The Senators’ legislation comes after the VA
announced an effort that could push hundreds of Veterans into
exploitative legal guardianships and deny our heroes the proper care
they’ve earned
[WASHINGTON, D.C.] – U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL)
introduced legislation that would establish a Guardianship Bill of
Rights to help protect Veterans from being forced into harmful
arrangements and thrown into institutions as part of a new policy
announced by the Trump Administration. Specifically, the Trump
Administration’s recent policy agreement
allows the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to grant U.S. Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA) attorneys the authority to initiate and
participate in state court guardianship proceedings on behalf of the VA.
This policy threatens to rip away agency from hundreds of Veterans and
unnecessarily force them into institutions after the Trump
Administration has repeatedly gutted the VA and made it harder for them
to access the care they need and have earned through their service. In
addition to Duckworth, the Guardianship Bill of Rights Act of 2026 is cosponsored by U.S. Senators Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and John Fetterman (D-PA).
“Guardianships frequently result in abuse and exploitation—it
is downright abhorrent that the Trump Administration has created a
legal backdoor to force Veterans into such arrangements that would strip
them of their autonomy and see them institutionalized,” said Duckworth. “Our
heroes deserve so much better than a President who guts the VA, slashes
essential services and now tries to shove them into institutions. This
legislation would codify a list of legal rights to protect Americans
with disabilities and anyone who has a guardian or conservator,
including Veterans who are threatened by this Administration’s latest
shameful effort to abandon them.”
“We have a responsibility to ensure that those living under a
guardianship aren’t ever stripped of their rights, and we need a
guardianship system that respects the voices of our veterans, seniors,
and those with disabilities,” said Senator Fetterman. “I’m
proud to join my colleagues in reintroducing the Guardianship Bill of
Rights Act, which protects those living under a guardianship from fraud,
exploitation, and abuse and makes sure their dignity always comes
first.”
While guardians are obligated to protect the person they serve, this
legal tool is largely overused and frequently results in vulnerable
people—especially those with disabilities—being abused, defrauded or
stripped of their agency. Despite less restrictive alternatives, like
supported decisionmaking, being widely available, guardianship is
commonly used as the first course of action instead of a last
resort—resulting in too many Americans being unnecessarily
institutionalized when they could better thrive in their homes and
communities. Shamefully, the Trump Administration has been working to
steer Veterans and people with disabilities into institutions instead of
promoting alternatives that better protect their civil rights.
The Senators’ Guardianship Bill of Rights Act of 2026 would help protect the rights of Veterans and Americans with disabilities in protective agreements by:
Creating a Council to develop a Guardianship Bill of Rights
regarding the fundamental civil rights of individuals being considered
for, or living under, protective arrangements;
Establishing standards for protective arrangements, including
transitioning from such arrangements to supportive decisionmaking and
other alternative arrangements; and
Establishing a Protection and Advocacy Program, for oversight and
monitoring of State and local guardianships, conservatorships and other
protective arrangements.
The U.S. Departments of Veterans Affairs (VA) and Justice (DOJ) signed a memorandum of understanding
(MOU) on March 11 that could strip veterans, particularly those
experiencing homelessness, of the right to make their own health care
decisions. Veterans who are homeless or at risk of homelessness are
among the targeted population. NLIHC strongly opposes the VA-DOJ
initiative.
The agreement allows VA attorneys to initiate and
participate in guardianship or conservatorship proceedings in state
courts against veterans. According to a DOJ website,
“guardianship results in the removal of an individual’s legal rights
and restricts their rights to make their own decisions…Guardianship
should be limited to situations where there are no other reasonable ways
to meet the individuals’ needs.”
The unprecedented agreement
between VA and DOJ creates a pathway for stripping veterans experiencing
homelessness of their autonomy rather than addressing the root causes
of homelessness. The initiative comes amid a broader effort by the Trump
administration to withdraw federal support for needed homelessness
solutions and force people experiencing homelessness into jails and
other institutions.
Pairing rental assistance with voluntary
supportive services has been instrumental in reducing veteran
homelessness by 11% since 2020 and by more than 55% since 2010. Despite
this progress, the Trump administration has worked to slash funding for
permanent housing and mandate treatment programs for people experiencing
homelessness, putting veterans and others at risk of housing
instability, forced institutionalization, and homelessness. Guardianship
and involuntary treatment are not solutions to homelessness; instead,
policymakers should expand access to affordable housing, health care,
and community-based services.
MORGANTOWN, W.Va (WDTV) - A Morgantown
woman has been charged with financial exploitation after police find
that she accumulated over $500,00.00 in assets from an elderly person.
Brittany
Miller, 37, has been charged with financial exploitation of an elderly
person, according to the Monongalia County Sheriff’s Office.
