Deputies respond to altercation between guardian and elderly client

83-year-old client falls under disputed circumstances 

By Algernon D’Ammassa

LAS CRUCES — A physical altercation between an 83-year-old Fairacres resident and his court-appointed guardian in July reportedly culminated in bruises, a fall and a visit from Doña Ana County Sheriff’s Office deputies.  

“Charges have not been filed yet and are pending for now until further investigation,” the report states.

Milan “Mick” Vaskov, a retired businessman whose best-known property was the former Celebrate chain of liquor stores in Las Cruces, lives in his home with his wife and round-the-clock caregivers under the supervision of the Albuquerque-based Decades Group, an elder care and guardianship corporation.

Decades, founded in 2001, was appointed as Vaskov’s guardian and conservator by court order in 2025. The case has been contentious, as Vaskov and his wife have sought to challenge restrictions on his living circumstances and assert his preferences in court. The court proceedings are not public. 

On July 2, deputies responded to a 911 call at Vaskov’s residence reporting a domestic disturbance at about 9:30 a.m.

A police report citing witnesses at the home states that a Decades staff member — listed on the company’s’ website as a care manager and national certified guardian — pushed Vaskov, but accounts of what led to the contact vary.

The account presented by the police report states that Vaskov placed his hands on the guardian’s shoulders during an argument. Vaskov then fell to the floor. The guardian reportedly left the scene before deputies arrived.

The report said Vaskov was asking the guardian about the location of his deceased first wife’s ashes, which had recently been removed from his home without his consent. 

The deputy reported that Vaskov declined medical attention and did not wish to press charges “due to ongoing family and legal matters.” The deputies also found no probable cause that a crime had been committed. However, a supplemental report states that Vaskov visited a hospital for an examination and contacted deputies to say he wished to press charges. 

Crystal Sanchez, a caregiver who is not employed by Decades, witnessed the incident and requested a follow-up interview with law enforcement hours later, according to the report. She stated that Vaskov “was taken to urgent care” for evaluation. Photographs reviewed by the Journal appear to show bruising and scraping along one hand and on one arm around the elbow. 

In a follow-up interview the next day, also described in the report, the guardian reportedly told deputies he was trying to “create distance between them” when Vaskov “lost his balance and fell to the floor while still holding onto him.”

“I didn’t fall down. I got pushed down,” Vaskov said in an interview. He said he sustained scratches and bruises on both arms and remained “a little bit” sore three weeks later. “I walk a little slower and I had to put my shirts on differently. … I got bruised up pretty hard.” 

In an interview for the Journal, Sanchez, a caregiver with a private health care firm, provided an account that differed from the initial police report. She said the report did not reflect the narrative she provided and that she came forward because of her legal mandate to report suspicions of abuse or neglect of vulnerable people.

She said Vaskov was agitated over the missing ashes and asked the guardian to leave.

“Instead of de-escalating the situation, (the guardian) kind of egged it on a little more by stating that he didn't want to leave and that he had to deal with it,” she said. The antagonism escalated, she said, alleging the guardian grabbed Vaskov “forcefully” as he approached a table, “walking him backwards, making my client fall onto the floor, onto the carpet, dropping the lamp, shade and everything,” as she ran across the room to assist her client.

The Journal reached out to Decades Group via email and telephone, as well as the guardian directly, but got no response.  

The guardian reportedly has not returned to the home since the incident.

According to the Vaskovs, Adult Protective Services conducted an interview about the events of July 2.

Additionally, they said that Mick Vaskov was found by a state district judge to be totally incapacitated at an Aug. 15 hearing where Decades was appointed plenary guardian and conservatory, with complete legal authority to make medical, financial and personal decisions on his behalf. 

Full Article & Source:
Deputies respond to altercation between guardian and elderly client 

Cordova Woman Convicted in Federal Court of Stealing Over $120K from her Grandmother

by Sophia Peters 

CORDOVA, Md. – A federal jury has convicted a Cordova woman in connection with financially abusing her position as the co-guardian and co-conservator of her 81-year-old grandmother.

On Thursday, following a three-day jury trial, 62-year-old Linda Laird was found guilty of conspiracy to commit Social Security fraud and theft of public money; conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud; financial exploitation of a vulnerable adult and elderly person; and first degree fraud against a senior citizen. U.S. Attorney Jeanine Ferris Pirro said the jury delivered the verdict after deliberating for approximately four hours.

