The matter before the court addresses the legal process in determining the responsibility of making life decisions on behalf of an incapacitated person. The parties do not dispute that F.M.W. was incapacitated and in need of a guardian. She lived with her sister, R.W., her only relative. R.W. appeals from the probate court's October 10, 2024 order appointing the New Jersey Office of the Public Guardian of Elderly Adults (Public Guardian), and not R.W., as her sister's guardian.
The court concludes that R.W. was not afforded due process –– the opportunity to call witnesses and conduct cross-examination –– and the probate court did not make findings of facts and conclusions of law as required by the court rules. However, before R.W.'s appeal was decided, F.M.W. died on July 29, 2025; thus, R.W.'s appeal "technically became moot." M.R. v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 261 N.J. 322, 335 n.7 (2025). Nevertheless, because the procedural issues raised in this appeal are significant and "'capable of repetition, yet evading review,'" ibid. (quoting Mistrick v. Div. of Med. Assistance & Health Servs., 154 N.J. 158, 165 (1998)), this appeal is "justiciable despite [F.M.W.'s] passing," ibid. (quoting State v. Cassidy, 235 N.J. 482, 491 (2018)). Had the court been afforded the opportunity to decide this appeal prior to F.M.W.'s passing, the court would have remanded the matter to the probate court to conduct an evidentiary hearing to allow the parties to call witnesses and conduct cross-examination and to issue findings of facts and conclusions of law.