Reports
state that Miller gained financial access to the victim’s funds, after
personally creating and filing a Statutory Power of Attorney document
around February 2023 in Monongalia County and elsewhere.
She
then created a pattern of repeated withdrawals, checks to cash, and
debit card use that was inconsistent with the victim’s needs, abilities,
and location. This led the victim’s financial institution to freeze
accounts for suspected elder abuse.
There were 24 personal checks made out to
Miller beginning in February of 2023 to December of 2025; a personal
check to purchase ownership of a property in Vienna, WV: three debit
card transactions for boudoir photography sessions; seven debit card
transactions for jeep upgrades; three debit card transactions for
cosmetic procedures; and a single cash payment for cosmetic porcelain
ceramic teeth.
There was an
accumulated financial loss for the victim estimated to be greater than
$500,00.00, causing Adult Protective Services (APS) to take protective
action against the suspected abuse.
According
to detectives, Miller exerted influence over the victim due to her age,
cognitive impairment, and dependency, using her fiduciary authority to
control finances, change wills, and act for personal gain. No credible
evidence or information had been found to support “good faith” or
otherwise lawful use of the victims’ funds.
Miller’s bond was set at $40,000 and was posted on March 24.
David Esquibias is an attorney who owns Townsgate In-Home
Services, which received $2.7 million from his wife’s clients. Photo by
David Buchan
For years, a fiduciary in Ventura County has been directing her
clients’ money to her husband’s law firm and health care company, all
with the court’s approval. A newly appointed judge has begun to unwind
the arrangements weeks after a CalMatters’ investigation exposed the conflicts of interest.
Ventura County Probate Judge Gilbert Romero ruled that Angelique Friend violated court rulesinthreecases
when she hired her husband, David Esquibias, as her attorney, and her
clients paid the bill. The judge ordered her to stop hiring Esquibias as
her attorney and Townsgate In-Home Services, Esquibias’ company. Romero
blocked Esquibias from collecting attorney’s fees in the three cases.
“Here, the conservator hiring her spouse as her attorney and paying
his fees from the estate reasonably could create the appearance of a
conflict of interest and be perceived as self-serving,” Romero wrote in a
ruling.
The judge also suspended Friend as the trustee in a fourth case after beneficiaries of the Mettler Trust argued that she breached her fiduciary duties by paying Townsgate $1.1 million from the trust from 2021 to 2025. They are asking the court to force Friend to reimburse the estate.
Friend argued that she disclosed her connection to Townsgate and that she has no ownership interest in the company. A hearing for the case is scheduled for July.
Romero started a March 23 hearing by establishing a timeline of
Friend and Esquibias’ relationship and when it was formally disclosed.
The more questions he asked, the more testy Esquibias became. The
attorney called the judge’s line of questioning “rather sickening.”
“I am helpless to protect her,” Esquibias said of his wife. “I should tell the court, ‘Do not question my client.’”
Romero responded, “Doesn’t that go to the conflict?”
In one case, Friend became the conservator over Brenna Clark’s estate
in 2014, court records show, and Esquibias represented Friend before
they married. They never formally disclosed their dating relationship on
the record, only orally, Esquibias told the court.
Romero said that was a problem, even though the previous judge
allowed it. That judge, Roger Lund, was reassigned last fall, weeks
after CalMatters began asking questions about the arrangement.
“As soon as you and Mrs. Friend started a dating relationship, that
was a violation of the rule of court,” Romero said. “I think your
services should have been terminated at that point.”
Esquibias expressed shock that his work relationship with Friend had now become an issue after years of the court’s approval.
“It was something that was actually celebrated in this very courtroom
by colleagues … who attended my wedding,” Esquibias said. Indeed,
retired Judge Glen M. Reiser signed their marriage license in 2019.
The judge also considered disallowing Townsgate’s payments in one
case, but he gave Friend a chance to show that Townsgate’s hiring was in
the best interest of her client. The judge is scheduled to rehear that
case on May 4.
The CalMatters investigation
found that Lund approved Friend and Esquibias’s arrangement for years,
even as family members complained. Court records show the couple brought
in about $3 million from 2019 to 2025 from clients in the six cases
CalMatters reviewed; $2.7 million went to Townsgate, even though court rules and the California Professional Fiduciary Bureau’s code of conduct generally prohibit such conflicts.
Nearly three weeks after the story ran, in a rare move, Romero
brought his own motion to reconsider the attorney’s fees and Townsgate
costs he’d recently approved. Romero noted that he could only review
approvals that he’d signed, and he couldn’t do anything about the years
of approvals that came before him.
“I have an obligation to correct myself,” Romero said.
In an email, Friend said “these relationships were disclosed from the
outset, repeatedly presented to the court, and previously approved.”
