A new letter opinion from the Delaware Court of Chancery offers a clear look at how guardianship disputes can unravel when families delay planning and old loyalties collide.

The case, In re Guardianship of W.E., involved a 71-year-old man with advanced dementia who can no longer understand his medical needs or the consequences of guardianship. The court had to decide who should take charge of his care and finances.

After reviewing the full record, the court appointed W.E.’s daughter, S.B., as sole guardian. What carried the day was not sentiment, but a practical assessment of who could manage the crisis unfolding around W.E. The court pointed to S.B.’s long track record of stepping in with medical decisions, installing safety measures at home, and lining up nursing and therapeutic support when his condition deteriorated. Under Delaware law’s “best interest” standard, that hands-on stewardship mattered most.

The court also acknowledged the years of care provided by M.E.C., W.E.’s longtime partner, and her deeply held belief that he wanted to return home with her. The problem was capacity and safety. The Attorney Ad Litem raised significant concerns about M.E.C.'s understanding of W.E.’s current medical needs and her ability to keep pace with his rapid decline. The record showed serious issues — disorientation, limited communication, recent seizures and bedsores — that required consistent, professional oversight.

Co-guardianship wasn’t an option. The two prospective guardians simply could not work together, and the court made clear in its opinion that shared authority would only create more conflict and delay, undermining W.E.’s care.

The court did preserve M.E.C.’s relationship with W.E., ordering private, regular visits as long as they did not interfere with his medical treatment. That acknowledgment reinforces a point every guardianship lawyer knows well: even when memory fades and independence slips away, personal connections still matter.

The broader takeaway is practical and urgent. When people don’t document who will make decisions or fail to revisit plans as conditions change, they risk leaving everything to a courtroom battle. In that forum, the law requires judges to focus on safety, stability and medical oversight, not past relationships or aspirational wishes. Planning early — and revisiting those plans — remains the surest way to avoid outcomes decided by conflict instead of clarity.

For more information, please contact Beth B. Miller at bmiller@foxrothschild.com or another member of the firm’s Taxations & Wealth Planning Department.

This information is intended to inform firm clients and friends about legal developments, including the decisions of courts and administrative bodies. Nothing in this alert should be construed as legal advice or a legal opinion. Readers should not act upon the information contained in this alert without seeking the advice of legal counsel. Views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily this law firm or its clients. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.