with the statute in mind, the court stated that sharon kowalski has stated a clear preference for thompson to be her guardian, citing the study by the miller-dwan specialists. the court noted that the three witnesses opposed to thompson's appointment were all lay witnesses with no medical training. in regard to thompson's qualifications to serve as a guardian, the court stated that testimony from multiple witnesses established that thompson had been loving and caring when dealing with sharon and was able to take care of her on a day-to-day basis. finally, the court addressed the lower court's concern that thompson was involving sharon in multiple gay and lesbian public events–the case had generated considerable media attention–that her family testified she might not otherwise choose to attend. the court said that the lower court's reliance on this in its guardianship decision was misguided, as the record indicated that sharon enjoyed these events and even received an award at a national organization for women meeting.