Ten Reasons People Get Railroaded into Guardianship

Margaret K Dore

Family law attorneys generally think of guardianship as applying to children. Guardianship, also known as conservatorship, also applies to adults, typically the elderly or adults who have been injured.

Family law attorneys should have familiarity with the subject. They should also know that while guardianship is a valuable tool, it can cause harm. Increasingly, there are reports of persons who find themselves or in unnecessary guardianships. In other cases, competent people are forced into guardianship. This article focuses on ten factors that allow these phenomena to occur and offers proposals for reform.

THE TEN FACTORS

A Misconception of Guardianship

The first factor that contributes to unnecessary guardianships is a misconception of guardianship itself. The word “guardian” creates a warm and fuzzy image. Guardianship is, however, a severe loss of liberty. Guardianship of Hedin, 528 N.W.2d 567, 573-74 (Iowa 1995), states:

[The ward] may be deprived of control over his residence, his associations, his property, his diet, and his ability to go where he wishes.

With the misconception that guardianship is always a good thing, proposed wards agree to it not understanding that their rights will be restricted.  (Common practice for Janna Dutton's office.  I've had quite a few people call letting me know that she actually recommends guardianship before she even knows the history of her client.)

In Guardianship of Halasz, the ward, an injured construction worker, testified:

I would not have consented to this guardianship had I known what it entailed. 1

Vague, “Politically Correct” Statutes

In many states, persons subject to guardianship were formerly deemed “incompetent.” 2  To eliminate the stigma, many states passed statutes employing the word “incapacitated” instead. 3This terminology is also contained in the Uniform Guardianship and Protective Proceedings Act (1998). 4

This change in terminology has caused an implicit lowering of the burden of proof. A judge or jury might think twice about deeming someone “incompetent” to handle his affairs. But deeming someone “incapacitated” or as having “incapacities” is not that big a deal.

These new statutes facilitate putting someone under guardianship who should not be there.

Sudden Change and Potential Heirs

The third factor that contributes to unnecessary guardianships is sudden change, especially change that threatens potential heirs. More common examples include changing one’s will, selling family property, seeing a younger woman and/or marrying her. Any such action by an older person can result in a petition for guardianship. (Or in cases like Devon Bank where they owe a lot of people money and they see a potential client as a way to pay back their debts.)

Consider, for example, Estate of Wagner , 367 N.W.2d 736 (Neb. 1985). A father allowed some of his children to use land owned by himself and the children’s mother. Id . at 741. After his death, the mother instead leased the land to a third party for more money. Id . at 740 & 741. The children responded with a petition for guardianship. Id . at 739. The result was that their mother, a competent person, was placed under guardianship. Id . 5

Trolling for Clients

Some professional guardians petition the court to have themselves appointed guardian of persons with whom they have no prior relationship. (Like Josh Mitzen.  He has no social work education either but uses his mothers credentials, qualifications and connections.)  If appointed, the professional guardian becomes entitled to an income stream, i.e. , fees from the person’s assets.

This practice was been termed “trolling for clients.” 6  The LA Times describes one version, as follows:

Conservators [guardians] find clients by sponsoring breakfasts at senior centers and networking at legal luncheons. . . . Once conservators [guardians] identify a prospect, they can go to court and initiate a case without the client’s approval. 7  (Devon Bank holds something similar for the elderly including having branches in assisted living facilities to trap potential clients in guardianship.)

With the professional guardian’s lack of a prior relationship with the proposed ward, the professional guardian may not realize all the facts: for example, that the proposed ward was only temporarily incapacitated and is actually competent; or that the proposed ward has a valid power of attorney and his attorney-in-fact merely needs to be called. The professional guardian is then faced with a conflict of interest. He can admit that he was wrong and dismiss the guardianship, which may cause him to bear his own fees, or he can move forward for his own appointment. With the latter scenario, he may be appointed guardian even though the guardianship will be unnecessary.

