Report Recommends SSA Improve Information Sharing
Thursday, August 11, 2011
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Herb Kohl (D-Wisc.), Chairman of the Senate Special Committee on Aging, today released a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report that found a need for stronger screening and oversight of guardians appointed to make financial decisions for incapacitated adults.
In its report, GAO found that only 13 states require criminal background checks on all potential court-appointed guardians, and that there are gaps in information sharing that can adversely affect incapacitated adults. GAO recommends that the Social Security Administration (SSA) find ways to share information with state courts dealing with the appointment of guardians for SSA beneficiaries. GAO also recommends that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services consider supporting promising court pilot programs that monitor guardians.
“The bottom line is that we need to ensure that the people being put in charge of someone else’s Social Security checks are using the money appropriately,” said Kohl. “While I acknowledge that the Social Security Administration faces limitations, we must do more to combat abuses in the system.”
U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) joined Kohl in reacting to the report’s findings.
“As a former prosecutor, I believe we need tougher oversight to protect seniors from bad actors and ensure their financial security,” said Klobuchar. “Our seniors deserve this common-sense accountability in our Social Security system.”
There are over 765,000 Social Security beneficiaries with a fiduciary or guardian. A 2010 GAO report identified hundreds of allegations of physical abuse, neglect and financial exploitation by guardians in 45 states and the District of Columbia between 1990 and 2010. In reviewing 20 of those cases, GAO found that guardians, who sometimes represent multiple wards, stole or otherwise improperly obtained $5.4 million in assets from 158 incapacitated victims, many of whom were seniors.
Part of the problem, according to national advocates for elder rights, is that courts often have difficulty obtaining information that could enhance the ability to protect the interests of beneficiaries, particularly from the SSA. SSA asserts that the Privacy Act and other considerations prevent the agency from sharing fiduciary information with state courts.
Earlier this year, Kohl introduced legislation to prevent elder abuse, including abuse perpetrated by fiduciaries and guardians. The Elder Abuse Victims Act (S. 462) would establish an Office of Elder Justice within the Justice Department that would protect seniors by strengthening law enforcement’s response to elder abuse. Additionally, the End Abuse in Later Life Act (S. 464) would enhance direct services to older victims of abuse, including financial exploitation.
# # #
The GAO report can be found here: http://gao.gov/products/GAO-11-678
Showing posts with label GAO report. Show all posts
Showing posts with label GAO report. Show all posts
Thursday, August 11, 2011
New GAO Report
Going to DC is paying off!
Incapacitated Adults: Oversight of Federal Fiduciaries and Court-Appointed Guardians Needs Improvement
Summary
If Social Security (SSA), Veterans Affairs (VA), and state courts find that adults are incapacitated, they appoint federal fiduciaries and court-appointed guardians to make decisions on their behalf. Incapacity is often associated with old age, so if these arrangements are not overseen, older adults could be vulnerable to financial exploitation. This report assesses (1) SSA, VA, and state court procedures for screening potential fiduciaries and guardians; (2) SSA, VA, and state court fiduciary and guardian monitoring; (3) information sharing between SSA and VA and between each agency and state courts; and (4) federal support for court oversight of guardians. GAO interviewed federal and court officials and experts, and reviewed federal laws, regulations, and policies, and others' compilations of state guardianship laws.
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-678
Incapacitated Adults: Oversight of Federal Fiduciaries and Court-Appointed Guardians Needs Improvement
Summary
If Social Security (SSA), Veterans Affairs (VA), and state courts find that adults are incapacitated, they appoint federal fiduciaries and court-appointed guardians to make decisions on their behalf. Incapacity is often associated with old age, so if these arrangements are not overseen, older adults could be vulnerable to financial exploitation. This report assesses (1) SSA, VA, and state court procedures for screening potential fiduciaries and guardians; (2) SSA, VA, and state court fiduciary and guardian monitoring; (3) information sharing between SSA and VA and between each agency and state courts; and (4) federal support for court oversight of guardians. GAO interviewed federal and court officials and experts, and reviewed federal laws, regulations, and policies, and others' compilations of state guardianship laws.
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-678
Sunday, April 17, 2011
HALT - Guardianship Abuse
Initial Research and Writing for this paper submitted by Carlos Ramos-Mrosovsky, Harvard Law School, Cambridge, MA. (My comments are in blue.)
Overview
Each year thousands of Americans are placed under the supervision of court-appointed guardians. Guardianships are sought for individuals (called wards) who are considered legally incompetent to make decisions for themselves. HALT research shows that the nation’s guardianship system offers few procedural protections, and has spawned a profit-driven professional guardianship industry that often enriches itself at the expense of society’s most vulnerable members—the elderly. Yet despite numerous calls for reform, most states have done little to monitor professional guardians and prevent abuse. This issue brief points to emerging reform strategies for dealing with professional guardians and other problems currently plaguing the nation’s guardianship system.
How the System is Supposed to Work
Guardianship proceedings, when conducted properly, offer much-needed protection for adults who can no longer take care of themselves. Most guardianship cases begin with the filing of a petition for guardianship, in which the person seeking to be appointed as guardian tells the court why the proposed ward is incompetent and why his or her appointment as guardian would be in that person’s best interests. Family members, friends, social service agencies, attorneys and even for-profit entrepreneurs may petition to be named as guardian. (Unfortunately, the family members of the wealthy are usually the last to know about guardianship proceedings even told that they don't qualify because they're not paid professionals or live out of state).
Before a guardian is appointed, the court must determine whether the proposed ward is actually incompetent. (By a doctor on the payroll. They pay a doctor to write the diagnosis using the wards money.) Guardianship laws provide some safeguards against mistaken incompetency declarations. Proposed wards have a right to receive notice of a guardianship petition, to be present at the hearing, to be represented by a lawyer and to present evidence of their ability to take care of themselves. In many jurisdictions, a court investigator may furnish an independent assessment of the ward to the judge. Finally, the law presumes that guardianship is a last resort, and that it should be used only when an impaired person’s needs cannot be met in some less intrusive manner. The principle of limited guardianship requires that a guardian only be granted the powers that are necessitated by a particular ward’s condition.
Those seeking appointment as guardians carry the burden of proving the proposed ward’s incompetence. However, the standard of proof that the petitioner for guardianship has to show the court varies by jurisdiction. In some states, courts require petitioners to submit clear and convincing evidence of a ward’s incapacity, while other states only require a petitioner to show only that the proposed ward is more than likely not competent to manage his own affairs.
A guardianship terminates only when the ward dies or the court rules that there is good reason to reconsider the arrangement such as the ward regaining a marked degree of competence, the guardian spending down the ward’s entire estate until it is no longer able to pay bills, or misconduct on the part of the court-appointed guardian.
Serious Problems
Few Procedural Protections. Despite what the law says, in reality few of these safeguards are actually practiced in the courtroom. Many jurisdictions do not require courts to appoint a lawyer to represent proposed wards that cannot afford an attorney, or even require that the proposed ward be present for the hearing. (The attorney for the Guardian of the estate and person are the same. There is no one representing the ward. The ad litem attorney is an unnecessary financial burden, in my opinion.)
