Jump To

Top Caption Disposition Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 9, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

In Re: Anise Dubois, Proposed Medical Consent Ward

Court of Appeals of Georgia

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: A25A1867

• Disposition: Reversed

• Opinion

• Authorities (4)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (13.9K)

• PDF

Disposition

Reversed

Combined Opinion

SECOND DIVISION
RICKMAN, P. J.,
GOBEIL and DAVIS, JJ.

NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be
physically received in our clerk’s office within ten
days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed.
https://www.gaappeals.us/rules

March 9, 2026

In the Court of Appeals of Georgia
A25A1867. IN RE: ANISE DUBOIS, PROPOSED MEDICAL
CONSENT WARD.

GOBEIL, Judge.

This appeal arises from the Probate Court of Gwinnett County’s order

appointing the Department of Human Services, Division of Aging Services, (the

“Department”) as the temporary medical consent guardian for Anise Dubois. For the

reasons set forth below, we reverse the probate court’s order denying the

Department’s motion to vacate the appointment order.

We review a probate court’s evidentiary holdings for an abuse of discretion. In

re Estate of McKitrick, 326 Ga. App. 702, 704 (1) (757 SE2d 295) (2014). We review

legal questions de novo. Id. at 704 (2)(a).
The record shows that Dubois is an 89 year old woman who was admitted to

Piedmont Eastside Medical Center in March 2025 with low oxygen and flu-like

symptoms. Dubois was a resident of a long-term care facility and due to prior medical

complications, was mostly non-verbal and unable to communicate meaningfully with

healthcare providers or make informed decisions about her medical treatment. Her

two children were contacted by hospital staff and either refused to take responsibility

for her or failed to respond. Dubois’s medical team recommended that she receive a

feeding tube because she was unable to safely take medications or food through her

mouth. Concluding that the procedure required medical consent that Dubois could

not herself provide, Renee Childers, registered nurse and Director of Care

Management at the hospital, petitioned the probate court to appoint the Department

as Dubois’s temporary medical consent guardian pursuant to OCGA § 29-4-18.

The probate court held a hearing on April 14, 2025, at which Childers, members

of Dubois’s medical team, and a representative of the Department were present.1

According to the probate court’s order, one of Dubois’s doctors testified that the

feeding tube was recommended because Dubois could not safely receive hydration,

1
A transcript of this hearing does not appear in the record.
2
nutrition, or medication orally, and she was not tolerating the nasal tube that was being

used for that purpose. She could receive a different type of nutrition intravenously,

but such a procedure cannot safely be administered by her long-term care facility and

requires sustained admission in the hospital. Given that a prolonged hospital stay

would increase Dubois’s risk of infection, her medical team recommended the feeding

tube to facilitate her discharge. Childers testified as to her efforts to contact Dubois’s

family members, but she was unable to locate anyone who would participate in

Dubois’s medical care. Finding that Dubois was in need of a medical consent guardian

to provide informed consent for the feeding tube procedure, and there being no

individual willing or available to provide such consent, the probate court appointed the

Department as temporary medical consent guardian.2 The next day, the Department

2
Although not raised by the parties, we note that we have considered our
jurisdiction in this appeal, as we must do, and we find that this appeal is not moot.
OCGA § 5-6-48(b)(3); In the Interest of I.B., 219 Ga. App. 268, 270 (464 SE2d 865)
(1995) (we are compelled “to dismiss appeals where the questions presented have
become moot”) (citation modified). Although the temporary guardianship ordered by
the court in this case has long-expired, the question presented here is one that is
capable of repetition yet evades review. OCGA § 29-4-18(j) states that a temporary
medical consent guardianship shall terminate after 60 days if no other guardian is
appointed nor the medical situation resolves. Certainly, the Department (nor any
other party) could not achieve appellate relief within 60 days if it objects to an
appointment. Further, the legal question presented by the Department in this case is
not limited to the parties here; rather it concerns the application of the statute to the
3
objected to the appointment and moved to vacate the probate court’s order for the

reasons described below. The court denied the Department’s motion.3 This appeal

followed.

On appeal, the Department argues inter alia that the probate court erred in

appointing it Dubois’s temporary medical consent guardian because it is unwilling and

unable to accept such an appointment as is required under the statute. Further, its

unwillingness and inability to accept such an appointment renders the appointment

an abuse of discretion, as it was not in Dubois’s best interest to have such an entity

serve as her medical consent guardian. We agree that the court erred.