According to court documents, in Nov. 2017, Laird, and her late parents, James and Joyce Blizzard, were appointed by the Superior Court of the District of Columbia as co-guardians and co-conservators of Laird’s grandmother, who was a vulnerable adult. At the time, Laird’s grandmother was 81-years-old and suffered from severe cognitive impairments. After Joyce Blizzard passed away in Jun. 2018, Laird and James Blizzard continued as co-guardians and co-conservators.

While Laird’s grandmother resided in the nursing home, Laird and Blizzard were required to act as fiduciaries and apply her money towards her support, care, and treatment. Instead, Laird and Blizzard used their authority as co-guardians and co-conservators to redirect the elderly victim’s U.S. Social Security Administration (SSA) benefits to their personal bank accounts for their own benefit. In total, Laird and Blizzard stole more than $21,000 in Social Security benefits and obtained over $100,000 from the vulnerable adult’s bank accounts for their personal use. Laird reportedly spent these funds on jewelry, designer shoes, and expensive football tickets.

Both Laird and Blizzard were indicted in Apr. 2024 by a grand jury in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Blizzard died on Feb. 22 of this year before facing prosecution.

Laird’s sentencing is set for Dec. 17. 

Full Article & Source:
Cordova Woman Convicted in Federal Court of Stealing Over $120K from her Grandmother 

An alternative to guardianship? Ohio bill promises more independence for adults with disabilities. Critics see risks

By Karan Singh

COLUMBUS, Ohio — For Ohio adults with developmental disabilities who need help navigating major decisions, the legal options can present a stark choice: retain full control or, if a court finds them legally incompetent, have a guardian appointed with authority to make certain decisions for them.

A bill moving through the Ohio legislature seeks to establish a middle ground.

Senate Bill 35 would formally recognize “supported decision-making,” allowing an adult with a developmental disability to choose trusted people to help understand information, weigh options and communicate decisions — without surrendering the ultimate authority to make those decisions.

Unlike a guardian, who is appointed through probate court after a finding of legal incompetence, a supporter would not take over the person’s decision-making power. The adult could decide what help the supporter may provide, continue acting independently and end the arrangement at any time.

Supporters say that distinction could give people with developmental disabilities meaningful assistance without unnecessarily stripping them of autonomy. But the proposal raises a different concern: If the arrangement operates largely outside the courts, who makes sure the person providing that help isn’t exerting undue influence or taking advantage of the person they’re supposed to support?

That question has emerged as a central point of debate over SB 35, which passed the Senate unanimously last year and is now before the House Children and Human Services Committee.

The proposal from Republican Sens. Jerry Cirino of Kirtland and Michele Reynolds of Canal Winchester has drawn considerable support during two House hearings, along with questions about who is eligible to enter such an agreement, who can serve as a supporter and what happens when that person crosses the line.

The nuts and bolts

Supported decision-making itself is not new in Ohio as adults with developmental disabilities already turn to parents, friends and professionals for advice. SB 35 would give that practice a formal place in state law and create a written framework that families, doctors, banks and courts could recognize.

Under the current draft of the bill:

• All adults with developmental disabilities would be presumed competent unless a court determines otherwise.
• If an adult with a developmental disability who is “of sound mind” voluntarily chooses to enter a written plan, it must be created with the adult’s informed consent. The agreement must be signed before a notary or two adults who are not parties to it.
• Supporters could help explain options and consequences, communicate decisions, obtain relevant medical or financial information and participate in discussions with third parties. The adult could limit what a supporter is allowed to do.
• Supporters would have a fiduciary duty, meaning a legal obligation to put the adult’s interests ahead of their own. A supporter who breaches that duty could be liable for resulting damages.
• The adult could act without the supporter and could modify or end the arrangement at any time by notifying them.
• The Ohio Department of Developmental Disabilities would create a model plan and educational materials for adults, families and professionals.

Unlike guardianship, the supporter would not replace the adult as the decision-maker. This detail is critical because a guardian is appointed through probate court after a finding of legal incompetence and gains authority to make certain decisions for the person. With supported decision-making, however, the adult keeps that authority.