Ageism

Ageism is “prejudice or discrimination on the basis of age.” 8 In the context of guardianship, ageism can influence whether a guardianship is imposed. Commentator Mark Andrews describes this factor as follows:

A vast number of college freshmen “exhibit life threatening behaviors” such as excess drinking, driving under the influence, drug experimentation, walking alone at night, speeding, unsafe sexual experiences, and the list goes on. Such behaviors inspire alma mater nostalgia in youth, but result in a petition of guardianship for an elder. (Emphasis added; footnote omitted).

Mark D. Andrews, The Elderly in Guardianship: A Crisis of Constitutional Proportions, 5 Elder.L.J. 75, 105-06, Spring 1997.

Court Visitors Are Not Always Neutral

The role of a “court visitor” is to provide a recommendation to the court as to whether the guardianship should be imposed. 9 The role is analogous to a guardian ad litem or parenting evaluator in a child custody case. 10 In some states, court visitors are called guardians ad litem. 11

As custody attorneys know, guardians ad litem and evaluators are not always neutral; they instead follow their own value systems or other private criteria. 12 With this situation, custody attorneys often advocate for the appointment of a guardian ad litem/parenting evaluator whose views are compatible with their cases. 13 They may also move for the appointment of a guardian ad litem or parenting evaluator with whom they have an established relationship. 14 The person appointed can be prealigned to one side. 15  (Like Ray Koenig, he was Mr. Ziarnik's GAL who told me that they're all really good friends.  It's all a money game.)

These same types of issues exist with court visitors. The petitioner’s attorney may nominate a visitor known to favor guardianships. 16 He may nominate a visitor with whom he has an established relationship. 17 If the nominated person is appointed, he or she may be predisposed to recommend a guardianship and/or be pre-aligned with the petitioner. The guardianship is more likely to be imposed.

Court Visitors Effectively Lower the Burden of Proof

Caselaw provides that the constitutionally required burden of proof for a guardianship is “clear and convincing evidence.” 18 In many cases, this burden is easily met. The proposed ward is demented. There is no alternative to guardianship such as a power of attorney because the proposed ward is incompetent to execute such a document.

In other cases, however, the burden would not be easily met i.e., if the petitioner would actually be required to show clear and convincing evidence. The petitioner, however, is often not required to meet this burden because as a practical matter, he only needs to convince the court visitor.  For this task, hearsay and innuendo are often sufficient, for example, that the proposed ward is a spendthrift.  (Except no one takes into consideration the fact that the trustees from Devon Bank are spendthrifts and no one is keeping tabs on their spending.)

If the visitor’s recommendation to impose the guardianship is accepted by the court, the guardianship will be imposed. This is a typical result. The supporting evidence will not be clear and convincing, but hearsay and innuendo.

Court Visitors Recommend the Lawyers

Court visitors also contribute to the imposition of unnecessary guardianships because in many states, the visitor recommends whether the proposed ward should be given a lawyer. 19 The proposed ward does not have an automatic right to counsel. 20

This situation creates a conflict of interest. If the visitor recommends that the proposed ward have counsel, there will be a potential adversary to the visitor. For this reason, this author has seen the visitor decline to recommend counsel.

With the proposed ward unrepresented, it is easier to impose guardianship against him.

The Visitor’s Fee Creates Another Conflict of Interest

The next two sections are based on the law of Washington State, where the author is most familiar with local practice. In Washington state, the person performing the role of court visitor is called a guardian ad litem. In privately funded cases, the guardian ad litem is paid a fee approved by the court. 21 The other parties, for example the petitioner, have a right to object to the fee. At least by custom, this is what happens.

If the guardian ad litem recommends counsel for the proposed ward, or if the guardian ad litem recommends against the guardianship, the petitioner may object to the guardian ad litem’s fee. The “smart” guardian ad litem, who wants to get paid, is thus under pressure to go along with the petition, not “make waves.”

