Power of Attorney v Guardianship

I counsel a lot of people in regard to guardianship and I thought when it came to a disabled child, guardianship was mandatory and it’s not.  There is a law that an outsider needs to be appointed (and report to the court) if a child receives settlement money from a medical malpractice lawsuit.  This is a large sum of money and I don’t know the dollar amount.  Other than that, guardianship is the last resort.

The most common reason for the elderly in guardianship is the lack of planning on their part.  They may get sick and their loved ones need access to their money to pay their bills or they just didn’t think about writing a will until later in life. Unfortunately, this opens the door for unscrupulous lawyers who financially plan the elders’ entire estate so they inherit.  These attorneys trap the elder in guardianship then find excuses to petition the court pretending to earn their clients’ money.  Everything is fake; the will, the trust, the Power of Attorney, etc.  These attorneys never had any intention of allowing the families to inherit.

The most common reason a young adult is in guardianship is probably drug abuse as in Brittney Spears case.  And that poor young lady is just going through the motions of her life as her attorney racks up 900K in legal fees each year hoping the conservatorship never ends.

In regard to a minor, guardianship can be avoided by setting up a Power of Attorney (over health and medical) or Representative Payee.  These should be discussed with an attorney and if that attorney talks about guardianship, find another.  Obviously, the more unpaid people in your child’s life, the better.

In guardianship, you have to go to court once a year, report to the judges, pay an attorney and all that money is better spent helping your child build a life addressing their personal needs.  The attorney who suggested Guardianship is addressing their personal needs of getting paid for the lifetime of your child.  Any expense to a law firm, care manager, guardian ad litem, private paid guardian, etc., is taking away from your child and allowing them live a fulfilled and happy life.  You also may have to hire an attorney to represent you which is very expensive and less money you can leave to your child/children when you pass away.

Not only that, you give your power away in guardianship.  With a Power of Attorney over health and finances, you make the decisions.  You say no and it’s no.  If you’re Guardian, you have to ask the judge’s permission.  This is probably the most difficult aspect when I’m court watching or counseling someone who has a child in guardianship.  They don’t understand why they have to ask a judge and say, “I’m their parent.”  Biologically but legally the judge is their mother and father.  The parent gave their rights away and can only make suggestions in regard to their child’s care but if the judge doesn’t like what’s suggested, they can refuse.  

Sadly, this opens the door to abuse from doctors, nursing home employees, bank trustees or anyone else who doesn’t think you know what’s best for your child and wants to report you to the judge.  So, there is an enormous difference between saying that you’re Power of Attorney or merely your child’s Guardian.  Everyone knows the Guardian has to ask the judge permission.  The parent who is coerced into putting their child in Guardianship is the last to find out how little control they have over their own child’s life.  The attorney who suggested guardianship looks forward to the fights and hassles (even instigates them) so they can go to court in order to get paid since profit is the name of the game.  A lot of times the doctors, nursing homes, guardian ad litems and so on know each other and cause problems so they can all get paid at the expense of your child.  This is a painful reality.

You also need to think of things from the judges’ perspective if you opt to put your child in Guardianship.  You’re asking them to step in, make decisions for you because you’re not capable of managing your child’s affairs alone.  That’s how they see you and some parents are angry that the judge is involved in their lives when they were the ones who invited them in.

Therefore, if you have a disabled child, you do NOT have to put them in guardianship at the age of 18.  Medical Power of Attorney and Representative Payee is enough.  I haven’t met a good parent yet that is happy about being duped into putting their child in guardianship or having to pay the attorney fees that come with the deception.  Quite the contrary, they make it a point to get the attorney involved as little as possible.  I also have the misfortune of meeting parents after they’ve been misled and the guilt of what they did to their child overwhelms them.  If they had POA, they could make medical, financial and living decisions in order to get their child out of harms way but instead have to take it to court while their child puts up with the abuse.  In some cases, doctors’ order medication that a parent knows isn’t healthy and gets into power struggles with them that they have to take into court.  In other words, Guardianship means power struggles with everyone which the attorney loves since they get paid.

I can tell you horror stories about the dishonest ways elder law attorneys profit using our most vulnerable citizens’.  They have no shame and somehow believe that they’re doing their clients a favor by financially exploiting them.