“While I respect the new judge’s ruling and have taken immediate
steps to comply going forward, including retaining new counsel and
replacing the care provider company,” she wrote, “I disagree with
applying that new view retroactively to arrangements that were fully
disclosed and previously approved.”
She said they are “evaluating the next legal steps to formally dispute the retroactive rulings.”
CLARKSBURG, W.Va. — U.S. Attorneys
Matthew L. Harvey and Moore Capito, in partnership with Modell
Consulting, launched a two-day training session this week at the FBI
Criminal Justice Information Services facility to bolster the Department
of Justice’s Elder Justice Initiative.
U.S. attorneys Matthew L. Harvey and Moore Capito launched the initiative.
The program,
titled West Virginia SAFE (Safe and Accessible Forensic Interviewing
with Elders), provides specialized training for law enforcement,
prosecutors, and social workers on communicating with older crime
victims. Led by Karen Hill, Ed.D., LCPA, the curriculum focuses on
forensic interviewing techniques that account for age-related cognitive
decline, dementia, Alzheimer’s, language capacity, and cultural
backgrounds.
"Those who target older
Americans for financial gain should be on notice: We will use every tool
available to investigate and prosecute these crimes," Harvey said. "By
investing in this training, we are standing up for our seniors and
making clear that exploitation of the elderly will not be tolerated in
our communities."
The
initiative arrives as federal officials increase efforts to combat the
physical and financial exploitation of seniors across the state.
"Elder
abuse is a coward’s crime — preying on those least able to fight back,"
Capito said. "That’s why this training matters — it sharpens our
ability to spot it, stop it, and hold offenders accountable. We will not
overlook it, we will not excuse it — we will prosecute it, every time."
Participants in the session are
eligible for professional education credits. The West Virginia State
Bar is providing legal education credits, while the West Virginia
Division Law Enforcement Professional Standards Program is providing law
enforcement credits. Social work credits are provided by Crittenton
Services Inc. of Wheeling.
AARP
served as a limited sponsor for the event. For further information
regarding the DOJ Elder Justice Initiative, the public may contact Elder
Justice Coordinators Kimberley Crockett or Jonathan Storage at their
respective U.S. Attorney’s Offices.
A bill passed by the Wisconsin Legislature
will make it easier for hospitals to discharge certain patients
deemed incapacitated to nursing homes, freeing up hospital beds
that might otherwise be tied up for weeks.
The
bill, which Gov. Tony Evers signed into law on March 20, has the
support of hospital systems that complain of long, costly delays in
discharging patients who can no longer make medical decisions for
themselves and haven’t designated someone to act on their behalf. At
present, they remain in the hospital while awaiting court
proceedings to appoint a guardian.
“This
legislation will help ensure patients can move more quickly to the
most appropriate setting for their recovery, while also improving
hospital capacity for those who need hospital care,” said Kyle
O’Brien, president and chief executive of the Wisconsin Hospital
Association, a trade group representing hospitals.
The
legislation was opposed by disability and aging rights advocates,
who say it circumvents the guardianship process, designed to
protect the rights of vulnerable individuals, and could result in
patients becoming confined to institutions against their will.
“The
guardianship process is complex for a reason,” Lisa Hassenstab,
public policy manager at Disability Rights Wisconsin, said
during a November hearing on the bill. “That reason is due process.”
The
Senate voted 28-5 in favor of the legislation on March 17 during
what could be the body’s last floor session for the year.
The
bill passed the Assembly in February with bipartisan support,
following an amendment adding price transparency requirements for
hospitals.
Health systems engaged in heavy lobbying for bill
The
legislation received a major push from Wisconsin health systems,
hospitals and industry trade groups, which collectively spent more
than 400 hours lobbying in favor of the bill, according to reports
made to the Wisconsin Ethics Commission.
Wisconsin
hospitals spend hundreds of millions of dollars every year
housing patients who no longer need hospital care and are awaiting
discharge or transfer to nursing homes or other facilities. While
the reasons behind
discharge delays are many, the bill addresses only the guardianship issue.
It
does not address other underlying causes, such as limited bed
availability at nursing homes or the lack of medical facilities
accepting complex patients.
Up until now,
if physicians deemed a patient no longer able to make medical
decisions for themselves and they did not have a power of attorney,
the hospital could not discharge the patient to a nursing home until a
guardianship petition was filed with a court, even when family
members agreed to the transfer. Those proceedings could take weeks
or months, hospital officials said.
The
patient may be someone who had a stroke, suffered a traumatic brain
injury, or has dementia or another agerelated disease and lacks the
ability to manage their own health care, whether temporarily or
permanently.
The new law removes the
requirement to file for guardianship and allows a family member,
called a patient representative, to agree to the patient’s
admission to a nursing home, make health care decisions for them and
approve health-related spending.