The guardian ad litem is, regardless, more likely to be paid if the guardianship is imposed. This is because with the appointment of a guardian, there is an official person (the guardian) who will be ordered to pay the guardian ad litem’s fee from the ward’s assets. If, by contrast, the guardianship is not imposed, there will be no official person to pay the fee. The court could also order another, less solvent party to be responsible. For example, Wash. Rev. Code § 11.88.090(10) states:

If the petition is found to be frivolous or not brought in good faith, the guardian ad litem fee shall be charged to the petitioner . (Emphasis added).  (It's a pity they don't have that here, Devon Bank would go bankrupt.)

What if the petitioner has no money?

The “smart” guardian ad litem who wants to be paid is thus under pressure to recommend a guardianship. Otherwise, he could find himself working for free. 22

Incentives to Sell Out the Client
(No “Dream Team” for the AIP)

In Washington State, there are also conflicts of interest involving the lawyer for the proposed ward (the “alleged incapacitated person”). This is because the lawyer’s appointment and fee are also subject to court approval with the other parties having the right to object. 23 Like the guardian ad litem, the “smart” lawyer who wants to be paid will not do anything that causes the petitioner to be unhappy, such as vigorously fighting the petition. The “smart” lawyer will also avoid disagreeing with the court, as the court has direct authority to appoint him, approve fees and order payment. The bottom line, there is pressure on the lawyer to sell out his client. For this reason also, a person may be placed under guardianship when it is not appropriate.

PROPOSALS FOR REFORM

Politically Correct Statutes

State or federal statutes should be enacted that clarify: that guardianship is a last resort; and that the burden of proof is clear and convincing evidence that the proposed ward is incompetent to handle his affairs. The politically correct “incapacitated” should be removed from all statutes designating the burden of proof.

Eliminate Court Visitors/Mandatory Appointment of Counsel

The role of court visitor should be eliminated.  (Ray Koenig really was a waste of money.)  A defense attorney for the proposed word should instead be appointed upon the filing of the petition, unless the proposed ward already has counsel. 24   The petitioner should then be required to prove his case with admissible evidence.

If the proposed ward is obviously incompetent with no alternative to guardianship, a summary procedure could be used to impose the guardianship. Otherwise, the matter would be dismissed or proceed to trial.

Conflicts of Interest

The conflict of interest in which the proposed ward’s lawyer is subject to economic pressure by the petitioner and the court, should be eliminated. A possible solution would be to remove the lawyer’s appointment from direct court supervision, for example, to a defenders association.

Other conflicts of interest should be studied and eliminated wherever they occur.

Public Awareness

Some guardianships are preventable through education and estate planningm, e.g. , the execution of a durable power of attorney. Efforts should be made to increase public awareness in this regard. 25

CONCLUSION

The law provides that guardianship not be imposed unless there is clear and convincing proof. In practice, this proof is often not required due to the factors identified above: vague, politically correct statutes; the role of court visitors; and in many states, the lack of mandatory counsel for the proposed word.

More broadly, there are numerous conflicts of interest that allow competent individuals to find themselves forced into guardianship. The next time, it could be you.

It is time for reform, including the elimination of court-appointed recommenders such as court visitors and guardians ad litem. Cases should instead be decided by the court based on the evidence.

ENDNOTES

1. Id .

2. See : Uniform Guardianship and Protective Proceedings Act (1998), §102(5). For a copy of the Act, see : http://www.nccusl.org/ .

3. In re Guardianship of Gabriel Halasz , King County Cause No. 02-4-06260-9SEA, WA State, Declaration of Gabriel Halasz, December 4, 2003, p. 1, ¶ 2.

4 . See , e.g. : Wash. Rev. Code § 11.88.005; Wash. Rev. Code § 11.88.010(1)(f); and N.J. § 30:4-165.13.

