual findings and legal conclusions as follows: An emergency guardianship hearing was held on April 28, 2025. [F.S.] appeared during the hearing through advanced communication technology and was represented by court- appointed counsel. At the hearing, [F.S.]’s adult daughter, [Groff], testified that she had noticed her mother exhibiting strange behaviors. Prior to the filing of the petition, [F.S.] lived alone in her own home. During the emergency guardianship hearing, Jennifer Lech, CRNP, qualified as an expert witness. She is employed at Lancaster General Hospital. [Lech] testified that she is board certified in adult-gerontology and has evaluated patients to determine whether they have the capacity to make medical or financial decisions. [Lech] testified that she has performed such examinations more than 100 times. On March 1, 2025, [F.S.] was admitted to Lancaster General Hospital through the emergency department. [F.S.] was brought to the hospital by family who were concerned that she was wandering around outside of her home and had noted that [F.S.] was increasingly forgetful and exhibiting other troubling behaviors. [Lech] evaluated [F.S.] [Lech] determined that [F.S.] has moderate cognitive impairment and dementia with behavioral disturbance. [Lech] determined that [F.S.] is incapable of caring for herself due to her moderate cognitive impairment. [F.S.] is unable to remember to take her medication, provide nutrition for herself, bathe, or provide for her own safety. -2- J-S28004-26 [F.S.] was evaluated by The Memory Center in March 2024 where it was first determined [F.S.] has baseline moderate cognitive impairment. [Lech] performed a St. Louis University Mental Status (“SLUMS”) examination on [F.S.] on April 27, 2025. [F.S.] scored 3 points out of 30 possible points. Scoring fewer than 20 points indicates that the examinee has dementia. [F.S.] was previously evaluated on March 19, 2025. During this examination, a SLUMS test was administered and [F.S.] scored [5] points out of 30 possible points. [F.S.] has physical conditions which require her to take medications daily. [F.S.], on her own, could take the wrong dosage or forget to take her medication entirely, resulting in serious complications. [F.S.] has dementia, which is a progressive disease. [F.S.]’s condition will not improve. Per [Lech]’s examination and observations, [F.S.] requires assistance with activities of daily living. [F.S.] is incapable of formulating reasonable financial decisions or paying her own bills. [F.S.] is incapable of caring for her physical health and safety, cannot make medical decisions, cannot care for daily needs of basic hygiene, cannot drive a vehicle, cannot enter a contract, and cannot hold relevant conversations that are understandable or stay related to the subject matter. As [F.S.] is incapable of caring for herself, she required the appointment of an emergency guardian of her person and of her estate, without which she faced immediate and irreparable harm. [Groff] also testified at this hearing, and indicated that one of her adult brothers signed a joinder agreeing that [Groff] should serve as [F.S.]’s guardian. Her other brother, [S.S.] (the Appellant in this matter) did not sign the joinder. [S.S.] is presently incarcerated for a conviction of murder in the third degree and will likely remain incarcerated for [at least] another three years.[1] ____________________________________________ 1 Our review of the common pleas docket indicates that S.S. pled guilty to third-degree murder in 2013 and the trial court imposed a sentence of fifteen to thirty years. -3- J-S28004-26 [Groff] testified that if named the guardian of [F.S.]’s estate, she would likely sell the home owned by [F.S.] to finance the costs of maintaining her mother in a facility. She further testified that she cannot make arrangements for [F.S.] to reside within her home, even with the help of [S.S.]’s girlfriend, as [Groff] could not physically manage to assist [F.S.] if [F.S.] fell. [Groff] testified that, as guardian, she would place [F.S.]’s interests above her own. Richard Niemeyer, a case manager employed by Lancaster General Hospital, testified that the recommended level of care for [F.S.] is skilled care or assisted living. Orphans’ Court Opinion, 11/21/25, at 2-7 (formatting altered; citations to record omitted). Based on these findings, the orphans’ court concluded that F.S. lacked sufficient mental capacity to make, communicate, or participate in responsible decisions concerning her person and finances, and that the failure to appoint an emergency guardian could result in immediate harm to her person and her estate. The court therefore appointed Groff as emergency guardian of [F.S.]’s person and estate. A hearing on the permanent guardianship petition was held on July 10, 2025. The orphans’ court detailed its factual findings regarding this proceeding as follows: At the start of the hearing, [S.S.] did not appear via advanced communication (although arrangements for him to appear by that means had been made). The court delayed the proceeding to accommodate [S.S.]