Disability
advocates argue the legislation removes protections like court
oversight that come with the guardianship process while also
granting a lot of the same authority as a guardian. They say the
legislation does not require that the patient be notified of the
representative’s appointment or of their rights to ask for a
reevaluation of their mental capacity. Nor does it require the
representative to consider the wishes of the patient, they say.
The legislation, they said, also lacks protections against an abuser or estranged relative assuming the role.
“Oftentimes
the person who is an abuser is the person who is really keeping an
eye on the person in the hospital,” said Tami Jackson, public policy
analyst and legislative liaison with the WisconVon sin Board for
People with Developmental Disabilities. “Somebody who gets picked
under this bill ends up with a whole lot of authority.”
Under the new law, the patient or another family member may object to the nursing home placement, if aware.
Anyone
may ask a court to review the patient representative’s actions or
may request a reevaluation of the patient’s capacity.
Extended hospital stays can contribute to overcrowding
While
promoting the bill, health systems argued that patients may miss out
on crucial rehabilitation or other health care while waiting in
the hospital for discharge. By remaining in the hospital, they also
are at increased risk of hospital-acquired infections or falls
especially dangerous for elderly patients.
From
January to October 2025, Mayo Clinic Health System counted about 35
patients with extended stays at its northwest Wisconsin
hospitals, Gina
Ruden, a Mayo senior nurse
administrator, said at a November hearing on the bill. At Mayo’s Eau
Claire hospital, that added up to patients spending a collective
1,200 days in the hospital because of guardianship delays, she said.
The
extended stays contribute to hospital overcrowding. Mayo Clinic
has seen an influx of patients, Von Ruden said, ever since the abrupt
closure in 2024 of two area hospitals by Hospital Sisters Health
System, a competing health system.
When
overcrowded, the Mayo hospital in Eau Claire has to board patients in
the emergency department, Von Ruden said, where they may spend the
rest of their hospital visit if no bed becomes available on an
inpatient floor.
“They might be in a
hallway in the emergency department or even in the ambulance bay
when things get real tight,” Von Ruden said.
The
bill has a three-year sunset provision, which allows legislators
to check if the bill is working as intended before renewing it.
Minimal oversight of these court evaluators makes it
difficult for parents to challenge flawed reports without risking damage
to their cases
ByKelsey Turner
Stephanie Maya thought the facts were on her side in the custody case for her 3-year-old son.
She’d
recently escaped an abusive relationship with her ex-boyfriend, the
father of her son. He had been arrested for physically assaulting and
strangling her, an experience that Maya says happened repeatedly
throughout their relationship, often while he was drunk and often in
front of their toddler.
The
guardian ad litem — court appointed in May 2024 to represent the best
interests of her son and investigate issues that could impact his
safety, like domestic violence — knew about the dad’s pending domestic
violence charges and court orders prohibiting him from contacting Maya.
So Maya was shocked when the
guardian ad litem, Meredith Gerhart, submitted a report that portrayed
Maya as a potentially criminal abuser. Gerhart, a well-respected
attorney in Thurston County, a community on the southern tip of the
Puget Sound, wrote that Maya had three “prior offenses involving
domestic violence” based on a list provided to her by Maya’s
ex-boyfriend. Yet a background check would have confirmed that Maya was
the one who reported those assaults to law enforcement — as a victim and
witness.
“The fact
that I was trying to do something good, and she used that against me to
try to paint me as this criminal, as an abuser, was very upsetting,”
said Maya, 34. “She never once even asked me if any of that was true.”
The
report, which Maya says includes many other false claims from her
ex-boyfriend stated like facts, had a near immediate impact on her
custody case. A court commissioner ordered that the child spend weekends
with his dad — who, until that point, was only allowed supervised
visits — and said the report “clearly establishes” that Maya was causing
conflict in the co-parenting relationship, a finding that can lead to
restrictions on parenting time. Gerhart, who’s still working as a
guardian ad litem in Thurston County, said she cannot comment for this
article because the case is active.
It
took nearly a year and the help of a lawyer for a court review board to
formally reprimand Gerhart for failing to make “any effort” to
substantiate the claims of Maya’s ex, who pleaded guilty in February
2026 to assaulting Maya and interfering with her attempt to call 911.
It’s a rare instance of a parent successfully proving that an
investigation of a guardian ad litem — a neutral third-party court
investigator also referred to as a GAL — was unfairly biased, although
parents and attorneys say they see biased reports all the time.
Guardians ad litem have been
appointed in over 7,100 Washington family law cases since 2020,
according to data from the Washington State Administrative Office of the
Courts. Although they don’t have a direct say in custody outcomes,
their conclusions and recommendations can hold significant weight in
court.