‘A less restrictive alternative to guardianship’

Supporters of SB 35 describe it as a way to formalize a practice already in play: asking trusted people for advice before making an important decision. The difference is that adults with developmental disabilities would enter a written agreement identifying their supporters while retaining the final authority to make their own choices.

The sponsors presented supported decision-making as “a less restrictive alternative to guardianship,” which is established through a county probate court. In those cases, a judge determines that an adult is legally incompetent and puts someone else in charge to make certain decisions on that person’s behalf.

“We don’t always need to approach everything from a guardian or a control standpoint,” Sen. Reynolds told the committee. “We need to coach individuals to be able to self-actualize and live to their fullest potential.”

The legislation would not change the state’s existing guardianship process or the authority granted under those appointments, meaning people who are unable to manage their own affairs would still be able to seek those protections. Ohio law already requires judges considering guardianship to weigh evidence that someone’s needs could be met through another option when introduced, and SB 35 would specifically allow supported decision-making to be presented that way.

Attorney Derek Graham said the proposal pushes back against the assumption that a developmental-disability diagnosis automatically means that person requires guardianship. His daughter has Down syndrome, and he told lawmakers that people who had never even met her suggested that she would need one after turning 18.

“My wife and I, we don’t want to make decisions for our daughter,” he said. “I want to continue to make decisions with her.”

Likewise, Scott Lundregan of ElevateDD said, “Virtually everything with estate planning and guardianship is all focused on what these people can’t do. Supported decision-making is about what they can do.”

Stephanie Leppert, who also has Down syndrome, described how supported decision-making already works in her life. With advice from friends and family as well as her service coordinator, she was able to move out of her parents’ home after 37 years and has since lived independently.

According to disability rights resource I Decide Kansas, 25 states and the District of Columbia already recognize supported decision-making agreements as legally valid documents.

More freedom, but who is watching?

Critics have questioned whether SB 35 gives adults with developmental disabilities enough protection when someone offering help violates their trust.

Chief Magistrate Lisa Wiseman of the Montgomery County Probate Court testified before the committee to clear up questions and concerns surrounding the bill, clarifying the limited role of judicial supervision in overseeing the proposed framework. Unlike guardianship, a supported decision-making agreement would generally be created privately rather than being filed with or approved through the probate system.

“The court would not be involved, typically, unless somebody has brought an action to the court,” she said, adding that family members could otherwise be unaware that an agreement even exists.

That raised questions about who would detect coercion or exploitation before serious harm occurs. The bill requires the principal -- meaning the adult with a developmental disability who enters the agreement -- to sign voluntarily before a notary or two independent witnesses. However, no judge would independently determine at the outset whether the person understands the agreement or has been pressured into it.

This is a key point of contention because the current draft reads, “If an adult with a developmental disability who is of sound mind voluntarily chooses to enter into a supported decision-making plan, the plan shall be created with the informed consent of the principal.”

Sarah Klingler, who serves on a friend’s supported decision-making team, said the provision is riddled with ambiguity and questioned who would determine whether someone has the mental capacity to enter the agreement. Dawn Bilpuch, who is blind and says she uses supported decision-making, addressed the matter from a different angle, noting that an unclear standard could expose people with disabilities to unnecessary competency testing before they can even use a system intended to increase their independence.

Kristen Henry of Advocacy and Protective Services said “of sound mind” mirrors a standard already used elsewhere in Ohio law, including requirements for creating a health care power of attorney.

Attorney Caroline A. Lahrmann, who is a co-guardian of two adults with developmental disabilities, offered the sharpest criticism. She argued that the wording does not explicitly require someone to be of sound mind before entering an agreement, contending that it only explains what happens when someone who meets that standard chooses to do so. She referred to the language as “malarkey” and “insulting,” arguing that it could leave people who need support vulnerable to legally significant agreements they do not understand.

“This bill treats people with developmental disabilities with less care than any other Ohioan,” she said.

Graham and Wiseman nevertheless testified on the premise that supported decision-making is intended for adults who retain the capacity to make their own decisions, illustrating the disagreement over how clearly the bill itself establishes that threshold.

Lahrmann also objected to who could become a supporter, since SB 35 does not categorically exclude paid service providers or establish criminal-history restrictions, instead relying largely on fiduciary duties and conflict-of-interest rules to hold them accountable. Criticizing the initiative for establishing “no oversight,” she also noted that the proposal does not itself create a new mandatory-reporting requirement for third parties who suspect exploitation.