Lastly, there are some people that opt for guardianship because they can’t make decisions and need a lot of hand holding.  I’m sure there are other reasons guardianship is necessary and it’s probable that the disabled person will be in guardianship with a stranger at some point in their life.  Parents hope that they can find someone honest that will treat their child as their own family member but we live in a society that preys on the weak and vulnerable.  It’s sad.

Guardianship is the last resort.  Alarm bells should go off if it’s mentioned by your attorney.  As a loving parent, you want what's least restrictive and least expensive to give your child the most opportunities and the happiest life.  I genuinely feel badly that you were mislead into believing you were doing the best for your child, loved one, parent, aunt, etc., when a “trusted attorney” or “trusted friend” betrayed you into Guardianship.  Educating each other or trying to stop it from happening to someone else is the only way we’re going to get this to end.

Property Poaching by Probate

BY: LOU ANN ANDERSON

Laurie Roberts’ recent Arizona Republic column updating the status of Marie Long, a 90-year-old widow who has become Arizona’s symbol of probate corruption, illustrates the culture of corruption rampant within legal systems across this country. Estate of Denial® was created in 2007 to educate an unsuspecting public as to how probate instruments (wills, trusts, guardianships and powers of attorney) are increasingly used to loot assets of the dead, disabled and incapacitated as well as often positioned to obstruct the inheritance rights of these targets’ legitimate heirs and beneficiaries. With that, let’s talk “property poaching by probate,” actions that happen in communities across the U.S. They most likely happen in yours, I know they happen in mine.

The case of Marie Long has been in the media for nearly three years. Before 2009, she was worth $1.3 million. In 2005, she had a stroke and her family couldn’t agree on her care and living arrangements. The probate system saw opportunity and stepped in. Today, her money is gone and she’s on welfare. The reason: she was targeted by the Arizona legal industry for “property poaching by probate.” The legal industry usually comprises lawyers, judges and court-related personnel or select associates. Read the column – it can happen to anyone!

It also brings to mind two important points – one about lawyers, another about judges. On lawyers, get ready to start seeing a lot of them sued. Legal abuse targets are learning how Bar associations or other attorney oversight entities are generally impotent when it comes to disciplinary actions as their main function more appears that of a protectionist role – however, the protection is for their members, not the public at large. Criminal prosecutions are rare relegating targets to the pay-to-play civil court system. With this, abuse targets with financial means can (and more often) are suing – just don’t count on much luck there as we’ll discuss in the next point. And by the way, abuse targets without financial means have no recourse. Harsh, but reality.

Second important point. Know your judges. None of us can any longer afford to not vote in judicial races or to blindly vote for “that nice man from church.” Today’s candidates unashamedly sport long-running and by-any-standards ugly custody battles, DWI’s, malpractice, negligence and incompetence lawsuits along with public corruption allegations. Even questionably discharged grand jury indictments no longer serve to deter pursuit of a judgeship.

All these issues speak to a candidate’s past conduct and may be an indicator of future performance. You tell people this happens and they laugh or don’t believe you. But folks, it’s time to wise up. Try a review of public records. It’s amazing what you’ll find in your backyard. And when these are the people making decisions about your future or your loved ones, it ceases to be so funny. Also understand that as too many lawyers upon becoming judges never “cut the cord” with their legal brethren, beware candidates who are the lawyers’ choice. It often doesn’t bode well for the public at large. Just ask Marie Long!

Long was targeted by the full force of Arizona’s legal industry. Despite intense media scrutiny and widespread attention, the estate looting perpetrators have been defended or otherwise propped up by prominent Arizonans as too many powerful people can live on image and protect their interests despite the potential harm such actions can bring to average citizens. As her case heads to the Arizona Supreme Court, Marie Long's case will again exemplify a new step in what’s being sold as justice.

Meanwhile, America beware! Marie Long could be you!

Klobuchar Legislation to Protect Seniors Passes

U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar’s legislation to protect seniors from neglect and abuse by guardians passed the Senate Judiciary Committee today (Thursday, July 12) with a 15-3 vote, paving the way for a vote in the full Senate.

The Guardian Accountability and Senior Protection Act, co-sponsored by Senator John Cornyn (R-TX), would protect seniors and persons with disabilities from neglect and financial exploitation by improving oversight and accountability for court-appointed guardians and conservators.