But despite
courts’ frequent reliance on these professionals — and the sometimes
tens of thousands of dollars that parents must pay for them — there’s
little independent oversight of the role, leaving many parents without a
meaningful way to hold them accountable for inaccurate, biased or
shoddy investigations that shape custody cases.
The
decision to remove guardians ad litem or their reports from a case is
up to the judge, yet judges have limited insight into how investigations
are conducted. Even in instances when court committees or judges found
that a guardian ad litem conducted a biased investigation, or stepped
outside the scope of their role, discipline rarely extended beyond a
reprimand and orders for additional training, according to
InvestigateWest’s review of grievances and removals of guardians ad
litem in Washington.
While
those court investigators may go on to work with more families, some
parents are left fighting the consequences of questionable reports for
years. Parents say their kids have been placed in homes with potentially
abusive adults, and some have even lost custody to their abusers.
Other
than a state-mandated three-and-a-half-day training, Washington’s
guardians ad litem — like those in other states — have few standardized
qualifications, and they have no managers or statewide agencies vetting
their work. Some started their careers over a decade ago, when there
were even fewer training requirements.
Advocates and researchers
across the nation — from Washington to Idaho to Georgia to New Hampshire
— have called on their legislatures to require more training and
accountability for guardians ad litem as their use in family court and
influence in custody cases has grown in recent decades. Washington state
legislators acknowledged the need to address this insufficient
oversight in a work session in December that discussed gaps in the
oversight system and impacts of biased investigations on parents.
State
Rep. Jamila Taylor, chair of the House Civil Rights and Judiciary
Committee who led the session, noted a “strong interest” for guardian ad
litem reform within the family law community.
“We
probably do need to have a commission or some sort of review of the GAL
statute and how we can navigate these issues around a very unregulated
practice,” Taylor said in the session.
This
minimal oversight makes it difficult for parents to challenge flawed
reports without risking damage to their own cases — and, in some cases,
even their chances of retaining custody of their children.
“Complaining
about the way a GAL is going about something can be a dangerous space,
because the court can feel like you’re distracting from the main issue,”
said Jeffrey Keddie, a managing attorney at the Northwest Justice
Project, a nonprofit legal aid program, who helps lead the state’s
guardian ad litem trainings. “It’s about likability half the time, and
if you become less likable, that can be very problematic.”
Their
lack of understanding of issues like domestic violence can harm
children for life, said Dawn Sydney, a family law attorney and former
guardian ad litem in King County. “There has to be some system set up
where there’s some accountability for these people.”
Discipline is rare, and limited
In
Washington, the only avenue for parents to formally complain about a
guardian ad litem is through the same superior court where their family
law case is taking place. While most large counties have review
committees made up of judges or other court officials to handle
complaints, in King County — the state’s most populous county that
appoints among the most guardians ad litem — grievances are reviewed by
just one judge.
InvestigateWest
requested complaints from six counties with the highest number of
guardian ad litem appointments in Washington family law cases, and
reviewed other complaints and court filings by parents alleging
misconduct. While they flag common concerns with reports, such as
one-sided investigations, incorrect or misleading information, and
missed deadlines that delay cases for months, many parents and attorneys
say they hesitate to file grievances because they fear it will do more
harm than good.
“I
don’t have faith that most GALs can separate their anger at a complaint
being lodged at them from their neutrality as a GAL,” said Jennifer
Summerville, Maya’s attorney.
In
2024 and 2025, a total of 31 grievances were filed against guardians ad
litem across King, Snohomish, Pierce, Thurston, Cowlitz and Clark
counties, according to each superior court’s administrations. Just four
were found to have merit and are publicly available, including Maya’s.
However, at least in some cases, grievances are dismissed without any
evaluation of their merit.
Those
four founded complaints offer a window into how guardians ad litem face
limited discipline and continue holding influence in cases, despite the
deficiencies:
Thurston County’s review
board found that Gerhart’s report and investigation “do not show
independence, objectivity, or the appearance of fairness.” Apart from a
requirement to correct the report regarding Maya’s criminal history, the
report remains part of Maya’s case, meaning it could still influence
the custody outcome.
After a father called a Clark County
guardian ad litem to raise concerns about her investigation, the court
investigator became hostile and told him, “If that comes out in court I
will take you to the wall,” according to the father’s notes from their
phone call. A judge removed the court investigator from the case, and a
court committee admonished her to remain respectful. She still works as a
guardian ad litem, and her report remains part of the case.
Only
one grievance resulted in removal from a county registry — meaning a
guardian ad litem can no longer work in that county, the most severe
discipline a court can impose. But a Thurston County judge reversed the
removal after the guardian ad litem appealed the decision. A review
committee found that he repeatedly inserted personal commentary and
humor in his reports and acted outside of his role, such as creating his
own “trauma scale” and facilitating a meeting between a domestic
violence victim and perpetrator. He’s currently suspended but can be
reinstated after completing a corrective action plan.