Henry offered a different assessment and told the committee that “if somebody were to be clearly acting not in good faith, then they would not have the protections that are in that bill.” She also stated that many professionals within Ohio’s developmental-disability system are already required to report suspected abuse, neglect or exploitation. 

Full Article & Source:
An alternative to guardianship? Ohio bill promises more independence for adults with disabilities. Critics see risks

Alabama Supreme Court rules circuit courts can check a probate judge’s power; why it matters to you

By Jennifer Horton

MONTGOMERY, Ala. (WBRC) - The Alabama Supreme Court issued a ruling confirming the circuit court has the power to act as a check on Jefferson County’s probate court, despite its broad powers. This case is also connected to a complaint involving suspended Jefferson County Probate Judge Yashiba Blanchard.

The unanimous ruling, written by Justice Will Sellers, rejected the argument that Jefferson County’s probate court answers to no one but the Alabama Supreme Court itself, due to a local act that provides additional power. It holds that circuit courts retain their statutory authority to oversee probate courts, including the power to issue a writ of mandamus forcing a probate judge to undo an order.

While this ruling may feel distant for everyday Alabamians who aren’t involved the court system, it’s highly relevant.

This ruling stems from a case involving vulnerable Alabamians who don’t have the ability to manage their own finances, including adults with severe disabilities, those with dementia and children who receive settlements, among others. A probate judge appoints a conservator to hold and spend that money and they must be accountable for every dollar. The accounts are subject to routine audits by the probate office.

The conservatorship case is also cited in a formal complaint filed against Jefferson County Probate Judge Yashiba Blanchard by the Judicial Inquiry Commission (JIC).

The complaint charges Blanchard with seven judicial ethics violations and outlines significant allegations involving the way she ran her office. These are not criminal charges, they are alleged violations of standards for Alabama judges. Blanchard denies all wrongdoing.  

If the Court of the Judiciary finds Blanchard violated judicial standards, she could be removed from the bench.

How We Got Here

In January 2026, Blanchard ordered a forensic audit of roughly 146 cases. The fees for the accounting firm were to be paid out of each account with no cap. It’s worth noting, the Supreme Court ruling doesn’t decide whether that order was lawful.

The attorneys, Ripon Britton Jr. and Gregory H. Hawley, filed a petition, asking a Jefferson County circuit court judge to intervene in Blanchard’s forensic audit order. The petition stated Blanchard’s order lacked case numbers, names and directed a specific accounting firm, BAT Solution, L.L.C., to conduct forensic accountings on every estate Britton and Hawley had handled as conservator for previous administrations.

According to court records, of the roughly 146 cases, 14 were guardian-only matters with no money involved.

Of the remaining 132 conservatorship cases:

• 77 were closed with a final settlement filed, which had been examined by the court’s own accounting staff and a judge’s final decree entered.
  • 75 of those 77 cases had final judgments, legally the court no longer has jurisdiction to reopen without a finding of fraud or mistake. 
• 18 cases had gone through a final hearing and were waiting on the judge to sign the closing paperwork.
• 37 cases were open, according to filings. 

Britton and Hawley argued Blanchard’s order violated due process, exceeded the probate court’s authority and ignored Rule 53 of Alabama’s civil procedure rules which governs outside appointments and requires notice, a defined scope and case-specific findings. The circuit court agreed to freeze the order while it considered the case, explicitly directing Blanchard to take no further action to enforce it.

The JIC complaint cites that according to state law, land valuations are subtracted when determining bond amounts and were not needed for the bond evaluations.

On March 30, Presiding Jefferson County Circuit Judge Elisabeth French dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, referencing a prior Alabama Supreme Court case suggesting only the Supreme Court, not a circuit court, could review a Jefferson County probate order.

With the Supreme Court’s latest ruling, the case now goes back to Judge French with instructions to take up the petition.

“Nobody objects to auditing a conservator,” stated Alan Duke, one of the attorneys representing Britton and Hawley. ”The objection is to auditing cases the court had already audited and closed, without notice or cause, and charging an uncapped fee to the protected persons. The decision today that the circuit court has supervisory authority over the probate court allows the circuit court to hear that objection and decide whether the order itself was lawful.”

The JIC’s complaint directly references this case, citing it as evidence that Judge Blanchard engaged in a pattern and practice of exhibiting bias against Britton and Hawley, detailing legal issues from Jan. 2025 through the spring of 2026.

