MCFADDEN, C. J., MCMILLIAN, P. J., and SENIOR APPELLATE JUDGE
PHIPPS, SENIOR APPELLATE JUDGE.
trial court appointed Randy Joe Hanson and Terry Sue Hanson
(the "parents") as co-guardians and co-conservators
of their adult son, Kevin Lee Hanson ("Kevin").
Kevin's girlfriend, Kimberly Babbitt (the
"girlfriend"), appeals several of the trial
court's orders, arguing, among other things, that the
trial court lacked jurisdiction over the case. For the
reasons that follow, we vacate the trial court's order
appointing the parents as Kevin's co-guardians and
co-conservators and remand for further proceedings consistent
with this opinion.
reviewing an order on a petition for guardianship, we will
not set aside the probate court's findings unless they
are clearly erroneous, and when such findings are supported
by any evidence, they will be upheld on appeal."
(Citations and punctuation omitted.) In the Interest of
M.P., 338 Ga.App. 696, 697 (791 S.E.2d 592) (2016).
"The probate court's application of the law,
however, is subject to de novo review." (Footnote
omitted.) Id. at 698.
record shows that Kevin lived in Florida when he was
catastrophically injured in Miami on March 15, 2018. Kevin
was treated first in Florida and was then transported to
Atlanta for treatment at the Shepherd Center in either late
March or early April 2018. On June 26, 2018, while Kevin
remained in Georgia, the parents filed a petition in the
Probate Court of Fulton County seeking to be appointed as
Kevin's emergency co-guardians and co-conservators. The
trial court granted the petition on June 29, 2018, to last
"for 60 days, or until the effective date of the
appointment of a permanent guardian/conservator." On
July 3, 2018, the parents filed a petition seeking to be
appointed Kevin's permanent co-guardians and
co-conservators. On August 23, 2018, prior to the expiration
of the first emergency appointment and before the trial court
ruled on their permanent petition, the parents filed a
August 28, 2018, the girlfriend filed a petition to be
appointed Kevin's permanent guardian and conservator in
probate court in Hillsborough County, Florida. On August 31,
2018, the trial court granted the second emergency petition.
The trial court held a hearing on the petition for permanent
conservatorship and guardianship on October 12, 2018, at
which the parents, the girlfriend, and Kevin's
guardian-ad-litem testified. Also at this hearing, the
parents' attorney stated that the girlfriend's
Florida petition had been dismissed. On October 15, 2018, the
trial court entered an order naming the parents as the
permanent co-guardians and co-conservators for Kevin, and the
girlfriend first asserts that the trial court erred in
finding that it had jurisdiction to appoint a guardian and
issue a conservatorship over Kevin because it failed to
consider the factors necessary to establish that Kevin had a
significant connection with Georgia. We agree.
reviewing a lower court's ruling on the existence of
personal jurisdiction, this Court resolves all disputed
issues of fact "in favor of the party asserting the
existence of personal jurisdiction," and the party
asserting the lack of jurisdiction bears the burden of
proving that Georgia courts lack personal jurisdiction.
In the Interest of M.P., 338 Ga.App. at 698
the trial court's order finding that Georgia had
jurisdiction over this matter did not specify which
subsection of OCGA § 29-11-12 applied to this case.
Nonetheless, the trial court's findings that
"Georgia [is] not [Kevin's] home state" and
that Kevin "had a significant connection to Fulton
County, Georgia due to receiving life altering treatment from
the Shepherd Center[, ]" appear to show that the trial
court found jurisdiction under OCGA § 29-11-12 (2) (B).
OCGA § 29-11-12 (2) (B) requires that:
(2) On the date the petition is filed, this state is a
significant-connection state and . . . .
(B) The respondent has a home state, a petition for an
appointment or order is not pending in a court of that state
or another significant-connection state, and, before the
court makes the appointment or issues the order:
(i) A petition for an appointment or order is not filed in
the respondent's home state;
(ii) An objection to the court's jurisdiction is not
filed by a person required to be notified of the proceeding;
(iii) The court in this state concludes that it is an
appropriate forum under the factors set forth in Code ...