Kent County probate court highlights guardianship work and oversight gaps amid public complaints

Kaylee Gashow, probate register and administrator for the Kent County Probate Court, told the Kent County Board of Commissioners on Aug. 27 that the court saw a sharp rise in new filings in recent years and described the county's public guardianship program and oversight practices.

Gashow said the Probate Court had 6,355 new case filings in 2024, a 42 percent increase from earlier years, and 14,248 active cases overall. She said the court added an additional judgeship in recent years, which helped double hearings and allowed staff to keep pace with the caseload.

"Our mission at the Kent County Probate Court is to provide an accessible and person centered venue to secure the peaceful, sound, and efficient resolution of matters where every individual is treated with dignity and respect," Gashow said during a roughly 45-minute presentation that covered court projects, a mental-health summit and a program to convert records to electronic files.

Why it matters: Probate courts manage guardianships and conservatorships that can remove or limit individuals' legal and financial autonomy. County funding and the court's operational capacity affect how quickly cases are reviewed and how closely guardians are supervised.

Rising need and program structure Gashow said the court runs a public guardianship program that places "public guardians" with adult residents who have no family or friends willing to serve. She said the program had 255 new guardian requests in 2024 and that the office now averages about 607 indigent cases per month in 2025. The program employs about 40 public guardians; Gashow said she and one guardianship specialist provide oversight for that corps.

The probate register described the duties of public guardians as arranging housing and transportation, paying rent and, in some cases, reconnecting people with family so guardianships can end. She said public guardians typically receive $83 per month for indigent cases and that recruitment is a major challenge because of workload and low pay.

Oversight and enforcement Gashow detailed several oversight mechanisms: annual reporting requirements, annual accountings for conservatorships, and in-person reviews of public-guardian cases every three years performed by a guardianship review specialist. She said public guardians submit monthly billing and that the court reviews annual account statements and holds hearings on accounts every three years.

"We review bank accounts every year," she told commissioners, acknowledging that staffing limits make comprehensive oversight difficult. "It's definitely a heavy lift when we have other responsibilities." Gashow said a single instance of embezzlement by a public guardian was prosecuted; the guardian was sentenced and ordered to pay restitution.

Commissioners pressed for more detail. Commissioner Richard Womack said he had heard repeated public complaints about inappropriate or unnecessary guardianships and asked what the court could do. Gashow said family members can petition to modify or terminate guardianship, or request limited guardianship that covers only specific areas of a person's life.

Public comment: allegations of harm and lack of information Several people used the meeting's public-comment period to describe specific complaints about county guardianship practice and about how guardianships affected relatives.

- Rosalyn Harris, a local resident, said she has continued to pursue guardianship for her mother and asked how senior-millage funds requested for the guardianship program would be allocated. She told commissioners she believed oversight was inadequate and cited pending state bills she said would promote supported decision-making.

- Javonte Tubbs said the probate court had moved his aunt out of her home and into a nursing facility against her will, isolated her from family and failed to pay bills; he said the actions made his aunt "very vulnerable." "What Kent County probate did was move my aunt out of her home and into a nursing home that she can't leave from, and she did it. They did it all against her will," he said.

- Brandy Ritzma said she had been "trespassed from visiting my mother" and described a pattern she called retaliatory: "The guardians and the facility tried to silence me," she said, adding that she had filed mandated reports that were later substantiated at state and federal review levels.

Other public commenters described their own family disputes involving guardianship and sought greater transparency and access to records. Several requested follow-up meetings with probate staff and asked the board to consider legislative changes.

What the court can and cannot do During the discussion, Gashow repeatedly noted legal limits and options: judges decide whether someone should be placed under guardianship, and family members can seek modification or termination through court motion. Gashow said the county's probate court does election- and drain-related functions in addition to guardianship work, and that the office is working toward full electronic filing and conversion of older paper files.

"We are working on Operation Paperless," she said, adding the court aims to have an online filing portal available in 2026 "if not sooner."

Next steps and outstanding questions Commissioners asked for data the court said it would provide: numbers of guardianship terminations or modifications, counts of substantiated abuse or embezzlement cases and additional detail about oversight timelines. Several commissioners suggested the board could convene further discussions with probate staff and outside advocates to explore policy changes and potential funding or staffing increases.

Ending Gashow thanked commissioners and judges for their support and asked to work with the board on any follow-up. Chair Green closed the item by thanking Gashow and the judges named during the meeting for "your service" and said commissioners would consider next steps.