“While most court-appointed guardians are undoubtedly professional, caring and law-abiding, there is mounting evidence that some guardians use their position of power for their own gain,” Klobuchar said. “This is a positive step forward for this critical legislation that would help increase accountability and oversight of guardians and protect those who are most vulnerable.”

Klobuchar’s legislation would provide support to states to implement programs to increase oversight of guardians and conservators. Specifically, the bill provides funding for state courts to assess the handling of proceedings relating to guardian and conservators, and then make the necessary improvements to their practices. The bill sets aside a portion of the funding for states seeking to implement or improve systems for conducting background checks on potential guardians and conservators. It also authorizes state courts to implement an electronic filing system in order to better monitor and audit conservatorships and guardianships.

A 2010 report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) 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. The report reviewed 20 of these cases and found that guardians had stolen, or otherwise improperly obtained, $5.4 million from 158 incapacitated victims, many of whom were older adults.

Klobuchar chaired a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts focusing on the issue of abuse by guardians. During the hearing, Klobuchar called for more accountability and oversight of court-appointed guardians to ensure that seniors are safe and receive the services they deserve. Klobuchar also invited the Minnesota State Ombudsman for Long-Term Care, Deb Holtz, to testify at the hearing. Holtz highlighted the challenges facing court systems that lack the resources to effectively oversee guardians and conservators.

Request for Information Regarding Senior Financial Exploitation

This is about the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that I posted here.

You can find this page here.

ACTION

Request For Information.

SUMMARY

Section 1013(g)(1) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (“Dodd-Frank Act”) requires the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (“Bureau” or “CFPB”) to facilitate the financial literacy of individuals aged 62 or older (“seniors”), on protection from unfair, deceptive, and abusive practices and on current and future financial choices, including through dissemination of materials on such topics.Show citation box

In furtherance of this mandate, the CFPB's Office for the Financial Protection of Older Americans (“Office for Older Americans”) seeks information on consumer financial products and services, financial literacy efforts, and fraudulent or deceptive practices impacting the lives of older Americans and their families.Show citation box

TABLE OF CONTENTS

• DATES:
• ADDRESSES:
• FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
• SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
• Evaluation of Senior Financial Advisor Certifications and Designations
• Providing Financial Advice and Planning Information to Seniors
• Senior Certification and Designation Information Sources
• Financial Literacy Efforts
• Financial Exploitation of Older Americans
• Financial Exploitation of Older Veterans of the Armed Forces

DATES:Back to Top

Comment Due Date: August 20, 2012.Show citation box

ADDRESSES:Back to Top

You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CFPB-2012-0018, by any of the following methods:Show citation box

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.Show citation box
• Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Monica Jackson, Office of the Executive Secretary, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 1700 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20552.Show citation box

Instructions: The CFPB encourages the early submission of comments. All submissions must include the document title and docket number. Please note the number of the question to which you are responding at the top of each response (respondents need not answer each question). In general, all comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov. In addition, comments will be available for public inspection and copying at 1700 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20552, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time. You can make an appointment to inspect the documents by telephoning 202-435-7275. All comments, including attachments and other supporting materials, will become part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Sensitive personal information such as account numbers or Social Security numbers should not be included. Comments will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information.Show citation box

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Back to Top

For general inquiries, submission process questions or any additional information, please call Monica Jackson at 202-435-7275. For specific questions on senior financial exploitation, please call James Miner at 202-435-7953.Show citation box

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:Back to Top

In support of its statutory mandates under Section 1013(g)(1) and (3) of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Office for Older Americans will monitor certifications or designations of financial advisors who serve seniors and alert the SEC and state regulators of certifications or designations that are identified as unfair, deceptive or abusive. The Office for Older Americans will also make legislative and regulatory recommendations to Congress on best practices for disseminating information to seniors regarding the legitimacy of certifications and designations, and methods through which a senior can identify the financial advisor most appropriate for the senior's needs.Show citation box

Pursuant to Section 1013(g)(3)(D), the Office for Older Americans is also conducting research to identify best practices for educating seniors on personal finance management. The office for Older Americans intends to use this research to develop goals for programs that provide financial literacy and counseling to seniors.Show citation box