It cites, among other instances, that Blanchard filed a State Bar complaint against Britton in October 2025 seeking his suspension or disbarment. The Bar notified her on Jan. 26, 2026 that it would take no action. The forensic accounting order is dated three days later.

The complaint also lays out a timeline showing Britton had already filed detailed inventories in December and again in January that Blanchard did not flag as deficient. It also notes Blanchard’s office emailed Britton on Jan. 28 requesting an updated inventory of all assets for each estate.

Britton, according to the complaint, responded on Jan. 29, agreeing to provide that information - the same that Blanchard ordered the audit.

Separately, the complaint describes Blanchard filing a police report on Jan. 29, 2026, the same day as the forensic order, reporting that she felt threatened by Britton. Days later, photographs of Britton and Hawley were posted at Jefferson County Courthouse security checkpoints, which the complaint says led both attorneys to leave the city and retain criminal defense counsel out of fear of arrest.

So far, no hearing has been set in the circuit court case.

WBRC contacted Blanchard’s attorney Matt Hart. He declined to comment. 

Full Article & Source:
Alabama Supreme Court rules circuit courts can check a probate judge’s power; why it matters to you 

See Also:
Records show suspended Jefferson County probate judge spent millions on PR firms, advertising, personal expenses while court fell behind

Maryland Woman Found Guilty of Financial Exploitation of an Elderly Incapacitated Victim

Friday, August 21, 2026

For Immediate Release

U.S. Attorney's Office, District of Columbia

WASHINGTON – Linda Laird, 62, of Cordova, Maryland, was found guilty yesterday by a federal jury in connection with a scheme to abuse her position as the co-guardian and co-conservator of an 81-year-old vulnerable adult, announced U.S. Attorney Jeanine Ferris Pirro.  

The federal jury deliberated approximately four hours following a three-day trial before finding Laird guilty of conspiracy to commit Social Security fraud and theft of public money; conspiracy to commit mail fraud and wire fraud; financial exploitation of a vulnerable adult and elderly person; and fraud in the first degree against a senior citizen.  

U.S. District Court Judge Randolph D. Moss scheduled sentencing for Dec. 17, 2026. 

According to court documents, in November 2017, Laird, her late father, James Blizzard, and her late mother, Joyce Blizzard were appointed by the Superior Court of the District of Columbia as co-guardians and co-conservators of Laird’s grandmother, who was a vulnerable adult. At the time, Laird’s grandmother was 81 years old and suffered from severe cognitive impairments. After Joyce Blizzard passed away in June 2018, Laird and James Blizzard continued as co-guardians and co-conservators. 

While Laird’s grandmother resided in the nursing home, Laird and Blizzard were required to act as fiduciaries and apply her money towards her support, care, and treatment. Instead, Laird and Blizzard used their authority as co-guardians and co-conservators to redirect U.S. Social Security Administration (SSA) benefits intended for, and checking account funds belonging to, the vulnerable adult to their personal bank accounts for their own benefit. In total, Laird and Blizzard stole more than $21,000 in Social Security benefits and obtained over $100,000 from the vulnerable adult’s bank accounts for their personal use. Laird spent these funds on jewelry, designer shoes, and expensive football tickets. 

This case was investigated by the D.C. Office of the Inspector General’s Medicaid Fraud Control Unit, the U.S. Social Security Administration’s Office of the Inspector General, and the Criminal Investigations and Intelligence Unit of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia.  

The matter was prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Jason Facci and David Deitch of the Fraud, Public Corruption, and Civil Rights Section. 

Source:
Maryland Woman Found Guilty of Financial Exploitation of an Elderly Incapacitated Victim 

Mother and son accused of financially exploiting elderly northeast Iowa couple

by Mike Bunge

WAVERLY, Iowa - A mother and son have been charged with financial exploitation of older individuals.

Renee Lynne Owens, 49 of Waverly, and Jonathon Paul Owens, 27 of Charles City, are both accused of spending money belonging to Renee's parents/Jonathon's grandparents for their own personal benefit.

Court documents state Renee Owens got Power of Attorney over her parents in May 2025. Investigators say between that time and the end of March 2026, Owens withdrew $34,410.47 from her parents' accounts to spend on herself. Owens allegedly spend the money on streaming services, gas station charges, Tik Tok Shop, online gaming, veterinary bills, vehicle payments, camping, vehicle repair, retail shopping, and cash withdrawals.