Discretion in making competency determinations and guardianship appointments rests in the hands of the presiding judge. Sadly, daily exposure to the woes of the elderly influences the attitudes of many judges, and they may presume the incompetence of proposed wards even though the law requires the opposite. Judges may similarly find it easier to give a guardian complete powers over a ward despite the principle of limited guardianship. In 2008, the Boston Globe found numerous instances of judges appointing guardians based on inadequate medical documentation of incompetency, including a six word diagnosis in one case.
Judges who preside over guardianship cases are usually responsible for very heavy caseloads, and many cut corners to move cases along. They may justify doing so because guardianship proceedings are supposed to be non-adversarial. All the parties are assumed to have the same, rather than conflicting, interests—the protection of the proposed ward. In addition, the obligation of the attorney who represents a proposed ward in non-adversarial guardianship proceedings is to serve the client’s best interests rather than to follow the client’s instructions or wishes. Court-appointed attorneys, who may be as over-burdened as judges, therefore will often simply consent to guardianship after quickly assessing a client, thus waiving normal procedural protections.
Many states also allow the court to appoint an “emergency” guardian without so much as prior notice to the proposed ward if it agrees with the petitioner seeking guardianship that delay would likely result in harm to the ward’s health, safety or welfare. Although such arrangements are meant to be temporary, once an emergency guardianship has been established it is usually very easy for the guardian to argue for a permanent guardianship.
Although family members are usually given a statutory preference, a court can appoint anyone to be a guardian. Because of burgeoning case loads, courts have come to rely increasingly on for-profit “professional” guardians. Guardians are allowed to be compensated from their wards’ accounts for the services they provide, and many have seized the economic opportunity presented by the incapacity of others by making a business of acting as a guardian. Although there are few reliable numbers, the guardianship industry is growing. In 2005, for example, at least 15 percent of guardianship cases in Southern California were handled by professionals.
Professional guardians, however honest, act principally out of economic motives and not from affection or family obligation. They secure business by cultivating relationships with doctors, hospitals, lawyers, courts and government agencies responsible for the elderly. (They forgot to include banks in this statement.) Because professional guardians are repeat participants in the guardianship system, some can manipulate the system to a ward’s disadvantage. For example, professional guardians frequently invoke the procedural loopholes of the emergency guardianship as a tactic for gaining control over a ward’s rights and assets. According to the Los Angeles Times, more than half of all guardianship petitions filed by professionals guardians in Southern California between 1997 and 2003 were granted by the courts on an emergency basis. Of these emergency appointments, 56 percent were granted without notice to the proposed ward, 64 percent before an attorney was selected to represent the ward, and a stunning 92 percent before an otherwise mandatory court investigator’s report.
Although many are lawyers, almost anyone can become a professional guardian. The industry is extremely poorly regulated and few states require licensing or training. As one professional guardian admitted, “I could be a shoe salesman at a five and dime store one day and a professional guardian the next.”
A System Plagued by Abuse. Reports of guardianship abuse from government agencies and the media have become alarmingly common. The most common kind of abuse is simple pilfering of a ward’s assets. Guardians who do not steal outright from their ward’s account may slowly drain a ward’s life savings by charging exorbitant fees for mundane tasks. Guardians may charge wards hundreds of dollars for having a bag of groceries delivered or towing a car, and some have even reportedly billed a deceased ward’s estate for attending the ward’s funeral. (And renting a limousine service to take the ward out to the Opera, forcing 24 hour caregivers on them unnecessarily or as punishment, bank trustees ransacking their homes for valuables, making excuses to the judge in order to liquidate the wards assets or even drilling open the wards safety deposit box because they don't want them to cause a scene.) Other common examples of abuse include placing wards in nursing homes against their will, selling property without permission and blocking contact with loved ones.
There is no shortage of horror stories. In a case documented by the Washington Post, the guardian of a well-to-do widow suffering from dementia plundered her estate and let the IRS execute a tax lien on her home. The ward, left homeless, slept in abandoned buildings, while her guardian informed the court that she “preferred to reside in city shelters.” A U.S. Government Accountability Office report detailed similar outrages, including one instance in which a private guardianship firm was found to have committed felonies against more than 600 of its incapacitated wards, going so far as to sell one ward’s home to an employee’s relative for $500. (The GAO needs to look into Devon Bank for more horror stories and outrage. Sadly, I don't have any good news to report other than publishing it on the Internet seems to slow down their financial free-for-all but not slow down the emotional abuse to the client and their families.)
The number of Americans in guardianship will continue to grow as the U.S. population ages over the coming decade. The incidence of guardianship abuse is likely to increase along with the total number of guardianships.
Poor Record-Keeping and Oversight. The rampant abuse of incapacitated wards by unscrupulous professional guardians persists because sloppy supervision by court officials makes it difficult to detect exploitation and mismanagement. (Unless the abuse is done in front of me because I will go down to the courthouse myself, copy all those files and find the exploitation and mismanagement.) According to the American Bar Association, in more than one quarter of all courts nationwide, guardians do not have to file annual reports on a ward’s personal status. Nearly 20 percent do not require annual accountings of a ward’s finances. (As in Ludwig's case which was why the trustee at Devon Bank was running around bragging about "having free reign over the old man's half a million, no courts to go through!") Among courts that do collect such information, more than one third do not have an official who is designated to verify the content of the guardians’ reports, and less than 20 percent verify every report. In more than 40 percent of courts, no one is assigned to visit individuals under guardianship. Nearly 75 percent of America’s courts do not have a computerized data system to track guardianship cases and identify problems.
The failure of courts to provide adequate supervision has predictable consequences. For example, nearly half of the guardianship reports required under District of Columbia law were filed at least a year late between 1995 and 2000. From 2003 through 2007, there were no financial reports filed in 85 percent of the guardianship cases in Suffolk County, Massachusetts. Even when a guardian makes a report to the court, lax standards of review allows courts to overlook warning signs. A Los Angeles Times investigation similarly uncovered numerous instances of egregious abuse by guardians where evidence of abuse was already in the courts’ own files (and I believe this whole-heartedly. I looked into Devon Bank's court records and the abuse is quite apparent); most county courts in Southern California ignored an online registry created to identify and track problem guardianships. And gross overbilling often occurred with the explicit approval of probate judges, who must sign off on guardians’ expenditures in most jurisdictions. A Houston Chronicle investigation found that the court routinely allowed guardians to charge their hourly rates typical for legal work when performing even the simplest nonlegal tasks.
Thin budgets and understaffing account to some extent for the inadequate supervision of guardianship appointments. According to the ABA, 43 percent of courts have insufficient funds available to implement effective guardianship oversight, and nearly a third have no specific funding stream for guardianship monitoring.
Even worse, some judges may be more concerned with protecting guardians than wards. In many guardianship systems, a tight-knit network of judges, lawyers and professional guardians (many of whom are also lawyers) routinely interact with one another. According to the Washington Post, one guardian who was removed from the District of Columbia’s guardian appointment list several times for failing to appear at hearings continued to receive new assignments from judges who simply by-passed the official list; even though she was remiss in many of her duties, this one woman’s caseload accounted for a whopping 15 percent of all guardianships in the District. In a revealing interview, a former chief probate judge defended the D.C. court’s practice of continuing to appoint as guardians those attorneys who had been the subject of frequent complaints, stating, “You have to be careful about barring someone from cases. It may be the lawyer’s only source of practice.”