The Bureau is therefore seeking comments in response to the questions posed below. The questions are grouped into the following categories: (a) Evaluation of senior financial advisor certifications and designations; (b) providing financial advice and planning information to seniors; (c) senior certification and designation information sources; (d) financial literacy efforts; and (e) financial exploitation of older Americans, including veterans of the Armed Forces. Please feel free to respond to any or all of the questions but please be sure to indicate in your comments on which questions you are commenting.Show citation box

Please note that the Bureau is not soliciting individual borrower complaints in response to this Notice and Request for Information. Nor is the Bureau seeking personally identifying information regarding borrower complaints, from the parties to the complaint or any third party. Responses to this subsection should not contain account numbers, Social Security numbers or other personal information that could be used to identify the complainant or another party identified in a complaint, or in any way otherwise reveal personally identifiable information.Show citation box

Evaluation of Senior Financial Advisor Certifications and DesignationsBack to Top

1. What resources do seniors have for determining the legitimacy, value, andauthenticity of credentials held by their financial advisors and planners? What sources have been found most helpful, accurate, and thorough? Among other things, comments could address issues such as state or organizational level review standards, evaluation practices, or selection criteria to determine the validity of proposed senior certifications or designations.Show citation box

2. How effective are the existing sources at maintaining the legitimacy, value, and authenticity of credentials held by senior financial advisors and planners?Show citation box

3. How effectively do existing accountability controls deter the misuse of senior advisor credentials? Examples of accountability controls include revoking credentials, public notices of disapproval, or other disciplinary actions.Show citation box

Providing Financial Advice and Planning Information to SeniorsBack to Top

4. What resources are available to explain the subject matter expertise presented or implied by specific certifications and designations? How effective are the publicly available sources at disseminating thorough, up-to-date information? How effectively are seniors able to use the available resources to select a financial advisor with appropriate knowledge to address their specific financial needs?Show citation box

Senior Certification and Designation Information SourcesBack to Top

5. What sources of information on the fraudulent or misleading uses of senior certifications and designations are available? Comments could include, among other things, references to publicly available research or data sets, suggestions for other potentially available research or data, or other information on enforcement, civil, administrative, or criminal cases.Show citation box

Financial Literacy EffortsBack to Top

6. What financial education, counseling, or personal finance management programs are tailored to the unique financial needs of older Americans and their families or caregivers? Among these programs, what are the best practices in providing seniors financial literacy and robust, practical information on personal finance management? Possible comments could address methods for improving recognition of unfair or deceptive financial practices; means for helping seniors plan for retirement, long-term care, and economic security; or approaches to consumer credit counseling and other financial literacy or financial protection practices.Show citation box

Financial Exploitation of Older AmericansBack to Top

7. What types of fraudulent, unfair, abusive or deceptive practices target Americans age 62 and over? Comments could include unique types of financial exploitation or additional information concerning the examples listed below.Show citation box

a. Power of Attorney or Guardian Abuse, whereby an agent under power of attorney or a court-appointed guardian uses his/her fiduciary authority (or a forged power of attorney instrument) to misappropriate the older person's assets and uses them for personal gain rather than for the support of the incapacitated older person; andShow citation box

b. Affinity fraud, in which the characteristics of a trusted advisor such as a member of the clergy or government official are impersonated by those attempting to extract payments or personal information from an older person.
Show citation box

Financial Exploitation of Older Veterans of the Armed ForcesBack to Top

8. What types of fraudulent or deceptive practices target older veterans and/or military retirees? Comments could include unique examples of financial exploitation or additional information concerning the examples listed below.Show citation box

a. VA Aid and Attendance fraud, whereby veterans are advised to transfer retirement funds into irrevocable trusts that cause them to lose access to the funds and also become ineligible for Medicaid benefits; or,Show citation box

b. Military pension buyout schemes, in which veterans are offered cash payments in return for their military pension payouts in a manner that could ultimately deprive the veteran of the majority of his or her pension.Show citation box

Dated: April 27, 2012.

Meredith Fuchs,

Chief of Staff, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.