Jonathon Owens allegedly spent $4,131.91 of his grandparents' money on online gaming, veterinary bills, and vehicle repair charges.

Jonathon Owens has pleaded not guilty. No trial date has been set. Renee Owens has not entered a plea.

Full Article & Source:
Mother and son accused of financially exploiting elderly northeast Iowa couple 

Cher’s Son Elijah Blue’s Wife Challenges Singer’s Conservatorship, Asks Court to Put Her In Charge (Exclusive)

By Kaitlin Simpson and Andrea Simpson

Vince Bucci/Newsmakers

Elijah Blue Allman’s wife, Marieangela King, filed new court documents objecting to Cher’s appointment of a probate conservator for her drug-addled son — and now King is nominating herself and wants the court to appoint her as his conservator, claiming the iconic singer has been estranged from her son for years, his famous mother’s involvement is against his wishes, and the singer’s petition is an intrusion into their marriage.

King, 39, also claims in the docs filed in Los Angeles on Tuesday, August 18, that Cher, 80, has shown a pattern of “hostility” and “gatekeeping” towards her by intentionally keeping her out of any discussions involving Elijah’s care.

But Cher’s legal team questions whether the reconciliation between Elijah, 50, and his once estranged wife is genuine, or whether their apparent union is only a “ruse.”

In the newly filed docs, King claims that Elijah‘s estranged relatives have repeatedly attempted to impose a conservatorship or some similar restraints on Elijah without her knowledge.

King alleges that when the case was filed in 2023 Cher did not serve Elijah or herself, claiming that they were missing when King claims they were in regular contact with the star via her staff and regularly visited her home to collect their mail. She claims Cher knew how to reach them.

She claims that while the conservator petition has been pending in California, Elijah’s estranged siblings Devon Allman and Chaz Bono filed to be appointed Elijah‘s guardians in a New Hampshire court without her knowledge.

King is asking that the court dismiss or stay that petition because she claims Elijah doesn’t live in California. She claims he has no permanent ties or home in California and that he has no intention of returning to the state.

According to her documents, Elijah is currently under long-term, involuntary institutional care and is in the custody of the state of New Hampshire. He is also facing ongoing criminal and mental competency court proceedings amid his institutionalized treatment. She claims the New Hampshire State Hospital has already started oversight and initiated guardianship proceedings, arguing that as a result legal jurisdiction is in New Hampshire, not California.

King claims that Elijah never filed an answer in her recently filed divorce case, which she then filed to dismiss in June for the second time.

She alleges that Elijah is confined to a secure, locked psychiatric facility.

“Elijah‘s primary source of income other than gifts from [his mother] and payments from her trusts… include payments from one or more family trusts created by his late father… and because he’s currently confined and under state supervision… there’s no risk that he will miss us or mismanage” any funds, as stated in the docs.

She claims that at Elijah’s “urging” she dismissed her most recent divorce petition as well as a court order for $70,000 and unpaid spousal support so that she “could stand in support of my spouse … ensure his well-being and be there for him and his care plan.”

“I strongly believe that Elijah needs a robust, long-term treatment plan to deal with these issues, an appointment of a conservator selected by his mother, from whom he has been estranged for years … her removing his autonomy against his wishes would demoralize him … jeopardizing his recovery,” the docs read.

King cites court documents from April 2024 filed by Elijah, in which he stated that he objected to Cher’s appointment as his conservator and one of the reasons was because he claimed she’s not entitled to priority because he was married and he stated Cher was “unfit to serve.”

Elijah says that his wife is entitled to that priority as his conservator.

“My mother’s petition raises dual concerns that I suffer from some mental illness and that I live hand to mouth using my trust distributions to buy drugs and place myself in immortal danger,” Elijah says per the docs. “As I have mentioned in previous pleadings, I have struggled with addiction, but I’m not mentally ill.”

Elijah continues, “I know that my mother’s objectives are not nefarious: she is a wealthy and famous entertainer who does not need the comparatively small sums that I received from my late father’s trust. I know that my mother’s actions are meant to help me, but I do not need this help. My mother seems to believe that controlling these quarterly trust distributions will prevent me from engaging in self-destructive behaviors. She is misguided.” 