5. Wagner is discussed in DIANE G. ARMSTRONG, THE NIGHTMARE RETIREMENT: HOW TO SAVE YOURSELF FROM YOUR HEIRS AND PROTECTORS (Prometheus Books, 2000), p. 119. In Wagner , the mother was eventually released from guardianship, which is unusual. Id . at 122.

6. The practice of professional guardians petitioning for their own clients has been more derisively termed “bounty hunting for the elderly.” See e.g. , Guardianship of Joan M. Gammon , King County Cause No. 04-4-01218- 7SEA, WA State, Larry Gammon’s Motion for Reconsideration to Vacate Order Appointing Guardian as Void, and for Fees, p. 20 (“The potential for abuse is boundless”).

7. Robin Fields, Evelyn Larrubia and Jack Leonard, When a Family Matter Turns into a Business, LA TIMES, November 13, 2005.

8. OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS DICTIONARY

9. Uniform Guardianship and Protective Proceedings Act (1998), § 305 (describing the role of the “court visitor,” including the duty to file a report with recommendations).

10. Cf. Margaret K. Dore, Court-Appointed Parenting Evaluators and Guardians ad Litem: Practical Realities and an Argument for Abolition , DIVORCE LITIGATION, Vol. 18, No. 4, April 2006 (Parenting evaluators and guardians ad litem investigate custody arrangements and report back to the court with their recommendations [or provide a brief]).( http://www.margaretdore.com/docs/Dore_Div_Lit_Article_4-06.pdf ).

11. See e.g. , Wash. Rev. Code § 11.88.090(5)(describing the duties of the “guardian ad litem,” with such duties being similar to those of a court visitor under the Uniform Act, § 305).

12. The tendency for evaluators/guardians ad litem to follow their own criteria has been documented in at least one reported decision. See : Gilbert v. Gilbert , 664 A.2d 239, 242 at fn.2 (Vt 1995) (describing survey results, including that “many [guardians ad litem] are not following applicable law”). This tendency is also documented in an article by Paul S. Appelbaum, M.D. He states:

When an evaluator recommends [a child’s placement] we are learning not about the relative capacities of the parties but, instead, about the relative values of the evaluators.

Paul S. Abbelbaum, M.D., “ The Medicalization of Judicial Decision-Making ”, THE ELDER LAW REPORT, Vol. X, No. 7, February 1999, p. 3, ¶1, last line.

13. Cf. Dore, supra at 53.

14. Id . at 54.

15. Id .

16. Cf. Cheryl Phillips, Maureen O’Hagan and Justin Mayo, Secrecy Hides Cozy Ties in Guardianship Cases , SEATTLE TIMES, December 4, 2006 (“the Snohomish County Court appointed the guardian ad litem whom [the petitioner’s attorney] recommended . . .”).

17. Id .

18. Uniform Guardianship and Protective Proceedings Act (1998), § 311, Comment (“The clear and convincing evidence standard for the appointment of a guardian is new to the Act, but mandated by the Constitution . . .”).

19. See e.g. , Wash. Rev. Code § 11.88.090(5)(g) and Uniform Guardianship and Protective Proceedings Act (1998), § 305(b)(Alternate 1)
20. Id .

21. Wash. Rev. Code § 11.88.090(10).

22. Professors Raven Lidman and Betsy Hollingsworth make a similar point: If the guardian ad litem is being paid by one party or can only reasonably expect payment from one party, her judgment and recommendation may be or may appear to be influenced by this consideration. (Emphasis removed). Raven C. Lidman and Betsy R. Hollingsworth, The Guardian ad Litem in Child Custody Cases: The Contours of Our Judicial System Stretched Beyondrs Raven Lidman and Betsy Hollingsworth makers Raven Lidman and Betsy Hollingsworth make a similar point: If the guardian ad litem is being paid by one party or can only reasonably expect payment from one party, her judgment and recommendation may be or may appear to be influenced by this consideration. (Emphasis removed). Raven C. Lidman and Betsy R. Hollingsworth, The Guardian ad Litem in Child Custody Cases: The Contours of Our Judicial System Stretched Beyondrs Raven Lidman and Betsy Hollingsworth make a similar point: If the guardian ad litem is being paid by one party or can only reasonably expect payment from one party, her judgment and recommendation may be or may appear to be infl uenced by this consideration. (Emphasis removed). Raven C. Lidman and Betsy R. Hollingsworth, The Guardian ad Litem in Child Custody Cases: The Contours of Our Judicial System Stretched Beyond Recognition, 6 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 255, 302 (1998).