As the Supreme Court of Georgia has explained in interpreting statutes,

a statute draws its meaning from its text. Under our well-established
rules of statutory construction, we presume that the General Assembly
meant what it said and said what it meant. To that end, we must afford
the statutory text its plain and ordinary meaning, we must view the
statutory text in the context in which it appears, and we must read the

Department generally. See I.B., 219 Ga. at 273 (an appeal is not moot if there is
“[i]ntrinsically insufficient time to obtain judicial relief for a claim common to an
existing class of sufferers”).
3
The Department filed a motion for reconsideration that was not ruled upon.
4
statutory text in its most natural and reasonable way, as an ordinary
speaker of the English language would.

McBrayer v. Scarbrough, 317 Ga. 387, 393 (2)(c) (893 SE2d 660) (2023) (citation

modified).

In order to consider the statutes in context, we begin with a review of the

statutes that are relevant to this appeal. First, OCGA § 31-9-2 addresses consent for

surgical and other medical treatments generally. OCGA § 31-9-2(a) lists persons who

may consent to medical treatment — starting with the patient receiving the medical

treatment, or those the patient has authorized to consent on his or her behalf. OCGA

§ 31-9-2(a)(1), (1.1). If a person is unable to consent for himself or herself, the statute

lists family members in order of priority as they can be located, and adult friends are

permitted to consent if they meet certain criteria. OCGA § 31-9-2(a)(6)-(7). “In the

absence, after reasonable inquiry, of any person authorized in subsection (a) of this

Code section to consent for the patient, a hospital or other health care facility or any

interested person may initiate proceedings for expedited judicial intervention to

appoint a temporary medical consent guardian pursuant to Code Section 29-4-18.”

OCGA § 31-9-2(a.1). OCGA § 29-4-18, in turn, governs the proceedings to appoint

5
a temporary medical consent guardian, including requirements for the petition, the

standard for the court to determine whether a temporary medical consent guardian is

necessary, and who may serve as a temporary medical consent guardian.

OCGA § 29-4-1 et seq. governs guardianship of adults generally, when a court

finds that an adult lacks “sufficient capacity to make or communicate significant

responsible decisions concerning his or her health or safety.” OCGA § 29-4-1(a).

OCGA § 29-4-3 defines an order of preference for who is to be appointed guardian —

starting with a person nominated by the adult and moving on to his or her spouse and

other family members, and designating the Department as a guardian of last resort if

no other options are available. OCGA § 29-4-3(b). Other statutes within this Chapter

govern the petition for appointment of a guardian (OCGA § 29-4-10), the hearing to

be conducted (OCGA § 29-4-12), the order making such an appointment (OCGA §

29-4-13), emergency guardians (OCGA §§ 29-4-14, 29-4-15, 29-4-16), and, finally,

temporary medical consent guardians (OCGA § 29-4-18).

Childers’s petition in this case explicitly was brought, and the trial court’s order

explicitly was issued, pursuant to OCGA § 29-4-18 — in other words, under the

specific code section authorizing interested persons to petition for the appointment

6
of a temporary medical consent guardian.4 However, as argued by the Department,

OCGA § 29-4-18(i) requires in plain terms that the individual who is appointed as

temporary medical consent guardian be “(1) willing and able to become involved in

the proposed medical consent ward’s health care decisions and (2) willing to exercise

reasonable care, diligence, and prudence and to consent in good faith to medical or

surgical treatment or procedures which the proposed medical consent ward would

have wanted had he or she not been incapacitated.” Here, the probate court’s order

lacks any findings regarding whether the Department was willing and able to accept

the appointment or willing to exercise the required care to consent on Dubois’s behalf.

Once the Department objected to the appointment stating its unwillingess and

inability to act as a temporary medical consent guardian, the probate court erred in not

vacating its order, as the Department was not a fit guardian under the explicit

requirements of the statute. OCGA § 29-4-18(i).

Childers points to OCGA § 29-4-3(b.1) as the authority under which the

probate court could appoint the Department as Dubois’s guardian against its will.

4
And as mentioned, OCGA § 31-9-2 specifically directs interested parties to
OCGA § 29-4-18 for the appointment of a temporary medical consent guardian when
there is an absence of individuals authorized to serve under OCGA § 31-9-2.
7
Indeed, the probate court cites this statute in its order denying the Department’s

motion to vacate the appointment order, stating that the Department “is statutorily

authorized to act as the guardian of last resort” under OCGA § 29-4-3(b.1) As

described above, OCGA § 29-4-3 includes different categories of individuals with a

relationship to the adult who can serve as guardian and then states that “[i]f no other

person is available to serve as guardian of the ward,” and if there is no public guardian

available, “the court may appoint the Department of Human Services as guardian.”

OCGA § 29-4-3(b.1).