Reforming the Guardianship System
Public uproar over the rampant abuse of incapacitated adults at the hands of profit-driven professional guardians has spurred efforts to reform guardianship systems in some states. HALT has identified some of the promising reform strategies, including mandatory training and licensing of for-profit guardians, adopting detailed standards of conduct for guardians that may be grounds for disciplinary action, providing thorough review of all court-mandated reports on the status of wards, requiring periodic visits to wards and their guardians, establishing compensation guidelines and restricted accounts for guardians, notifying wards of the right to file for restoration of rights, reforming the procedures for emergency guardianships, and establishing independent regulatory bodies with disciplinary authority.
Regulating the Professional Guardianship Industry. Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Texas, Washington and a handful of other states have established procedures for the licensing or certification of for-profit guardians by the courts, each mandating strict training and other requirements. For example, would-be professional guardians in Washington State must attend a two-day class that covers the responsibilities and limitations of guardianship, the process of completing required records, and ethical questions that may arise. Some jurisdictions in Florida require professional guardians to devote up to 48 hours to similar training, and the state recently installed the toughest licensing exam for prospective guardians in the country. Alaska requires that professional guardians be certified by a nationally recognized organization such as the Center for Guardianship Certification, a process that includes passing an examination on the duties of a guardian, meeting general educational requirements, and having a clean criminal record and history of performance as a guardian.
Adopting Standards of Conduct for Guardians. In 2001, the Second National Guardianship Conference, the “Wingspan Conference,” recommended that all states establish minimum standards of good practice for guardians. Unambiguous standards of conduct that enumerate a guardian’s ethical and professional obligations toward the ward leave professional guardians in little doubt as to actions that would constitute misconduct. Arizona and Washington are among the small number of states that have articulated detailed conduct standards for guardians that go beyond a brief list of duties in a governing statute.
Unfortunately, awareness of standards of practice is not enough to ensure that they are obeyed. States must make it clear that conduct will be measured by such standards in disciplinary processes. In Washington State, for example, disciplinary regulations expressly declare that a violation of the standards of practice constitutes grounds for disciplinary action.
Improving Court Monitoring and Enforcement. A 2007 AARP Public Policy Institute report cited exemplary jurisdictions in Arizona, Texas and Minnesota that actively utilized computerized management of guardianship cases. Computer systems automatically notify court officials and guardians when status reports on the care of wards are due; some systems also alert officials of needed action if the required report is not received. In Maricopa County, Arizona, an overdue report results first in an order of noncompliance, then an order to show cause, and finally, an arrest warrant.
Other jurisdictions perform multiple levels of review on reports submitted by guardians. For example, a state statute in Florida requires that courts clerks review every guardianship status report to ensure that the appropriate information is provided, and a court program in Hillsborough County employs two full-time counselors who scrutinize all plans and accountings in addition to the initial audit performed by the court clerk.
Another promising approach to improving guardianship monitoring is the use of investigators, either professional or volunteer, to periodically visit wards and their guardians and recommend follow-up actions to the court. Visitor programs have been implemented in jurisdictions in Arizona, Idaho, and Texas, among others.
Establishing Compensation Guidelines and Restricted Accounts for Guardians. In many states, professionals are supposed to receive approval from the court of the monies that they charge wards for providing guardianship services. However, judges oftentimes turn a blind eye to questionable billing practices. In Harris County, Texas, the probate court recently instituted strict standards for reviewing guardians’ bills, barring attorney guardians from charging legal rates to complete nonlegal work and capping fees for legal work.
Other innovative states, including Arizona, protect ward assets through restricted investment accounts that cannot be accessed by the guardian without a specific court order. (Unfortunately, that wouldn't work here. The trustees at Devon Bank get court orders to liquidate estates and they're rubber stamped by judges.)
Revising the Procedures for Emergency Guardianships. Emergency placements are prone to abuse by the professional guardianship industry. In Texas, proposed wards must be given notice of emergency guardianship proceedings, with no exception, and must be assigned attorneys before the court rules on their cases. California also recently adopted protective legislation for proposed wards, requiring timely investigation of all emergency guardianships, interviews with all interested parties, and notice to the proposed ward of his or her legal rights. However, the Governor has indefinitely delayed funding for these reforms.
Notifying Wards of the Right to File for Restoration of Rights. In Hennepin County, Minnesota, the guardian must notify the ward annually of his right to seek a restoration of rights. Since some incapacitating conditions may improve or resolve completely, it is critical that the ward be notified that he may seek to limit the scope of the guardianship or have it dismissed altogether. The court may ensure that this notification occurs by requiring the guardian to file a proof of the notice.
Establishing Regulatory Bodies and Disciplinary Mechanisms. When allegations of abuse by a professional guardian are brought to the attention of the court, a very few states, including Arizona, New York and Washington, have an official individual or entity within the judicial system that is responsible for following up on complaints and taking disciplinary action, where appropriate, against the guardian.
Many scholars and elder-rights advocates want states to go further in protecting wards and have proposed independent ombudsman programs for individuals in guardianship. Similar to the ombudsman for long-term care that is required in each state, these programs would educate the public, assist in resolving complaints, and advocate on behalf of incapacitated individuals.
The nation’s guardianship system was designed to help family members take care of their loved ones. While the system works well for some, too many seniors are suffering at the hands of unscrupulous professional guardians who swiftly take control of seniors’ lives often without their knowledge or consent.
States must strengthen procedural protections and improve guardianship oversight to stop these abuses. To be successful, reforms of state guardianship systems must be accompanied by an adequate commitment of resources by courts, legislatures and governors. Americans should not have to fear the very system set up to protect them should they become incapacitated and vulnerable.
RESOURCES
ARTICLES
Fields, Robin, Evelyn Larrubia and Jack Leonard. “Guardians for Profit.” Los Angeles Times (November 13-16, 2005).
Fields, Robin et al. “State Could Turn Elsewhere for Conservatorship Remedies.” Los Angeles Times (December 27, 2005).
Leonnig, Carol D., Lena H. Sun and Sarah Cohen. “Misplaced Trust: Special Report.” The Washington Post (June 15-16, 2003).
Yeoman, Barry. “Stolen Lives.” AARP: The Magazine (January-February 2004).
Olsen, Lise. “The Pain of Probate Court.” The Houston Chronicle (June 24-25, 2007).
Olsen, Lise. “New Payment Guidelines Ease Strain Probate Fees Put on Elderly, Disabled.” The Houston Chronicle (September 4, 2007).
Kelly, Jeff, Maggie Kowalski and Candice Novak. “Courts Strip Elders of Their Independence.” The Boston Globe (January 13, 2008).
BOOKS
Armstrong, Dr. Diane G. The Retirement Nightmare: How to Save Yourself from Your Heirs and Protectors. Prometheus Books (2000).
http://www.retirementnightmare.com/.
