Blindness Cannot Be the Sole Basis for Denial
Arizona takes a clear position on disability and guardianship. A court cannot refuse to appoint a guardian just because the person is blind. The appointment must still serve the child's best interests.
A court may not refuse to appoint an individual as guardian of a minor based on the individual's blindness if the appointment is determined to be otherwise in the best interests of the minor.
A.R.S. § 14-5213(A)In other words, guardianship choices should rest on the person's actual ability to care for the child. They should not rest on assumptions about disability.
The law keeps the focus on the child's welfare and the guardian's ability to serve.
A High Standard for Challenging Appointment
If someone claims a guardian's blindness would hurt the child, that person must prove it. The standard is "clear and convincing evidence." This is one of the highest standards in civil law.
The claim must show that the person's behavior puts the child's health, safety, or welfare at risk.
If an individual's blindness is alleged to have a detrimental impact on a minor, the party who raises the allegation has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the individual's behavior endangers or is likely to endanger the health, safety or welfare of the minor.
A.R.S. § 14-5213(B)If the court denies or limits the appointment, it must give written reasons for that choice. This adds openness to the process. It also ensures that disability alone does not drive the outcome.