23. Wash. Rev. Code § 11.88.045(2).

24. Cf. Uniform Guardianship and Protective Proceedings Act (1998), § 305(b)(Alternate 2), which states:

Unless the respondent [the proposed ward] is represented by a lawyer, the court shall appoint a lawyer to represent the respondent in the proceeding.

25. See e.g. , Written Testimony of Tami Ingraham before the Washington State Senate Judiciary Committee, January 26, 2007 (regarding a proposed public awareness campaign). Contact tmingraham2@hotmail.com

Beverly Hayes - Devon Bank

She's Sally Griffin's replacement.  I sat directly behind her in court a few weeks ago in Honorable Lynne Kawamoto's courtroom.  She was talking to the guardian of the person, I believe.  I have to pull the file (and get back to you).  Judge Kawamoto's clerk kept telling everyone to be quiet, to take it outside and move along quickly but Ms. Hayes kept talking.  The woman she was talking to completely trusted her and I felt sick because I was the same way with Sally and Rick Block.  That turned out to be a big mistake.  They embezzled money from nineteen clients and still counting....

Anyway, Judge Kawamoto's clerk was telling the courtroom to be quiet, to take it outside and move along quickly but she kept talking (which was good because I heard every word and if she turns out to be untrustworthy like Sally Griffin, I've got that woman's back).  The bailiff had to come over and tell her to leave the courtroom if she wanted to continue her conversation.  It's so disrespectful to Judge Kawamoto and not surprising that it would be an employee of Devon Bank or affiliated with Amy McCarty.  (I'm wondering who picked the bank?  Devon Bank is the most expensive bank in the city to have manage your estate.  Did Amy McCarty pick it out?  That alone is financial exploitation of the elderly.) 

I'm saying "Beverly Hayes" disrespected the court because the woman she was with doesn't make a living in the courtroom although, she should know better.  It'll be interesting to see how this case turns out.  Devon Bank has a three month thing.  They start slandering the POA or guardian of the person three months after you open an account because they owe so many people and need their clients money to pay them off.  So, they slander them to put one of their friends on board as GOP to squander the estate.  I'll keep an eye on them to see if they're also going to use this poor soul to pay off their debts.

New Federal Agency Charged With Protecting Older Consumers of Financial Services

BY GENE MITCHELL

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) was created by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010. The CFPB includes the Office for Older Americans, which has a mandate to help protect the financial interests of consumers aged 62 and up.

Hubert H. (“Skip”) Humphrey III was named assistant director of the Office for Older Americans in October. Humphrey, a former attorney general of Minnesota, has also worked in the private sector in communication and public affairs, and has taught at the University of Minnesota. He has served as the president of the Minnesota AARP and has been an AARP national board member.

In December, LeadingAge interviewed Humphrey to learn more about the CFPB’s priorities in protecting the interests of older Americans.

LeadingAge: What is the mandate of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau with respect to older Americans? How will seniors benefit from the Bureau’s work?

Skip Humphrey: We have to fit what our office does within the mission of CFPB: that markets that provide financial services and products are transparent, competitive, and that consumers have access to the information they need to make financial decisions. Within that [mission] there are a number of different populations we are asked by Congress to look at, one of which is Americans 62 and older. Our mission is to coordinate and work with state and federal agencies and community organizations to assist seniors in having the information they need to make sound financial decisions.

If we accomplish that, seniors can go into the marketplace with a degree of understanding and make sound financial decisions.