LAWS
Uniform Guardianship and Protective Proceedings Act (1997) drafted by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws.
REPORTS
Karp, Naomi and Erica F. Wood. Guarding the Guardians: Promising Practices for Court Monitoring. AARP Public Policy Institute (2007).
Karp, Naomi and Erica F. Wood. Guardianship Monitoring: A National Survey of Court Practices. American Bar Association Commission on Law and Aging (2006).
Wood, Erica F. State-Level Adult Guardianship Data: An Exploratory Survey.
American Bar Association Commission on Law and Aging (2006)
U. S. Government Accountability Office. Guardianships: Collaboration Needed to Protect Incapacitated Elderly People. Report to the Chairman, Special Committee on Aging, U.S. Senate. GAO-04-655 (2004).
National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys, National Guardianship Association and National College of Probate Judges. National Wingspan Implementation Session: Action Steps on Adult Guardianship Progress. National Guardianship Network (2004).
U.S. Government Accountability Office. Guardianships: Little Progress in Ensuring Protection for Incapacitated Elderly People. Testimony of Barbara D. Bovbjerg, Director Education, Workforce and Income Security, before the Special
Committee on Aging, U.S. Senate. No. GAO-06-1086T (2006).
Overview
Each year thousands of Americans are placed under the supervision of court-appointed guardians. Guardianships are sought for individuals (called wards) who are considered legally incompetent to make decisions for themselves. HALT research shows that the nation’s guardianship system offers few procedural protections, and has spawned a profit-driven professional guardianship industry that often enriches itself at the expense of society’s most vulnerable members—the elderly. Yet despite numerous calls for reform, most states have done little to monitor professional guardians and prevent abuse. This issue brief points to emerging reform strategies for dealing with professional guardians and other problems currently plaguing the nation’s guardianship system.
How the System is Supposed to Work
Guardianship proceedings, when conducted properly, offer much-needed protection for adults who can no longer take care of themselves. Most guardianship cases begin with the filing of a petition for guardianship, in which the person seeking to be appointed as guardian tells the court why the proposed ward is incompetent and why his or her appointment as guardian would be in that person’s best interests. Family members, friends, social service agencies, attorneys and even for-profit entrepreneurs may petition to be named as guardian. (Unfortunately, the family members of the wealthy are usually the last to know about guardianship proceedings even told that they don't qualify because they're not paid professionals or live out of state).
Before a guardian is appointed, the court must determine whether the proposed ward is actually incompetent. (By a doctor on the payroll. They pay a doctor to write the diagnosis using the wards money.) Guardianship laws provide some safeguards against mistaken incompetency declarations. Proposed wards have a right to receive notice of a guardianship petition, to be present at the hearing, to be represented by a lawyer and to present evidence of their ability to take care of themselves. In many jurisdictions, a court investigator may furnish an independent assessment of the ward to the judge. Finally, the law presumes that guardianship is a last resort, and that it should be used only when an impaired person’s needs cannot be met in some less intrusive manner. The principle of limited guardianship requires that a guardian only be granted the powers that are necessitated by a particular ward’s condition.
Those seeking appointment as guardians carry the burden of proving the proposed ward’s incompetence. However, the standard of proof that the petitioner for guardianship has to show the court varies by jurisdiction. In some states, courts require petitioners to submit clear and convincing evidence of a ward’s incapacity, while other states only require a petitioner to show only that the proposed ward is more than likely not competent to manage his own affairs.
A guardianship terminates only when the ward dies or the court rules that there is good reason to reconsider the arrangement such as the ward regaining a marked degree of competence, the guardian spending down the ward’s entire estate until it is no longer able to pay bills, or misconduct on the part of the court-appointed guardian.
Serious Problems
Few Procedural Protections. Despite what the law says, in reality few of these safeguards are actually practiced in the courtroom. Many jurisdictions do not require courts to appoint a lawyer to represent proposed wards that cannot afford an attorney, or even require that the proposed ward be present for the hearing. (The attorney for the Guardian of the estate and person are the same. There is no one representing the ward. The ad litem attorney is an unnecessary financial burden, in my opinion.)
Discretion in making competency determinations and guardianship appointments rests in the hands of the presiding judge. Sadly, daily exposure to the woes of the elderly influences the attitudes of many judges, and they may presume the incompetence of proposed wards even though the law requires the opposite. Judges may similarly find it easier to give a guardian complete powers over a ward despite the principle of limited guardianship. In 2008, the Boston Globe found numerous instances of judges appointing guardians based on inadequate medical documentation of incompetency, including a six word diagnosis in one case.
Judges who preside over guardianship cases are usually responsible for very heavy caseloads, and many cut corners to move cases along. They may justify doing so because guardianship proceedings are supposed to be non-adversarial. All the parties are assumed to have the same, rather than conflicting, interests—the protection of the proposed ward. In addition, the obligation of the attorney who represents a proposed ward in non-adversarial guardianship proceedings is to serve the client’s best interests rather than to follow the client’s instructions or wishes. Court-appointed attorneys, who may be as over-burdened as judges, therefore will often simply consent to guardianship after quickly assessing a client, thus waiving normal procedural protections.
Many states also allow the court to appoint an “emergency” guardian without so much as prior notice to the proposed ward if it agrees with the petitioner seeking guardianship that delay would likely result in harm to the ward’s health, safety or welfare. Although such arrangements are meant to be temporary, once an emergency guardianship has been established it is usually very easy for the guardian to argue for a permanent guardianship.
A Profit-Driven and Poorly Regulated Guardianship Industry.
Although family members are usually given a statutory preference, a court can appoint anyone to be a guardian. Because of burgeoning case loads, courts have come to rely increasingly on for-profit “professional” guardians. Guardians are allowed to be compensated from their wards’ accounts for the services they provide, and many have seized the economic opportunity presented by the incapacity of others by making a business of acting as a guardian. Although there are few reliable numbers, the guardianship industry is growing. In 2005, for example, at least 15 percent of guardianship cases in Southern California were handled by professionals.
Professional guardians, however honest, act principally out of economic motives and not from affection or family obligation. They secure business by cultivating relationships with doctors, hospitals, lawyers, courts and government agencies responsible for the elderly. (They forgot to include banks in this statement.) Because professional guardians are repeat participants in the guardianship system, some can manipulate the system to a ward’s disadvantage. For example, professional guardians frequently invoke the procedural loopholes of the emergency guardianship as a tactic for gaining control over a ward’s rights and assets. According to the Los Angeles Times, more than half of all guardianship petitions filed by professionals guardians in Southern California between 1997 and 2003 were granted by the courts on an emergency basis. Of these emergency appointments, 56 percent were granted without notice to the proposed ward, 64 percent before an attorney was selected to represent the ward, and a stunning 92 percent before an otherwise mandatory court investigator’s report.
Although many are lawyers, almost anyone can become a professional guardian. The industry is extremely poorly regulated and few states require licensing or training. As one professional guardian admitted, “I could be a shoe salesman at a five and dime store one day and a professional guardian the next.”