However, OCGA § 29-4-3(b.1), which permits the appointment of the

Department as a guardian of last resort, applies to the appointment of guardians to

adults in general, whereas OCGA § 29-4-18 applies specifically to the appointment of

a temporary medical consent guardian. And it is of course well-established that

specific statutes control over general ones. Moosa Co. v. Comm’r of Ga. Dep’t of

Revenue, 353 Ga. App. 429, 432 (838 SE2d 108) (2020). So to the extent these statutes

are contradictory, we defer to the statute governing the specific situation presented

in this case.

8
Further, the statutory schemes for the different situations have distinct

requirements for their petitions5 (compare OCGA § 29-4-10(b) with OCGA § 29-4-

18(c)), hearings (compare OCGA § 29-4-12 with OCGA § 29-4-18(d)-(g)), orders

(compare OCGA § 29-4-13 with OCGA § 29-4-18(h), (j)), and, as is particularly

relevant here, who may serve as guardian. Had Childers proceeded under OCGA §

29-4-10, then the probate court may have been authorized to appoint the Department

pursuant to OCGA § 29-4-3(b.1), if all of the other requirements of the statutes were

satisfied. Childers proceeded, however, under OCGA § 29-4-18, which includes the

additional requirement that the individual6 being appointed be willing and able to

5
Notably, petitions brought under OCGA § 29-4-18 require including
“[w]hether a petition for the appointment of a guardian or conservator has been filed
or is being filed in conjunction with the petition for the appointment of the temporary
medical consent guardian.” OCGA § 29-4-18(c)(7). This language only strengthens
our conclusion that these statutes contemplate two distinct proceedings that could
overlap if both petitions were filed “in conjunction” with each other, but they were
not in this case. In Childers’s petition in this case, she marked that no “petition for
permanent guardianship and/or conservatorship has been/will be filed.”
6
Another difference between the statutes is what kind of entity can be
appointed guardian. OCGA § 29-4-2(a) specifies that only individuals may be
appointed as a guardian of an adult, unless a public guardian or the Department is
appointed, whereas OCGA § 29-8-18(i) includes no such exception for non-
individuals, stating that the probate court may appoint an “individual” as temporary
medical consent guardian.
9
become involved in the medical consent ward’s health care. OCGA § 29-4-18(i).7

There is no mechanism under which the court here would have had the authority to

appoint the Department as Dubois’s guardian pursuant to OCGA § 29-4-3(b.1)

without a proper petition under OCGA § 29-4-10, a proper hearing under OCGA §

29-4-12, and an order complying with OCGA § 29-4-13.

Childers also argues that a Department representative was present at the

hearing and “expressed that [the Department] could and would serve as Temporary

Medical Consent Guardian for Ms. Dubois.” However, such purported assent by the

Department does not appear in the record. There is no transcript of the hearing in the

record, and the probate court made no such finding in either the original order or the

denial of the Department’s motion to vacate. The probate court noted merely the

7
Attempting to note their similarities, the probate court reasoned that OCGA
§ 31-9-2 (who may consent to medical treatment) and OCGA § 29-4-3 (order of
preference for appointing a guardian) “mirror each other in that the list of individuals
who have preference for appointment as guardian, and the list of individuals
authorized and empowered to provide consent on behalf of a patient are substantially
similar.” However, the probate court failed to recognize that, although OCGA § 31-9-
2 does include a prioritized list of those individuals who may consent to a medical
procedure on another’s behalf that is similar to the one included in OCGA § 29-4-3,
the medical consent statute does not include any “last resort” mechanism equivalent
to the one in OCGA § 29-4-3. Indeed, the medical consent statute points directly to
OCGA § 29-4-18 as the statute under which to proceed if another suitable individual
cannot be located. OCGA § 31-9-2(a.1).
10
presence of a Department representative at the hearing. Accordingly, we do not accept

this factual assertion, nor the arguments that rely upon it. See Arnsdorff v. Fortner, 276

Ga. App. 1, 6 (2) (622 SE2d 395) (2005) (“we do not consider factual assertions that

are made in appellate briefs but are not established in the record, as briefs cannot be

used to add evidence to the record”) (physical precedent only).

Accordingly, given that the petition was brought under OCGA § 29-4-18, and

in the absence of the Department’s “willing[ness] and ab[ility] to become involved in

the proposed medical consent ward’s health care decisions and ... willing[ness] to

exercise reasonable care, diligence, and prudence and to consent in good faith to

medical or surgical treatment or procedures which the proposed medical consent ward

would have wanted had he or she not been incapacitated,” the Department was not

an entity which the probate court was authorized to appoint as temporary medical

consent guardian. OCGA § 29-4-18(i). We therefore reverse the probate court’s order

denying the Department’s motion to vacate the appointment order.

Judgment reversed. Rickman, P. J., and Davis, J., concur.

11