Beyond that, my own experience has taught me that you need the educational background for seniors to be well-informed, but also the enforcement capacity of the Bureau to keep rascals out of the marketplace.

LeadingAge: What issue areas, with respect to older Americans, are the greatest priorities for CFPB? What sorts of reforms would you like to see going forward?

Skip Humphrey: I’ll give one example and it raises issues your [members] have to confront. That is the issue of diminished capacity in the decision-making process, and the risk older Americans face, where they may not have the same level of capacity as someone who is younger. Those people may well be in some of the facilities of readers of yours. How will we help those who are caregivers have the right tools as they assist in making decisions?

Elder abuse and financial exploitation is a real problem and I’ve heard about it all over this country. It’s also the financial institutions that are sensitive to this. Take a bank—a teller may see signs of a problem. Why is this person taking out a lot of money when they never have before? At that point someone needs to get some help. That’s where we have a major area of concern. There are issues regarding guardianship, and some of the folks in your group are concerned about that relationship: What is [the guardian’s] training, what is their background?

LeadingAge: What strategies will you use for getting the word out about the work CFBP is doing?

Skip Humphrey: There are a number of ways. We have a very good website [www.consumerfinance.gov] and will be expanding it. Secondly, we’re doing a lot of media interviews. Third, we are meeting with organizations all around the country. I just came back from Portland, Maine, where we met with a whole host of organizations and law-enforcement agencies that are becoming more sensitive to the problems out there.

LeadingAge: Do you have any observations about how well aging-services providers do in terms of helping consumers make informed choices about care options?

Skip Humphrey: I don’t want to prejudge, but you’ve hit on what Congress has asked us to look at. They’ve asked us to coordinate research, learn about best practices and training, etc. We’re just beginning that kind of effort.

Organizations like yours have to help me understand financial transactions. In many of these transactions, the market is shifting to the home care industry. We’re not necessarily going to be looking at the quality of that care, but will look at the financial end of things.

But I want to put this back into the framework of the larger picture: How can we help seniors have the financial information they need, and gain confidence they can go into a very robust marketplace and make these decisions as they age? It’s hard enough for a 50-year-old.

LeadingAge: Our members are highly regulated, especially those providing skilled nursing care. To what degree will CFPB work with providers to achieve consumer protection goals?

Skip Humphrey: We’re working not only with non-profits but for-profits. Let’s not duplicate what’s already been done and done well. We’re now gathering information and finding databases. A lot of work has already been done in various places around the country. I’ve had some strong support from local agencies and organizations who want some help.

Some states have been very active in these areas, [for instance] Texas and California; I was quite impressed with what I saw in Maine, but for the most part it’s kind of anecdotal at this point.

This is the first federal office solely focused on financial information and education for seniors. It’s a big task but an exciting opportunity to really help the growing number of older Americans.

Link to original story.

I'm going to have to notify this gentleman of Devon Bank and the things that I'm hearing at the election functions.  Banks are forcing elders into buying annuities, harrassing children's parents and calling them all the time.  So, now we not only have trust officers that aren't trustworthy but the entire financial industry preying on the elderly and yet, this gentleman trusts them?  I'll have to get the word out.

Calistoga Bookkeeper Embezzles 250K from Elder Woman

A self-employed bookkeeper from Calistoga on Friday admitted embezzling more than $250,000 from an elderly Yolo County woman who operated a bed and breakfast in St. Helena, according to the Yolo County District Attorney’s Office.

Denise Conophy also pleaded guilty to elder abuse and tax evasion and agreed to forfeit more than $300,000 in cash and property to pay restitution to the victim, Jonathan Raven, chief deputy district attorney said in a news release.

Conophy, 51, had been hired to handle the victim’s bookkeeping and financial affairs related to a bed and breakfast in St. Helena, Raven said in the statement.

Instead, Conophy, transferred the victim’s assets to other accounts to pay her own bills, the prosecutor said.

