It was not an abuse of discretion for the Orphans’ Court to appoint two of the three children of the alleged incapacitated person (AIP) as plenary guardians of her person over the objections of an estranged daughter when the AIP had been living with one of the two guardians, the AIP testified that she wished to remain in that guardian’s home, and there was testimony that the AIP was being well cared for. It was not an abuse of discretion for the hearing judge to deny a motion for recusal based on the judge’s previously hearing a divorce action involving the objecting daughter when the objecting daughter failed to identify what information the judge received in that case that might be relevant to the appointment of guardians. That the guardians of the persons might have financial conflicts of interests was not relevant because an independent guardian of the estate had been appointed. The findings of fact by the hearing judge were timely because one of the initial orders made the findings of fact required by 20 Pa.C.S. § 5512.1(a), and the objecting daughter was not prejudiced by the entry of additional findings of fact after the appeal was filed. Finally, it was not an abuse of discretion for the court to dismiss without prejudice claims of undue influence when the objecting daughter failed to appear at the scheduling hearing. In re: C.A.J., an Alleged Incapacitated Person, 2024 PA Super 141, ___ A.3d ___ (7/9/2024).