Facts
The appellant, [A.] , was appointed as an advisor for [B.] , an elderly lady with moderate dementia. After the Child and Adult Protection Authority (KESB) of the canton of Zug had removed the appellant as advisor and appointed a new guardian, the appellant filed an appeal against the KESB because it had failed to inform [B.] that she had the possibility and right to appoint the appellant as her trusted person. The Administrative Court of the canton of Zug did not consider the appeal, as the appellant was not a close person within the meaning of Art. 450 para. 2 no. 2 CC.
The appellant filed an appeal in civil matters and a subsidiary constitutional appeal with the Federal Court. She requested that the judgment of the Administrative Court be set aside, that a denial of justice by the KESB be established, and that the KESB be instructed to decide on the matter.
Considerations
The Federal Court examined the admissibility of the appeal and found that the appellant was entitled to appeal, as she had participated in the proceedings before the lower court and the Administrative Court had not considered the appeal to her detriment. However, the Federal Court pointed out that the appellant could not be considered a close person within the meaning of Art. 450 para. 2 no. 2 CC, as she did not have the required connection with [B.] .
The Federal Court stated that a close person must be someone who knows the person concerned well and, due to their qualities and relationships with the person, appears suitable to protect their interests. However, the appellant had caused psychological stress to [B.] through her actions (e.g., contact ban against…