I have to call my attorney and ask him if I can submit my report since this organization is asking that you not submit anything identifying anyone.  But Janna Dutton, Josh Mitzen, Richard Block and Devon Bank insisted on making everything they do public record.  I think I just have to explain to this organization that everyone knows all our business.  The whole lawsuit will be published on the Internet soon anyway.

Department of Health and Human Services

I talk to this organization all the time and they're well aware of the crime and corruption of forcing elders into guardianship, wasting estates then throwing the elder into the Medcaid system in order to profit.  They want to hear from YOU if you know of someone this happened to.  Report abuse at this link

The OIG Hotline accepts tips and complaints from all sources about potential fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement in Department of Health and Human Services' programs. Your information will be reviewed promptly by a professional staff member. Due to the high volume of information that we receive, we are unable to reply to submissions; however, we appreciate the information that you have provided.

Phone: 1-800-HHS-TIPS (1-800-447-8477)

*Fax: 1-800-223-8164

TTY: 1-800-377-4950

Mail:


US Department of Health and Human Services
Office of Inspector General
ATTN: OIG HOTLINE OPERATIONS
PO Box 23489
Washington, DC 20026

Home Instead Senior Care Rates

I can't remember if I removed this from my other site or not?  These are their rates but if you're a Devon Bank client, you get charged double (it's a buddy system over there) and your bill will be $500 a day.  (I can prove this.)

I just got a link from a friend about this organization.  Why doesn't that surprise me?  PLEASE read before you hire this organization because these people are not lying.  Here. And Here.

Home Instead are also franchises.  Certain owners (who are involved with bank trustees and taking advantage of their clients), hike their rates.

You should be careful of hiring any agency unless you remove all financial statements from the home.  You don't want the caregivers looking at your loved ones bank account in order to tell their boss or even report you to Adult Protective Services for "alleged" abuse that never happened.  They just want your loved one in guardianship.  This did not happen to me but I can tell you without a doubt that the caregivers from Home Instead stole money and looked through my loved ones personal possessions.  They took everything valuable.

Staff bled $44 million in gifts from heiress

By Bill Dedman

Investigative Reporter, msnbc.com

NEW YORK — The nurses, doctors, hospital, attorney and accountant for the reclusive heiress Huguette Clark coerced or influenced her to give them more than $44 million in gifts, the executor of her estate claimed in a remarkable legal petition filed Tuesday in Manhattan. The executor asked the court to order all the money to be repaid.

The executor doesn't deny that Clark authorized nearly all of these gifts, relentlessly writing hundreds of checks in her own steady hand until her eyesight gave out at the age of 102.

The accusations were vigorously denied by Clark's attorney, whose representative said, "To suggest that these gifts were not from Mrs. Clark's generous heart is to denigrate the person who gave these gifts, as well as the recipients who cared for her with their love."

 The most-favored object of Clark's generosity was her registered nurse, Hadassah Peri, an immigrant from the Philippines who had been randomly assigned in 1991 by a home healthcare agency. For 20 years Peri was the daytime private nurse, working 12-hour shifts, five or six days a week, taking care of Clark's health, her hygiene and her purchases of dolls at auctions. She was paid at an annual salary of $131,040. In addition, she and her family received $31 million in gifts, including the money to buy five homes, jewelry, dolls and a Stradivarius violin (though not Clark's best Stradivarius).

 Another $6.3 million, including a $6 million painting by Manet, was given to Beth Israel Medical Center, which allowed Clark to live in the hospital although she was quite healthy for most of her last two decades.

Clark's two physicians and their families received gifts of $3.1 million.

The night nurse and her family got $1.1 million.

The accountant, $375,000.

The attorney, just $60,000 — in addition to $1,850,000 given after the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, for a security system for the attorney's daughter's Israeli community on the West Bank.

All of these amounts were gifts on top of salaries.

If the judge in Surrogate's Court agrees with the executor, all will have to be repaid.

The legal petition filed late Tuesday afternoon, available here from msnbc.com, is an attempt to claw back into the estate millions that the executor claims was bled away by undue influence or fraud.

Update: On Wednesday the executor filed another petition, accusing Clark's attorney of malpractice and breaches of fiduciary duty, possibly opening the door for some of the claims to be covered by professional liability insurance policies. The executor asks the court to require the attorney and his law firm to return all legal fees paid by Clark from 1997 until her death.