A System Plagued by Abuse. Reports of guardianship abuse from government agencies and the media have become alarmingly common. The most common kind of abuse is simple pilfering of a ward’s assets. Guardians who do not steal outright from their ward’s account may slowly drain a ward’s life savings by charging exorbitant fees for mundane tasks. Guardians may charge wards hundreds of dollars for having a bag of groceries delivered or towing a car, and some have even reportedly billed a deceased ward’s estate for attending the ward’s funeral. (And renting a limousine service to take the ward out to the Opera, forcing 24 hour caregivers on them unnecessarily or as punishment, bank trustees ransacking their homes for valuables, making excuses to the judge in order to liquidate the wards assets or even drilling open the wards safety deposit box because they don't want them to cause a scene.) Other common examples of abuse include placing wards in nursing homes against their will, selling property without permission and blocking contact with loved ones.
There is no shortage of horror stories. In a case documented by the Washington Post, the guardian of a well-to-do widow suffering from dementia plundered her estate and let the IRS execute a tax lien on her home. The ward, left homeless, slept in abandoned buildings, while her guardian informed the court that she “preferred to reside in city shelters.” A U.S. Government Accountability Office report detailed similar outrages, including one instance in which a private guardianship firm was found to have committed felonies against more than 600 of its incapacitated wards, going so far as to sell one ward’s home to an employee’s relative for $500. (The GAO needs to look into Devon Bank for more horror stories and outrage. Sadly, I don't have any good news to report other than publishing it on the Internet seems to slow down their financial free-for-all but not slow down the emotional abuse to the client and their families.)
The number of Americans in guardianship will continue to grow as the U.S. population ages over the coming decade. The incidence of guardianship abuse is likely to increase along with the total number of guardianships.
Poor Record-Keeping and Oversight. The rampant abuse of incapacitated wards by unscrupulous professional guardians persists because sloppy supervision by court officials makes it difficult to detect exploitation and mismanagement. (Unless the abuse is done in front of me because I will go down to the courthouse myself, copy all those files and find the exploitation and mismanagement.) According to the American Bar Association, in more than one quarter of all courts nationwide, guardians do not have to file annual reports on a ward’s personal status. Nearly 20 percent do not require annual accountings of a ward’s finances. (As in Ludwig's case which was why the trustee at Devon Bank was running around bragging about "having free reign over the old man's half a million, no courts to go through!") Among courts that do collect such information, more than one third do not have an official who is designated to verify the content of the guardians’ reports, and less than 20 percent verify every report. In more than 40 percent of courts, no one is assigned to visit individuals under guardianship. Nearly 75 percent of America’s courts do not have a computerized data system to track guardianship cases and identify problems.
The failure of courts to provide adequate supervision has predictable consequences. For example, nearly half of the guardianship reports required under District of Columbia law were filed at least a year late between 1995 and 2000. From 2003 through 2007, there were no financial reports filed in 85 percent of the guardianship cases in Suffolk County, Massachusetts. Even when a guardian makes a report to the court, lax standards of review allows courts to overlook warning signs. A Los Angeles Times investigation similarly uncovered numerous instances of egregious abuse by guardians where evidence of abuse was already in the courts’ own files (and I believe this whole-heartedly. I looked into Devon Bank's court records and the abuse is quite apparent); most county courts in Southern California ignored an online registry created to identify and track problem guardianships. And gross overbilling often occurred with the explicit approval of probate judges, who must sign off on guardians’ expenditures in most jurisdictions. A Houston Chronicle investigation found that the court routinely allowed guardians to charge their hourly rates typical for legal work when performing even the simplest nonlegal tasks.
Thin budgets and understaffing account to some extent for the inadequate supervision of guardianship appointments. According to the ABA, 43 percent of courts have insufficient funds available to implement effective guardianship oversight, and nearly a third have no specific funding stream for guardianship monitoring.
Even worse, some judges may be more concerned with protecting guardians than wards. In many guardianship systems, a tight-knit network of judges, lawyers and professional guardians (many of whom are also lawyers) routinely interact with one another. According to the Washington Post, one guardian who was removed from the District of Columbia’s guardian appointment list several times for failing to appear at hearings continued to receive new assignments from judges who simply by-passed the official list; even though she was remiss in many of her duties, this one woman’s caseload accounted for a whopping 15 percent of all guardianships in the District. In a revealing interview, a former chief probate judge defended the D.C. court’s practice of continuing to appoint as guardians those attorneys who had been the subject of frequent complaints, stating, “You have to be careful about barring someone from cases. It may be the lawyer’s only source of practice.”
Reforming the Guardianship System
Public uproar over the rampant abuse of incapacitated adults at the hands of profit-driven professional guardians has spurred efforts to reform guardianship systems in some states. HALT has identified some of the promising reform strategies, including mandatory training and licensing of for-profit guardians, adopting detailed standards of conduct for guardians that may be grounds for disciplinary action, providing thorough review of all court-mandated reports on the status of wards, requiring periodic visits to wards and their guardians, establishing compensation guidelines and restricted accounts for guardians, notifying wards of the right to file for restoration of rights, reforming the procedures for emergency guardianships, and establishing independent regulatory bodies with disciplinary authority.
Regulating the Professional Guardianship Industry. Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Texas, Washington and a handful of other states have established procedures for the licensing or certification of for-profit guardians by the courts, each mandating strict training and other requirements. For example, would-be professional guardians in Washington State must attend a two-day class that covers the responsibilities and limitations of guardianship, the process of completing required records, and ethical questions that may arise. Some jurisdictions in Florida require professional guardians to devote up to 48 hours to similar training, and the state recently installed the toughest licensing exam for prospective guardians in the country. Alaska requires that professional guardians be certified by a nationally recognized organization such as the Center for Guardianship Certification, a process that includes passing an examination on the duties of a guardian, meeting general educational requirements, and having a clean criminal record and history of performance as a guardian.
Adopting Standards of Conduct for Guardians. In 2001, the Second National Guardianship Conference, the “Wingspan Conference,” recommended that all states establish minimum standards of good practice for guardians. Unambiguous standards of conduct that enumerate a guardian’s ethical and professional obligations toward the ward leave professional guardians in little doubt as to actions that would constitute misconduct. Arizona and Washington are among the small number of states that have articulated detailed conduct standards for guardians that go beyond a brief list of duties in a governing statute.
Unfortunately, awareness of standards of practice is not enough to ensure that they are obeyed. States must make it clear that conduct will be measured by such standards in disciplinary processes. In Washington State, for example, disciplinary regulations expressly declare that a violation of the standards of practice constitutes grounds for disciplinary action.
Improving Court Monitoring and Enforcement. A 2007 AARP Public Policy Institute report cited exemplary jurisdictions in Arizona, Texas and Minnesota that actively utilized computerized management of guardianship cases. Computer systems automatically notify court officials and guardians when status reports on the care of wards are due; some systems also alert officials of needed action if the required report is not received. In Maricopa County, Arizona, an overdue report results first in an order of noncompliance, then an order to show cause, and finally, an arrest warrant.
Other jurisdictions perform multiple levels of review on reports submitted by guardians. For example, a state statute in Florida requires that courts clerks review every guardianship status report to ensure that the appropriate information is provided, and a court program in Hillsborough County employs two full-time counselors who scrutinize all plans and accountings in addition to the initial audit performed by the court clerk.
