he recognized her contributions to Sharon's therapy and counseling and understanding of her "medical, material and social needs." He stated Sharon Kowalski's own wishes: "In the past two years, when asked where she would like to live, Sharon has consistently said, 'St. Cloud with Karen.'" He counted against Thompson's petition her disclosure of Sharon's sexual orientation "to Sharon's parents and the world without Sharon's consent" and the fact that Thompson had established "other domestic partnerships" since Sharon's accident. Thomas B. Stoddard, executive director of the Lambda Legal Defense Fund, called the decision "a deep offense not only to all lesbians and gay men, but to all Americans who choose their partners and households by their own terms and not the legal rules imposed by society." He said: "Sharon chose her family. But the judge doesn't agree, so he imposed his own vision on her." The case The Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled in Thompson's favor on December 17, 1991. Thompson attorney commented: "This seems to be the first guardianship case in the nation in which an appeals court recognized a homosexual partner's rights as tantamount to those of a spouse". The court began its analysis by citing the applicable guardianship statutes, which provided that the court should make a guardianship decision based on the best interests of the ward. "Best interests of the ward" is defined in the statute, but requires the court to consider the reasonable preference of the ward or conservatee if a preference can be determined. 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