The crimes were committed after the victim fell ill and relatives discovered that the woman’s assets had been depleted, authorities said.

In April, a spokesman for the California Franchise Tax Board, one of the investigating agencies, said Conophy allegedly used the money to pay personal bills, buy rental property in Santa Rosa and vacation property in Oregon. During the investigation, the Franchise Tax Board discovered that Conophy allegedly failed to file state income tax returns for eight years and failed to report the stolen funds as income, the Yolo County District Attorney’s Office said.

Yolo County Superior Court Judge Janet Gaard is scheduled to sentence Conophy on March 8 in Yolo County Superior Court in Woodland.

Prosecutors on April 14 charged Conophy with alleged embezzlement, elder abuse, money laundering and tax evasion, court documents show.

Read more

Ex-Partner of Big Law Firm Convicted of Taking $370,000

A Wisconsin jury has found a former partner of a large international law firm guilty of stealing $370,000 from an elderly client who prosecutors said suffered from dementia.

Dorothy Phinney, now 94, became a client of Milwaukee lawyer Jeffrey Elverman in 2000, when he was a partner at the firm of Quarles & Brady. In 2003 and 2004, Phinney signed checks to Elverman, who held her power of attorney, totaling $370,000. The payments came to light in 2008, shortly after a Milwaukee County judge found Phinney incompetent and appointed a community services agency as her guardian. The guardian has also filed a pending civil suit alleging Elverman took more than $600,000 from Phinney.

At trial, prosecutors presented a caregiver's records showing that Elverman met with Phinney for about an hour a week, on average. To justify $370,000 in fees, Elverman would have had to work 30 hours a week for Phinney at his $150 hourly rate, an assistant district attorney told the Milwaukee County jury.

But Elverman's lawyer countered that although Phinney couldn't name the president or identify a stapler, she understood her own finances well enough to know she wanted Elverman to help her handle them and she intended to pay him the money.

"This case is about Dorothy Phinney's ability to consent," attorney Daniel Drigot told the jury in his opening statement. "It's not about whether she was too generous or Mr. Elverman was too greedy." Elverman did not testify at his trial.

Elverman left Quarles & Brady in 2004 for unrelated reasons. The firm's internal investigation following Elverman's departure raised concerns about his representation of Phinney, but Elverman refused to allow Quarles & Brady to contact Phinney.

Elverman faces up to five years in prison and a fine of up to $25,000.
 
Full story here.

Overcoming the Heartbreaking and Emotional Drain of Condoned Law Guardian Abuse

How does someone overcome the heartbreaking and emotional drain of dealing with legally approved corruption? If there was a simple answer for that question, it is the need to raise awareness of an unsafe and unjust system. It has been awhile since my last article on this topic. Aside from the general busyness of the holiday season, I found myself exhausted on some unexplained level. The mere thought of having to discuss anything further about the final few years of Dorothy Wilson’s challenged life had a nauseating effect on me. There were many times when I would quietly ponder how anyone would allow another human being to be stripped of their rights; literally, figuratively and financially. This was even more troubling because Dorothy had more viable, loving and much happier options available to her.

You would think that considering all of the grief that Dorothy’s law guardian, Mary Giordano, caused both Dorothy and Diane; the only child fighting for her happiness; that when Mrs. Wilson passed into spirit that Mary would have stopped her nonsense. Instead, Diane, who was rightfully assigned as the executrix of the meager estate left after Mary Giordano was given free reign to financially plunder several hundred thousand dollars through a reverse mortgage and other ways, with the approval of Judge Joel Asarch, is still fighting for the pittance of money that was left. Mary Giordano has had no trouble forwarding the bills associated with the cost of maintaining Dorothy’s home and previous care. However, she has not released the funds to pay for it. All of her actions continue to highlight how unscrupulous, callous and greedy she is.