Another promising approach to improving guardianship monitoring is the use of investigators, either professional or volunteer, to periodically visit wards and their guardians and recommend follow-up actions to the court. Visitor programs have been implemented in jurisdictions in Arizona, Idaho, and Texas, among others.
Establishing Compensation Guidelines and Restricted Accounts for Guardians. In many states, professionals are supposed to receive approval from the court of the monies that they charge wards for providing guardianship services. However, judges oftentimes turn a blind eye to questionable billing practices. In Harris County, Texas, the probate court recently instituted strict standards for reviewing guardians’ bills, barring attorney guardians from charging legal rates to complete nonlegal work and capping fees for legal work.
Other innovative states, including Arizona, protect ward assets through restricted investment accounts that cannot be accessed by the guardian without a specific court order. (Unfortunately, that wouldn't work here. The trustees at Devon Bank get court orders to liquidate estates and they're rubber stamped by judges.)
Revising the Procedures for Emergency Guardianships. Emergency placements are prone to abuse by the professional guardianship industry. In Texas, proposed wards must be given notice of emergency guardianship proceedings, with no exception, and must be assigned attorneys before the court rules on their cases. California also recently adopted protective legislation for proposed wards, requiring timely investigation of all emergency guardianships, interviews with all interested parties, and notice to the proposed ward of his or her legal rights. However, the Governor has indefinitely delayed funding for these reforms.
Notifying Wards of the Right to File for Restoration of Rights. In Hennepin County, Minnesota, the guardian must notify the ward annually of his right to seek a restoration of rights. Since some incapacitating conditions may improve or resolve completely, it is critical that the ward be notified that he may seek to limit the scope of the guardianship or have it dismissed altogether. The court may ensure that this notification occurs by requiring the guardian to file a proof of the notice.
Establishing Regulatory Bodies and Disciplinary Mechanisms. When allegations of abuse by a professional guardian are brought to the attention of the court, a very few states, including Arizona, New York and Washington, have an official individual or entity within the judicial system that is responsible for following up on complaints and taking disciplinary action, where appropriate, against the guardian.
Many scholars and elder-rights advocates want states to go further in protecting wards and have proposed independent ombudsman programs for individuals in guardianship. Similar to the ombudsman for long-term care that is required in each state, these programs would educate the public, assist in resolving complaints, and advocate on behalf of incapacitated individuals.
The nation’s guardianship system was designed to help family members take care of their loved ones. While the system works well for some, too many seniors are suffering at the hands of unscrupulous professional guardians who swiftly take control of seniors’ lives often without their knowledge or consent.
States must strengthen procedural protections and improve guardianship oversight to stop these abuses. To be successful, reforms of state guardianship systems must be accompanied by an adequate commitment of resources by courts, legislatures and governors. Americans should not have to fear the very system set up to protect them should they become incapacitated and vulnerable.
RESOURCES
ARTICLES
Fields, Robin, Evelyn Larrubia and Jack Leonard. “Guardians for Profit.” Los Angeles Times (November 13-16, 2005).
Fields, Robin et al. “State Could Turn Elsewhere for Conservatorship Remedies.” Los Angeles Times (December 27, 2005).
Leonnig, Carol D., Lena H. Sun and Sarah Cohen. “Misplaced Trust: Special Report.” The Washington Post (June 15-16, 2003).
Yeoman, Barry. “Stolen Lives.” AARP: The Magazine (January-February 2004).
Olsen, Lise. “The Pain of Probate Court.” The Houston Chronicle (June 24-25, 2007).
Olsen, Lise. “New Payment Guidelines Ease Strain Probate Fees Put on Elderly, Disabled.” The Houston Chronicle (September 4, 2007).
Kelly, Jeff, Maggie Kowalski and Candice Novak. “Courts Strip Elders of Their Independence.” The Boston Globe (January 13, 2008).
BOOKS
Armstrong, Dr. Diane G. The Retirement Nightmare: How to Save Yourself from Your Heirs and Protectors. Prometheus Books (2000).
http://www.retirementnightmare.com/.
LAWS
Uniform Guardianship and Protective Proceedings Act (1997) drafted by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws.
REPORTS
Karp, Naomi and Erica F. Wood. Guarding the Guardians: Promising Practices for Court Monitoring. AARP Public Policy Institute (2007).
Karp, Naomi and Erica F. Wood. Guardianship Monitoring: A National Survey of Court Practices. American Bar Association Commission on Law and Aging (2006).
Wood, Erica F. State-Level Adult Guardianship Data: An Exploratory Survey.
American Bar Association Commission on Law and Aging (2006)
U. S. Government Accountability Office. Guardianships: Collaboration Needed to Protect Incapacitated Elderly People. Report to the Chairman, Special Committee on Aging, U.S. Senate. GAO-04-655 (2004).
National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys, National Guardianship Association and National College of Probate Judges. National Wingspan Implementation Session: Action Steps on Adult Guardianship Progress. National Guardianship Network (2004).
U.S. Government Accountability Office. Guardianships: Little Progress in Ensuring Protection for Incapacitated Elderly People. Testimony of Barbara D. Bovbjerg, Director Education, Workforce and Income Security, before the Special
Committee on Aging, U.S. Senate. No. GAO-06-1086T (2006).
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
New GAO Report - Elder Justice
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11208.pdf
ELDER JUSTICE
Stronger Federal Leadership Could Enhance National Response to Elder Abuse
What GAO Found
The most recent study of the extent of elder abuse estimated that 14.1 percent of noninstitutionalized older adults had experienced physical, psychological, or sexual abuse; neglect; or financial exploitation in the past year. This study and three other key studies GAO identified likely underestimate the full extent of elder abuse, however. Most did not ask about all types of abuse or include all types of older adults living in the community, such as those with cognitive impairments. In addition, studies in this area cannot be used to track changes in extent over time because they have not measured elder abuse consistently.
Based on existing research, various factors appear to place older adults at greater risk of abuse. Physical and cognitive impairments, mental problems, and low social support among victims have been associated with an increased likelihood of elder abuse. Elder abuse has also been associated with negative effects on victims’ health and longevity.
Although state APS programs vary in their organization and eligibility criteria, they face many of the same challenges. According to program officials, elder abuse caseloads are growing nationwide and cases are increasingly complex and difficult to resolve. However, according to GAO’s survey, APS program resources are not keeping pace with these changes. As a result, program officials noted that it is difficult to maintain adequate staffing levels and training. In addition, states indicated they have limited access to information on interventions and practices on how to resolve elder abuse cases, and may struggle to respond to abuse cases appropriately. Many APS programs also face challenges in collecting, maintaining, and reporting statewide case-level administrative data, thereby hampering their ability to track outcomes and assess the effectiveness of services provided.