. [S.S.]’s agent under power of attorney and girlfriend, Tracie L. Hanson ([Hanson]) was present for the entire proceeding. [Hanson] testified that counsel for [Groff] emailed the petition for emergency guardianship [] to her and the she had spoken to [S.S.] about it. [Hanson] confirmed that as the agent under -4- J-S28004-26 [S.S.]’s power of attorney, she has and continues to act on his behalf while he is incarcerated. [Hanson] testified that she walks with a cane and she “believes” she could pick up [F.S.] if [F.S.] were to fall. [Hanson] reasoned that she is capable of picking up her own mother when she falls and that her mother [weighs] approximately 130 pounds. [Hanson] testified that she would anticipate having help while caring for [F.S.], estimating that she personally would be unable to care for [F.S.] at least two days of the week. [Hanson] could not elaborate on how these people would be paid or from what agency or service they would be procured. [Hanson] elaborated that, during the school year, she cares for her daughter’s one year old son and would have to care for the child and [F.S.] simultaneously. She further testified that she is a light sleeper, and that she would sleep when [F.S.] slept and that would obviate the need for 24/7 care with an awake attending caretaker for [F.S.] On cross-examination, [Hanson] testified that [F.S.] had fallen when she was in her own home. During the proceeding, [Groff] again testified that she filed for guardianship because [F.S.] needs someone to care for her finances, that she is no longer capable of handling [F.S.]’s behaviors, and that [F.S.] needs 24-hour care. Before [F.S.] was removed to a facility and was still living in her home alone, [F.S.] would wander out of her home and was frequently confused. [Groff] further testified that she is physically incapable of lifting her mother, as [F.S.] weighs approximately 180 pounds and is what she believes is described as a “two assist” lift. [Groff] detailed the reasons she cannot care for [F.S.] within [F.S.]’s home. While within her home, [F.S.] fell multiple times, and [F.S.] had great difficulty bathing herself in the bathtub. Additionally, the threat of [F.S.] becoming agitated while sundowning[2] and wandering outside of the house creates a significant concern for [F.S.]’s safety. ____________________________________________ 2 Sundowning is a term referring to a state of confusion that occurs in the late afternoon and lasts into the night. It can cause various behaviors, such as confusion, anxiety, aggression or ignoring directions. See Mayo Clinic Staff, (Footnote Continued Next Page) -5- J-S28004-26 If [F.S.] continues in assisted living or skilled care, her current liquid finances could not cover these expenses very far in the future. The current monthly cost of the facility is $6,400.00, [F.S.] receives $2,000.00 monthly from Social Security and has a small I.R.A. The I.R.A. has approximately $19,000.00 remaining in it, with approximately $4,400.00 expended monthly from the I.R.A. to pay for [F.S.]’s care expenses at Keystone Villa. If the necessary level of care for [F.S.] increases, the monthly cost of skilled nursing home care could range between $12,000.00 and $14,000.00. [Groff] testified that selling the home of [F.S.] is the only way to pay for the care [F.S.] requires. [S.S.] cross-examined [Groff], first asking if [F.S.]’s home could be modified. Groff testified that she and [Hanson] are incapable of lifting [F.S.] off the floor if she were to fall again. Gina Volk ([Volk]), Director of [Eldercare], testified at the hearing regarding [Eldercare’s] capabilities in serving as guardian of the estate for [F.S.]. Volk testified that if named guardian of the estate, she would commence researching if the Medical Assistance waiver program would permit [F.S.] to receive home based services. If that option did not work, she is familiar with various facilities that could provide for [F.S.]’s daily needs. Orphans’ Court Opinion, 11/21/25, at 7-10 (formatting altered; citations to record omitted). Based on these findings, the orphans’ court, by order dated July 11, 2025, adjudicated F.S. a totally incapacitated person, appointed Groff as permanent plenary guardian of her person, and appointed Eldercare as permanent plenary guardian of F.S.’s estate. ____________________________________________ Sundowning: Late-day confusion, MAYO CLINIC (Mar. 26, 2024), https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/alzheimers-disease/expert- answers/sundowning/faq-20058511. -6- J-S28004-26 S.S. appealed, and his appeal was docketed at 1301 MDA 2025. On October 17, 2025, this Court issued a temporary limited remand so that the orphans’ court could rule on a petition to approve the sale of F.S.’s personal property, including her home, to pay for her continued care. On October 20, 2025, the court granted the petition and approved the sale. S.S. appealed this determination, which was docketed at 1671 MDA 2025. At the 1671 MDA 2025 docket, Eldercare and Groff filed an application for consolidation of the two dockets and to expedite the briefing schedule because the sale of F.S.’s property was stayed given these appeals. On January 12, 2026, this Court granted consolidation as well as the request to