A
Snohomish County guardian ad litem who was reassigned to a case in 2021
to conduct a quick follow-up investigation dropped out of contact with
the court and could not be reached by the mom or her attorney for over a
year. The court investigator resigned before the grievance was filed,
limiting any sanctions the court could impose.
Parents
aren’t notified about guardians ad litem’s disciplinary history when
they’re appointed to a case, according to judicial officers. To get that
disciplinary history, a person would need to file public records
requests with the court where a guardian ad litem has worked. While many
counties require guardians ad litem to disclose past grievances or case
removals on their applications to continue working in the county, only
Pierce County publishes those applications online.
If
a guardian ad litem is barred from working in a county due to a
grievance, the county’s superior court must notify the Administrative
Office of the Courts, which will then share that information to courts
across the state. But this is rare. The office said it hasn’t been
notified of any such removals in the last five years.
The
mom in Snohomish County, Katie Buss, spent two years trying to get a
$2,500 refund for a report that was never written after the court
investigator disappeared from the case. But she estimates that the
guardian ad litem cost her closer to $8,000, between the cost of
removing her from the case, an initial report that was later thrown out
and attorney fees for the 15 months they could not reach her. Buss also
spent another $1,575 for a new guardian ad litem.
Because
the court investigator had resigned, the only sanction the court could
impose was a promise not to reinstate her if she ever applied again. It
couldn’t help Buss recoup the lost money.
“I
did everything the system asked of me,” Buss told InvestigateWest. “I
followed court orders, participated in evaluations, and relied on the
processes that were supposed to protect my child. Instead, the system
failed to provide meaningful accountability.”
Risks to filing a complaint
On
Christmas Eve 2024, Maya logged into Zoom for a court hearing to review
Gerhart’s guardian ad litem report. She listened as Thurston County
Superior Court Commissioner Nathan Kortokrax praised Gerhart’s
“thorough” work. While some judicial officers may balk at a 50-page
report, Kortokrax said he actually appreciated it. He even read it
twice.
With Gerhart seated in the courtroom and no attorney representing her at the time, Maya stayed quiet.
“Right then and there, I was like, ‘I will not have a voice tonight,’” she said. “I was just so scared to speak up against her.”
Due
in part to parents’ fear of retaliation by the guardian ad litem or the
court, only a couple dozen formal grievances have been filed across
Washington’s most populous counties since 2024, despite guardians ad
litem having served on hundreds of cases.
For
parents who are already facing reputational attacks in the family law
arena, convincing the court that a well-known guardian ad litem is not
trustworthy can seem like an insurmountable task.
“If
that guardian ad litem has the respect of the court, you’re going to
have to really prove that they did a lot wrong to get them removed from a
case,” said Keddie, the Northwest Justice Project attorney. “It’s near
impossible.”
Some
parents also worry that a guardian ad litem’s collegial relationships
with judicial officers and attorneys make courts less willing to hold
them accountable. Like Gerhart, who has been chair of the Thurston
County Bar Association’s family law section since 2019, many guardians
ad litem are respected attorneys or social workers. Some even work as
temporary judicial officers.
Alicia Burton, a Pierce County
Superior Court judge who chairs the county’s guardian ad litem grievance
committee, said that as a family law judge, she didn’t hesitate to call
out biased behavior. But Burton acknowledges that making such
accusations can be intimidating even for judicial officers.
“It’s
a hard thing to do as a judge, to tell a well-respected guardian ad
litem who’s been in Pierce County for years, to say, ‘I thought your
investigation was one-sided,’” Burton said.
In
heated custody battles involving allegations of abuse, judges face the
challenge of sorting through many competing accusations. Parents accuse
each other of lying, abusers claim to be victims, and both parents may
have histories that raise concerns about the children’s safety. These
dynamics can make it difficult for judges to discern whether a parent’s
complaint against a guardian ad litem is valid or just an expression of
their personal dissatisfaction with how a report portrays them.
“We
all, in this line of work, have to deal with people complaining about
us. It happens to lawyers all the time, it happens to judges every day,”
Sutton said, adding that complaints are often from parents unhappy with
the outcome of a report or ruling.
For
many parents, however, the possibility of retaliation feels real — and
they don’t always trust that the court will protect them. This is the
risk that a Clark County dad weighed when he tried to remove a guardian
ad litem in 2024.
Leslie, who asked to go by his
first name, questioned the guardian ad litem in his custody case for
relying heavily on a previous ex-girlfriend for information that he said
was inaccurate. Leslie had been arrested 15 years before for allegedly
assaulting that ex-girlfriend during an argument, a history that Leslie
says he had disclosed to the guardian ad litem. That charge was also
dismissed.