Federal elder justice activities have addressed some APS challenges, but leadership in this area is lacking. Seven agencies within the Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Justice devoted a total of $11.9 million in grants for elder justice activities in fiscal year 2009. These activities have promoted collaboration among APS and its partners, such as law enforcement, but have not offered APS the support it says it needs for resolving elder abuse cases and standardizing the information it reports. Although the Older Americans Act of 1965 has called attention to the importance of federal leadership in the elder justice area, no national policy priorities currently exist. The Administration on Aging in HHS is charged with providing such leadership, but its efforts to do so have been limited. The Elder Justice Act of 2009 authorizes grants to states for their APS programs and provides a vehicle for establishing and implementing national priorities in this area, but does not address national elder abuse incidence studies.
ELDER JUSTICE
Stronger Federal Leadership Could Enhance National Response to Elder Abuse
What GAO Found
The most recent study of the extent of elder abuse estimated that 14.1 percent of noninstitutionalized older adults had experienced physical, psychological, or sexual abuse; neglect; or financial exploitation in the past year. This study and three other key studies GAO identified likely underestimate the full extent of elder abuse, however. Most did not ask about all types of abuse or include all types of older adults living in the community, such as those with cognitive impairments. In addition, studies in this area cannot be used to track changes in extent over time because they have not measured elder abuse consistently.
Based on existing research, various factors appear to place older adults at greater risk of abuse. Physical and cognitive impairments, mental problems, and low social support among victims have been associated with an increased likelihood of elder abuse. Elder abuse has also been associated with negative effects on victims’ health and longevity.
Although state APS programs vary in their organization and eligibility criteria, they face many of the same challenges. According to program officials, elder abuse caseloads are growing nationwide and cases are increasingly complex and difficult to resolve. However, according to GAO’s survey, APS program resources are not keeping pace with these changes. As a result, program officials noted that it is difficult to maintain adequate staffing levels and training. In addition, states indicated they have limited access to information on interventions and practices on how to resolve elder abuse cases, and may struggle to respond to abuse cases appropriately. Many APS programs also face challenges in collecting, maintaining, and reporting statewide case-level administrative data, thereby hampering their ability to track outcomes and assess the effectiveness of services provided.
Federal elder justice activities have addressed some APS challenges, but leadership in this area is lacking. Seven agencies within the Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Justice devoted a total of $11.9 million in grants for elder justice activities in fiscal year 2009. These activities have promoted collaboration among APS and its partners, such as law enforcement, but have not offered APS the support it says it needs for resolving elder abuse cases and standardizing the information it reports. Although the Older Americans Act of 1965 has called attention to the importance of federal leadership in the elder justice area, no national policy priorities currently exist. The Administration on Aging in HHS is charged with providing such leadership, but its efforts to do so have been limited. The Elder Justice Act of 2009 authorizes grants to states for their APS programs and provides a vehicle for establishing and implementing national priorities in this area, but does not address national elder abuse incidence studies.
*******
Friday, November 19, 2010
Common Practice, it seems......
These are excerpts taken from the GAO report:
"Also, the guardian neglected to collect $39,000 of rental income for over four years on behalf of one victim."
Ludwig and I couldn't find his rental income either. I know Root Realty did their job in collecting the money, it just never made it into Ludwig's trust account. Your guess is as good as mine as to where that money went (and that realty company was paid $250 a month to manage two empty apartments, then just one apartment for a while). Devon Bank was EXCELLENT when it came to passing out Ludwig's money, collecting it or making him any was another story. (You also can't check on the banks accuracy since Rick Block has "free reign over the old man's half a million dollars! No courts to go through!" That's what he was bragging about when Ludwig opened his trust account at Devon Bank and no trustee is going to get that excited unless they have something to gain by it "in my opinion.")
"The guardian hid the man's will from the court and family members..."
Another common practice at Devon Bank. I'll tell you after Ludwig passes away why they wouldn't cough this thing up aside from Mr. Block's "free reign" and the fact that not only aren't the courts watching them but obviously no one at the bank is watching those two trustees either. I'll let you know if Ludwig's family inherits anything.
"For example, she noted that the company had purchased mental health support services for the veteran at a rate that was 1500 percent higher than necessary."
Devon Bank does the exact same thing when hiring Home Instead Caregiving Agency. Their clients pay an OBSCENE amount of money for caregivers even if they don't want them or need them, they're forced. When a Senior Citizen requires 24 hour care, it's more economical for them to go straight into daily rates instead of hourly. The trustees at Devon Bank don't do this, they force their clients to continue at the hourly rate which is more than double. When Ludwig complained about all the caregivers coming, the trustees just set him up with more and billed him more money (then, Home Instead had all kinds of things going on at Ludwig's house while he wasn't even home, just to get paid. They made excuses to bill him but what do you expect when no one is minding the till and the bank has free reign?). Not to mention, you have a private paid guardian who is pushing lift chairs and wheelchairs on his clients. It's obvious they want their clients to physically deteriorate in order to move Home Instead in then bill them an outrageous fee for their "professional care." Caregivers wouldn't even be hired if they let their clients exercise, get up or walk on their own but they don't. Trust me, there's no $$$$ in it.
"the elderly woman did not have pierced ears and the earrings were later found in the guardian’s home. Searches of her home also revealed coins, "
I bet Rick Block is a coin collector. (To all my anonymous posters, you don't need to tell me whether or not this is true, my intuition tells me all I need to know. I saw the way he was looking at Ludwig's coin collection, the man was a goner.) But I think all their homes should be looked at by the families (who had trust accounts at Devon Bank) to check to see if anything looks familiar.
"When her clients moved into a nursing facility, the permanent guardian would throw away everything in their houses......."
Another common practice at Devon Bank and Ludwig wasn't even moved to a nursing home before the trustees threw out his personal property. They just tossed his possessions out right in front of Ludwig and the entire world. Called the junkman. Can you imagine?
"The court recommended that it could either appoint the attorney to serve as the victim’s guardian, or allow the attorney to continue to serve as the victim’s trustee instead. However, in the end, it allowed both to occur...."
I don't know what difference this makes? This is "my opinion" of the trust department at Devon Bank. I watched Sally Griffin order Rick Block around. She did all the talking and when we were emptying Ludwig's lockbox, she told Rick what to do and he did it. (The reason I paid so much attention to this was because she was so disrespectful to Ludwig. If she had any respect for her boss or employer she wouldn't disrespect her client but he didn't command any.) Then I watched Josh Mitzen (hired by Devon Bank to be the guardian in order to steal estates out from underneath the heirs who inherit) order Sally around. So, "in my opinion" Josh Mitzen is Senior Vice President of the Trust Department down at Devon Bank. He definitely runs the show.... kind of like a pecking order. Josh is over Sally, she's over Rick. So, what difference does it make about guardian of the estate and guardian of the person?
After looking at Ludwig's trust account, watching the theives they hired come through his front door, the way the two trustees squander his money and his estate, I've come to the realization that they're (two trustees) are not out to make their employer money. BUT that's only what I can see (by looking at their expenses), they may very well be making their employer all kinds of money "on the side." I don't know?
I remember several months ago, a woman left 7 million to a college. The woman lived just like Ludwig, very simply, in a small home. My first thought? She didn't open a trust account at Devon Bank because they would have appointed a "care manager" then deemed her incompetent, sold her property and spent her 7 million before she died so no one inherited. Most of it probably going to the guardian, their attorney and caregivers. This woman got lucky. She had a reputable attorney. (Marlatt, I'll never forget his name.)