expedite. Both S.S. and the orphans’ court have complied with Appellate Rule 1925.3 As this Court has summarized: Under the Decedents, Estates and Fiduciaries Code (“Code”), an individual may be adjudicated incapacitated and a guardian of the person and estate may be appointed if the petitioner seeking this adjudication and appointment shows by clear and convincing evidence that the individual is “unable to ____________________________________________ 3 Previously, Eldercare and Groff filed a motion to dismiss S.S.’s appeal at No. 1671 MDA 2025 because his failure to file a Rule 1925(b) statement resulted in the preservation of no issue for appeal. It appears that S.S. filed a petition to file a Rule 1925(b) statement nunc pro tunc at that docket, but the court later denied it because a previous order extended until January 12, 2026 the time period in which to file the statement. S.S. failed to file his Rule 1925(b) statement by this date. Nevertheless, given the subsequent consolidation of the appeals, we will not find waiver on this basis. However, none of the multiple issues raised by S.S. in his identical appellate brief filed at each docket directly challenges the approval of the sale. -7- J-S28004-26 manage [her] financial resources [and] meet essential requirements for [her] physical health and safety.” 20 Pa.C.S.A. § 5501; see 20 Pa.C.S.A. § 5511(a). In re C.A.J., 319 A.3d 564, 571, (Pa. Super. 2024). “The selection of a guardian for a person adjudicated incapacitated lies within the discretion of the [orphans’] court and will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion.” Estate of Haertsch, 649 A.2d 719, 720 (Pa. Super. 1994) (citation omitted). Here, S.S. has raised 24 issues on appeal, and supports each one with an argument consisting of only one or a few paragraphs. Although, in some instances, S.S. cites case law to support certain legal principles and cites pertinent statutory sections, he makes no attempt to relate these principles to the court’s decisions in this case, and provides no citations to the record. Given the brevity of these supporting arguments, we conclude S.S.’s claims are waived on appeal. See Milby v. Pote, 189 A.3d 1065, 1079 (Pa. Super. 2018) (citation omitted) (holding that undeveloped issues result in waiver; this Court “shall not develop an argument for an appellant, nor shall we scour the record to find evidence to support an argument”). Nonetheless, we note that, despite acknowledging the nonconformity of S.S.’s 1925(b) statement, the orphans’ court filed a Rule 1925(a) opinion that addressed each of the thirty-two alleged errors identified by S.S. The claims essentially challenge the service and sufficiency of the petition, alleged procedural irregularities at the hearings, and the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the court’s determination that F.S. met the definition of an incapacitated person. -8- J-S28004-26 Because we agree with the orphans’ court that S.S.’s claims are refuted by the record, even if S.S. did not waive his issues on appeal, we would find no abuse of discretion. Groff’s guardianship petition met all statutory requirements. In addition, over the course of the two hearings, the orphans’ court was presented with expert medical testimony supporting its conclusion that F.S. was an incapacitated person under the guardian statute, that least restrictive means were considered, and the court took every opportunity to accommodate S.S.’s participation in the permanent guardianship hearing. Any deficiency or shortcoming in S.S.’s presentation of evidence is S.S.’s own fault. See Satiro v. Maninno, 237 A.3d 1145, 1151 (Pa. Super. 2020) (reiterating that although this Court is willing to liberally construe materials filed by a pro se litigant, “any layperson choosing to represent himself in a legal proceeding must, to some reasonable extent, assume the risk that his lack of expertise and legal training will prove his undoing”) (citations omitted). Moreover, as the orphans’ court recognized, the record evidence supports its conclusion that the sale of F.S.’s home was necessary to continue her medical care in a nursing facility. Finally, we note that even though S.S. is allegedly the sole beneficiary of F.S.’s will, he has no interest in her property while she is still living. In re Lewis Estate, 11 A.2d 667, 668 (Pa. Super. 1940) (explaining “[t]he important and usual incident of such testamentary document is that it vest no present interest but is intended to become operative only after the death of the maker”). Indeed, we echo the orphans’ court’s statements to S.S. at the -9- J-S28004-26 close of the permanent guardianship hearing that S.S.’s true concern was the sale of the property that he expected to inherit rather than the health of F.S.: THE COURT: It’s clear to me what your interest is, [S.S.], and it’s not the care of your mother. And that’s - - that’s a problem. That’s a real problem. Mother comes first. You’re not entitled to anything. If something comes your way, that’s a gift, but it’s not an entitlement. N.T, 7/10/25, at 51. Orders affirmed. Judgment Entered. Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 10/29/2026 - 10 -