Perhaps one of the aspects of this law guardian abuse case; as in many others, is the complete lack of concern for anyone else who is affected. This holds true for family, friends and even more. Once Diane was put in charge of her Mom’s estate--as Dorothy had wanted from the onset--she started to find more and more of the absurd care that was taking place. The house was already put up for sale, but once Diane was allowed into it she spent hours and hours of her own time cleaning and organizing things to make it presentable. Diane and witnesses found certain things that were glaringly improper. We could begin by wondering why a binder with the order from Judge Asarch approving Dorothy’s relocation was found in the freezer. Could it be simply because it was in clear violation of Article 81? How many honest lawyers file their client’s documents in the back of a freezer?

Under the care of Anne Recht, the healthcare manager, Dorothy’s medicines and medical waste, including used needles, were found scattered throughout the home. They were in file cabinets, dresser drawers, a sewing machine cabinet, upstairs in a room where the aides slept, in the garage and in the refrigerator. People were coming and going in this house, including children, as Mary Giordano had put it up for sale without authorization. I can only speak for myself, but I would not be comfortable having inquisitive children stumble across a box of needles that were not properly stored. Many of the needles were pre-filled with medicine. There was even an IV pole with several needles and medicine connected to it that was left out in the open. Anyone could have been poked or injured by them.

In addition to the medicine, hundreds of dollars of expired food had to be thrown away because of the parade of aides. While some were very good to Dorothy, others would not take the time to go through the cabinets to see what was available to cook. The amount of wasted money would be unacceptable by most households, but under the “care” of Mary Giordano and Anne Recht, Dorothy’s funds were routinely misused. I personally remember the smile on Dorothy’s face one time when she attended a prayer and meditation meeting I held. The only requirement ever requested was that whoever comes to these meetings has to bring food for the pantry. She was more than happy to do that with Diane.

If the populace does not awaken to the fact that situations like Dorothy Wilson are taking place all around the country, then the actions of lawyers and judges who elect to scam the families who are caught up in it will continue to take place. What I have found with my inquiries and conversations with numerous people is that the majority of society seems to be intimidated by the judges and guardians responsible for the illegal and immoral activities. They are generally “well-connected” people and can make the lives miserable for those who stand up to them. Since they are in positions of power, they feel confident in trampling the civil rights of those they deem they should control, not to mention that they feel safe from prosecution because of the standard “old boys club” that still exists today.

This problem will persist unless enough citizens raise their voices and get the media—social and mainstream—to start putting a spotlight on many of the cases around the country. It makes no difference if the victim is someone’s mother, as in the case of Dorothy Wilson, or a husband like Gary Harvey, whose rights were taken away from him and his wife, Sara, when a guardian was put in charge. These are only two examples. The list goes on and on when it comes to the vulture-like attacks that take place from many guardians who greedily profit from an unchecked system that needs to be seriously addressed. Law guardian abuse seems to attack the elderly frequently, but is no stranger to the mentally impaired or physically challenged. Estates are systematically stolen from their rightful owners and family. What will it take for you to feel angered or passionate enough to take a stand and begin to hold the politicians accountable, who also want to hide behind legalities, mostly out of fear that it will hurt their career path? They have the power to change the laws, but many are either unaware of the rampant disintegration of civil rights, or they have chosen to be a part of the problem by ignoring or partaking in it. Often times, those who know about it do not take action because it is their colleagues, friends or acquaintances that are part of the corruption.

It would benefit an array of struggling victims to know that their voices are not being discarded by society. Let your compassion and the gauge that all people have that tells them the difference between right and wrong land on the right point. In this way, you will become a pillar of support for the meek and not a lamb led to slaughter by those who abuse the power that they wield.

Jim Fargiano

Cooper's Corner

This is a website of Bev Cooper's Programs on Elder Abuse and Guardianship Abuse.  They're must see TV.

Her link is here - North Shore Live

My all time favorite show is here.  Because Bev looks absolutely stunning.  I think green is her signature color.