**1. Subject of the Dispute:**
The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the refusal of the lower courts to appoint a son as a guardian for his incapacitated mother, who has a Group I disability.
**2. Arguments of the Court:**
* The Supreme Court emphasized that the appointment of a guardian is the exclusive competence of the court, and the submission of the guardianship and custody authority is merely advisory in nature and subject to assessment in conjunction with other evidence.
* The Court underscored that denying the appointment of a guardian solely due to the state of martial law or the applicant’s mobilization age is groundless, as current legislation does not contain such restrictions.
* The Supreme Court pointed out the erroneous nature of the lower courts’ conclusions, which, without proper evidence, assumed that other relatives (father or sister) could or should perform the duties of a guardian, ignoring their statements regarding their inability to do so.
* The lower courts failed to properly examine the actual circumstances, in particular, the existence of a psycho-emotional bond between the son and the mother, as well as who had been effectively providing care for the patient prior to the filing of the court application.
* The Supreme Court noted that the courts’ doubts regarding the applicant’s motivation cannot serve as grounds for refusal unless it is proven that the appointment of this specific person is contrary to the interests of the incapacitated person.
* **Legal Precedent:** The Court departed from previous practice, confirming the position of the Joint Chamber of the Civil Cassation Court that the mere fact of performing military service under mobilization is not an automatic ground for refusal to appoint a guardian.
* The Supreme Court stated that the courts failed to assess all evidence; therefore, the case requires a new trial to determine whether appointing the son as a guardian truly serves the best interests of his mother.
**3. Court Decision:**
The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal, overturned the ruling of the appellate court regarding the refusal to appoint a guardian, and remanded the case to the appellate court for a new trial.