The good thing about this GAO report is the fact that these guardians/conservators are getting fined and imprisoned. There is justice in the world.
Report fraud at this link:
www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
"Also, the guardian neglected to collect $39,000 of rental income for over four years on behalf of one victim."
Ludwig and I couldn't find his rental income either. I know Root Realty did their job in collecting the money, it just never made it into Ludwig's trust account. Your guess is as good as mine as to where that money went (and that realty company was paid $250 a month to manage two empty apartments, then just one apartment for a while). Devon Bank was EXCELLENT when it came to passing out Ludwig's money, collecting it or making him any was another story. (You also can't check on the banks accuracy since Rick Block has "free reign over the old man's half a million dollars! No courts to go through!" That's what he was bragging about when Ludwig opened his trust account at Devon Bank and no trustee is going to get that excited unless they have something to gain by it "in my opinion.")
"The guardian hid the man's will from the court and family members..."
Another common practice at Devon Bank. I'll tell you after Ludwig passes away why they wouldn't cough this thing up aside from Mr. Block's "free reign" and the fact that not only aren't the courts watching them but obviously no one at the bank is watching those two trustees either. I'll let you know if Ludwig's family inherits anything.
"For example, she noted that the company had purchased mental health support services for the veteran at a rate that was 1500 percent higher than necessary."
Devon Bank does the exact same thing when hiring Home Instead Caregiving Agency. Their clients pay an OBSCENE amount of money for caregivers even if they don't want them or need them, they're forced. When a Senior Citizen requires 24 hour care, it's more economical for them to go straight into daily rates instead of hourly. The trustees at Devon Bank don't do this, they force their clients to continue at the hourly rate which is more than double. When Ludwig complained about all the caregivers coming, the trustees just set him up with more and billed him more money (then, Home Instead had all kinds of things going on at Ludwig's house while he wasn't even home, just to get paid. They made excuses to bill him but what do you expect when no one is minding the till and the bank has free reign?). Not to mention, you have a private paid guardian who is pushing lift chairs and wheelchairs on his clients. It's obvious they want their clients to physically deteriorate in order to move Home Instead in then bill them an outrageous fee for their "professional care." Caregivers wouldn't even be hired if they let their clients exercise, get up or walk on their own but they don't. Trust me, there's no $$$$ in it.
"the elderly woman did not have pierced ears and the earrings were later found in the guardian’s home. Searches of her home also revealed coins, "
I bet Rick Block is a coin collector. (To all my anonymous posters, you don't need to tell me whether or not this is true, my intuition tells me all I need to know. I saw the way he was looking at Ludwig's coin collection, the man was a goner.) But I think all their homes should be looked at by the families (who had trust accounts at Devon Bank) to check to see if anything looks familiar.
"When her clients moved into a nursing facility, the permanent guardian would throw away everything in their houses......."
Another common practice at Devon Bank and Ludwig wasn't even moved to a nursing home before the trustees threw out his personal property. They just tossed his possessions out right in front of Ludwig and the entire world. Called the junkman. Can you imagine?
"The court recommended that it could either appoint the attorney to serve as the victim’s guardian, or allow the attorney to continue to serve as the victim’s trustee instead. However, in the end, it allowed both to occur...."
I don't know what difference this makes? This is "my opinion" of the trust department at Devon Bank. I watched Sally Griffin order Rick Block around. She did all the talking and when we were emptying Ludwig's lockbox, she told Rick what to do and he did it. (The reason I paid so much attention to this was because she was so disrespectful to Ludwig. If she had any respect for her boss or employer she wouldn't disrespect her client but he didn't command any.) Then I watched Josh Mitzen (hired by Devon Bank to be the guardian in order to steal estates out from underneath the heirs who inherit) order Sally around. So, "in my opinion" Josh Mitzen is Senior Vice President of the Trust Department down at Devon Bank. He definitely runs the show.... kind of like a pecking order. Josh is over Sally, she's over Rick. So, what difference does it make about guardian of the estate and guardian of the person?
After looking at Ludwig's trust account, watching the theives they hired come through his front door, the way the two trustees squander his money and his estate, I've come to the realization that they're (two trustees) are not out to make their employer money. BUT that's only what I can see (by looking at their expenses), they may very well be making their employer all kinds of money "on the side." I don't know?
I remember several months ago, a woman left 7 million to a college. The woman lived just like Ludwig, very simply, in a small home. My first thought? She didn't open a trust account at Devon Bank because they would have appointed a "care manager" then deemed her incompetent, sold her property and spent her 7 million before she died so no one inherited. Most of it probably going to the guardian, their attorney and caregivers. This woman got lucky. She had a reputable attorney. (Marlatt, I'll never forget his name.)
The good thing about this GAO report is the fact that these guardians/conservators are getting fined and imprisoned. There is justice in the world.
Report fraud at this link:
www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
GAO report on Guardianships
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d101046.pdf
They did a study back in September and to read it, you'll need a box of tissues. It's truly horrifying what guardians do to the elderly and disabled. I found this on page one:
Using two fictitious identities—one with bad credit and one with the Social Security number of a deceased person—GAO obtained guardianship certification or met certification requirements in the four states where we applied: Illinois, Nevada, New York, and North Carolina. Though certification is intended to provide assurance that guardians are qualified to fulfill their role, none of the courts or certification organizations utilized by these states checked the credit history or validated the Social Security number of the fictitious applicants. An individual who is financially overextended is at a higher risk of engaging in illegal acts to generate funds. In addition, people with criminal convictions could easily conceal their pasts by stealing a deceased person’s identity. The tests raise questions about the effectiveness of these four state certification programs.
They're basically saying that to get certified in IL then it's as easy as opening a box of cracker jack and pulling out the prize. Why does that not surprise me?
AND why didn't the GAO look at Devon Bank's court docket of guardianships that I published online? That would certainly raise a brow. (Well, in their defense, I didn't publish it until October so, I'm going to let them slide. Now I know they're googling guardianships though.)
They did a study back in September and to read it, you'll need a box of tissues. It's truly horrifying what guardians do to the elderly and disabled. I found this on page one:
Using two fictitious identities—one with bad credit and one with the Social Security number of a deceased person—GAO obtained guardianship certification or met certification requirements in the four states where we applied: Illinois, Nevada, New York, and North Carolina. Though certification is intended to provide assurance that guardians are qualified to fulfill their role, none of the courts or certification organizations utilized by these states checked the credit history or validated the Social Security number of the fictitious applicants. An individual who is financially overextended is at a higher risk of engaging in illegal acts to generate funds. In addition, people with criminal convictions could easily conceal their pasts by stealing a deceased person’s identity. The tests raise questions about the effectiveness of these four state certification programs.
They're basically saying that to get certified in IL then it's as easy as opening a box of cracker jack and pulling out the prize. Why does that not surprise me?
AND why didn't the GAO look at Devon Bank's court docket of guardianships that I published online? That would certainly raise a brow. (Well, in their defense, I didn't publish it until October so, I'm going to let them slide. Now I know they're googling guardianships though.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)