In Massachusetts there is an interesting Guardianship case regarding the Burden of Proof to Vacate a Guardianship. Fairly recently with the decision in November of 2018 the Appeals Court had talked about it being an unsettled law in terms of what the burden of proof is regarding vacating a guardianship; particularly, in probate court.
The court had decided that the trial court had made an error by putting the burden of proof on the mother to establish her own fitness and looked at these as what is considered the review and redetermination in care and protection cases.
In the Kelvin case, what should have occurred is that the mother should have presented some credible evidence of a change circumstance since the original guardianship was determined and showing that Kelvin may no longer be in need of a guardian. Once that initial burden has taken place, the guardian then has the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence that the mother remained unfit and that there needs to be a continuation of the guardianship; which is different is then what the trial court in the specific case decided.