The
guardian ad litem, Robin Jones, threatened to take him “to the wall” if
he brought his concerns about Jones to the court, according to Leslie’s
notes from their phone call. He took that to mean that Jones would do
“everything in her power” to try to minimize his time with his child, he
said.
In the weeks
after their phone call, according to Leslie’s complaint, Jones contacted
two of Leslie’s workplace supervisors and shared some of these claims
about his previous relationship, as well as medical information about
his gender transition surgery without his permission. One of Leslie’s
supervisors said in a court declaration that the conversation with Jones
“did not sit well” and that she was “very surprised with the lack of
confidentiality for such sensitive information.”
Leslie
felt that it was an intentional effort by Jones to sabotage his
employment and wanted her off his case. His lawyer wasn’t supportive of
removing Jones and withdrew, so he hired another to help him file the
motion. A judge approved the removal in October 2024, finding that Jones
had disclosed information to third parties without Leslie’s consent.
Jones declined to comment due to the active case, and her responses to
Leslie’s grievance are not publicly available.
But her report remains part of
the court record, and even though a court advisory committee found merit
to his claim that Jones threatened him, the only discipline was an
admonishment for Jones to “remain respectful and courteous.” The
committee did not find merit to his allegation that Jones disseminated
false information to third parties and found insufficient evidence
supporting that she disclosed confidential medical information to third
parties.
Leslie, whose case is still pending, felt like he had to put a lot on the line to get any form of accountability.
“It
is so dangerous because you are putting recommendations for your time
with your children at risk by taking those steps,” he said.
Few guardrails
As
courts entrust them to represent what’s best for the children, even
some guardians ad litem say they feel unsupported or unprepared for
complex cases.
Dawn
Sydney, a family law attorney in King County, became a guardian ad litem
in 2017. After serving on around a dozen cases, she stopped taking
assignments because she felt uncomfortable with the power she held over
families and the prospect of getting it wrong.
It’s
time consuming to write a thorough report, Sydney said, especially for
guardians ad litem who, like her, often have other jobs as attorneys or
social workers. Conducting more in-depth investigations also means
charging parents potentially exorbitant fees, as private rates can reach
up to $300 per hour.
“My
rates for GAL cases are lower than my attorney hourly rate, and yet as
much as I’d like to say, ‘I don't charge for that,’ I do have a
practice, I have staff, I have a mortgage that I have to pay,” Sydney
said.
She thinks these challenges, along with insufficient training, mean many court investigators “just don’t do great jobs.”
Although
she’s no longer taking cases as a guardian ad litem, Sydney continues
seeing the consequences of shoddy investigations as a lawyer
representing domestic violence survivors. In 2020, while representing a
mom in King County, she successfully removed a guardian ad litem from a
case who admitted to altering the mom’s form consenting to the release
of medical information and falsely attributing a quote to a therapist.
The resulting discipline for the guardian ad litem, Meera Shin, was no
more than a “slap on the hand,” Sydney said.
“I would lose my license for that. A doctor would lose their license for that,” Sydney said.
Shin
continued working as a guardian ad litem in Snohomish County for
several years and is still on King County’s registry. The removal
process, meanwhile, cost Sydney’s client thousands of dollars.
Shin
said her errors were not in bad faith — she thought she had the mom’s
permission to access the medical records, and she altered the release to
speed up the paperwork process. She admits it was a mistake and agrees
with the judge’s decision to remove her, she told InvestigateWest. It
was the first big family law case that she’d been assigned to, and she
felt largely unprepared for its complexity.
“If they did not remove me, and if I did not have this experience, I wouldn’t have known,” she said.
Yet
in the court order discharging Shin, the judge said it was “far from
clear” whether Shin “understands the gravity of what she did.” Six years
later, Shin, who has a Ph.D. in child development and family studies,
said she still doesn’t feel confident in the role and plans to leave the
profession once her current cases wrap up. She thinks more ongoing
training could have helped her find more success.
In Maya’s case, Gerhart
defended her investigation by pointing to a disclaimer that she includes
in all her reports, which states: “The content of this report assumes
that all information provided and reported to the GAL is true and
correct.” Gerhart didn’t see a need to correct the false information
about Maya’s criminal history because it was the father’s statement, not
hers, and the father later clarified his claims directly with the
court.
The review
board disagreed. In a November letter of reprimand, they concluded that
her report “appeared to be written from the perspective” of Maya’s
ex-partner and that Gerhart is still obligated to make reasonable
efforts to be informed about the case. The board required her to correct
the report regarding Maya’s criminal history, stop using the disclaimer
and complete at least two hours of guardian ad litem training.
It
was a bittersweet outcome for Maya, who’s still waiting for her
more-than-two-year custody case to go to trial. Several other statements
that Maya had flagged in the report, which remains a part of the case,
also were not corrected.
