This case was the third appeal concerning visitation and litigation costs in the guardianship of an incapacitated adult. After an earlier remand, the probate court required the ward’s mother, father, and the ward to share the guardian ad litem’s fees. The mother challenged that allocation. The Court of Appeals reversed. It held that the probate court could not assess guardian ad litem fees against the mother under the civil rule authorizing costs to a prevailing party because a guardianship proceeding is not an adversary action and has no prevailing party. The court also examined the statutory basis for charging expenses associated with the ward’s representation and concluded that the challenged allocation lacked legal authority. The proceeding’s protective purpose did not convert it into ordinary civil litigation between winners and losers. The court therefore rejected the assessment against the mother and returned the matter with the fee allocation vacated. The ruling is notable for limiting fee-shifting concepts in protective guardianship proceedings and for explaining why the ward’s best-interests proceeding differs from an adversarial civil action.