But
for parents like Maya, the impact of guardian ad litem misconduct runs
deeper than the words themselves. Gerhart’s report plunged Maya into a
deep depression as she confronted the possibility of losing time with
her son.
“I started to
believe that I was a bad person,” Maya said. “That maybe I wasn’t good
enough for my child. That maybe I was the problem.”
LISBON –A visiting judge Friday found that a former East Palestine
police officer accused of allegedly making threats against a judge, the
prosecutor’s office and three others had his competency restored, but
now must be evaluated regarding his sanity at the time of the offenses.
Matthew Elser, 45, Market Street, Columbiana, appeared for the
hearing via video from Heartland Behavioral Healthcare in Massillon,
with retired Tuscarawas County Common Pleas Court Judge Edward O’Farrell
presiding in Columbiana County Common Pleas Court.
Elser’s appointed defense attorney, Rhys Cartwright-Jones, was
present in the courtroom, along with attorney Edward A. Czopur, who was
assigned as special prosecutor for the case.
In
October, Elser was ordered hospitalized at Heartland after O’Farrell
found he was not competent to stand trial, noting that he was not
capable of understanding the nature and objective of the legal
proceedings against him and not capable of assisting in his defense of
the criminal charges.
At that time, O’Farrell also found a reasonable probability that the
defendant could be restored to competency to stand trial within the
six-month time period allow by law. At the time, he said the time period
was one year, but corrected that entry this week.
O’Farrell explained that the court received a competency restoration
report on Wednesday. He said it was the opinion of the examiner that
Elser was currently capable of understanding the nature and objective of
the legal proceedings against him and was capable of assisting in his
defense.
Both attorneys stipulated to the finding that Elser was now competent.
O’Farrell ordered the sanity evaluation be conducted and ruled that
Elser will remain at Heartland as a condition of his $100,000 cash or
surety bond. The judge explained to Elser what was happening.
O’Farrell was assigned by the Ohio Supreme Court to handle the case
due to conflicts cited by Common Pleas Court Judges Scott Washam and
Megan Bickerton. The Columbiana County Prosecutor’s Office also cited a
conflict, resulting in Czopur’s appointment as special prosecutor.
Charges against Elser include one count third-degree felony
intimidation, four counts of third-degree felony retaliation, one count
third-degree felony intimidation of an attorney, victim or witness in a
criminal case, and misdemeanors of five counts telecommunications
harassment, five counts aggravated menacing, and one count unlawful
restraint.
According to the indictment, the unlawful restraint charge dates back
to Oct. 10, 2024 when Elser allegedly restrained a woman of her liberty
at a house in Columbiana. An affidavit filed in county Municipal Court
regarding the incident alleged he was drunk and throwing the woman’s
phone, restricting her from getting up off of the couch by standing over
her. He also allegedly grabbed her phone and threw it, breaking a
window, and in order to escape she had to allegedly slap him. When she
tried to regain control of her phone, he wouldn’t give it back and she
fled to a neighbor’s house to call police.
He was charged with the unlawful restraint in county Municipal Court
and while that case was pending, on June 24, 2025, the victim in the
case came to the police station in Columbiana to report receiving
multiple unwanted phone calls from Elser. The police affidavit noted
that “the victim states that in these messages the defendant threatened
to kill her, her family members, and the judge and prosecutor of his
case.” At that time, one count of misdemeanor telecommunications
harassment was filed. The judge in question was county Municipal Court
Judge Tim McNicol. The indictment was served on Elser in July 2025 with
those charges plus additional charges.
County Prosecutor Vito Abruzzino confirmed that Elser previously
worked as a police officer for the East Palestine Police Department and
briefly with the Perry Township Police Department.
Most of the charges stem from June 24, 2025 although there were two
charges from June 25, 2025 and the one from Oct. 10, 2024. Besides
allegedly knowingly causing McNicol to believe he would be harmed, Elser
also allegedly knowingly caused the Columbiana County Prosecutor’s
Office to believe he would cause harm to the county Prosecutor’s Office
or property of the county Prosecutor’s Office. He also allegedly
threatened the victim from the first case and two others.
LAFAYETTE, La. (KLFY)
— A Church Point woman has been arrested and accused of using the bank
card of the elderly person under her care to buy things at the Lafayette
Parish jail, authorities said.
Paris Chavis, 39, of Church Point, is charged with one count of
exploitation of the elderly or persons with infirmities and 19 counts of
identity theft.
Lafayette Parish Sheriff’s Office detectives said Chavis, who was
employed as the victim’s caretaker, used the victim’s bank card to make
19 purchases through an inmate communications service at the Lafayette
Parish Correctional Center.
Chavis was booked into the jail and released on $5,000 bond, online records show.
No other information was released. The investigation remains ongoing.