Elijah adds that if he is “inclined to engage in self-destructive behaviors” he does “not need” his “trust distributions to do so.”

“The world is full of addicts and mentally ill persons who do not have a trust distribution from which to draw,” he says. “The only person who can save me for my demons is me.”

Shortly after, Elijah and his mother settled the case, only for the singer to revive the conservatorship petition in April of this year after he was arrested in February and March following two separate incidents in New Hampshire at a private boarding school and residential home and is facing charges including simple assault, criminal trespassing, criminal threatening, and burglary.

In new docs, King is objecting to any conservator nominated by Cher “as an unwarranted intrusion into the marital relationship.”

She claims that Elijah already objected to his mother‘s prior petition in 2024. “He did not wish for [her] to act as his conservator.”

King states she’s “ready, willing, and able“ to be his conservator and “will do what is right by Elijah to stabilize the expenditures and address the outstanding financial issues.”

Elijah has been estranged from Cher for many years, King claims in her paperwork stating, “Elijah and [Cher] notoriously have an extremely poor relationship, and many unresolved trust issues.”

That said, she alleges there is a conflict of interest. King claims that Cher has “repeatedly attempted to confine Elijah against his will.“

“[Cher] … refused to work, or cooperate, with me, as Elijah’s spouse, and developing a long-term care plan for his recovery and care,“ claiming that Elijah‘s relatives have rejected or ignored her requests.

She alleges that Elijah’s brother Devon told her that the family “has no interest in getting Elijah into treatment.”

King claims that appointing a conservator selected by Cher is not in Elijah‘s best interest. She alleged that his mother, family members and other associates have attempted to manipulate medical providers in charge of Elijah‘s care.

“[Cher] and her associates have history of using [Cher’s] money, fame, and resources to manipulate doctors, social workers, and other professionals to interfere in the marital relationship, confine Elijah, and or act in a manner, contrary to his best interest and against his will,” King says per the docs.

King continues, “[Cher’s] conduct throughout these proceedings … reveals a calculated pattern of intentional, prejudice, hostility, and bad faith aimed at dismantling the marital unit. For years, [she] has systematically excluded me from all discussions, medical assessments, decisions, and proposed care planning regarding Elijah, contrary to my role, rights and responsibilities as his spouse. She has done so contrary to his stated desire to have me involved due to his deep distrust for [his mother].”

King claims that Cher’s “failure and refusal to cooperate with me, paired with her clandestine coordination with treatment, facilities, and other professionals, without my knowledge and against Elijah’s will, has, in my view, substantially impeded his ability to get effective treatment.”

“It demonstrates that this action is not a protective intervention, but part of an adversarial campaign of stripping me of my role as Elijah‘s spouse and ability to fulfill that role and attempting to dictate the care and estate of Elijah, her adult child, through intentional insulation and familial gatekeeping,” King says in the docs.

King continues, “I’m extremely concerned that appointment of a conservator hand selected by [her] is equally not in Elijah‘s best interests and will be viewed by Elijah as further punishment and an effort to interfere with his autonomy, rather than an attempt to help him. And Elijah‘s fragile mental state, this would jeopardize his chances of a hopeful recovery.“

Cher’s legal team is arguing in its own docs filed in July that the court’s jurisdiction should stay in California. Her legal team states that Elijah is involuntarily incarcerated in New Hampshire and has never had an address in New Hampshire, and his family and friends are in California, including his wife.

The Grammy winner’s legal team also argues that “given his apparent reconciliation with his wife, if he claims not to intend to return to California, does that mean he intends to remain separated from his wife? Either he has reconciled and intends to return to live with his spouse in California or her sudden reappearance and convenient reconciliation is a ruse.”

Us has reached out to Cher’s attorneys for comment. 

Full Article & Source:
Cher’s Son Elijah Blue’s Wife Challenges Singer’s Conservatorship, Asks Court to Put Her In Charge (Exclusive) 

See Also:
Latest on Cher’s Conservatorship Battle Over Her Son

Judge Denies Cher’s Bid for Emergency Conservatorship Over Son Elijah Blue Allman 

Former Pennsylvania priest accused of stealing $740,000 from church and mother

by Lori Burkholder

Former Catholic priest Gregory Madeya has been charged with stealing more than $740,000 from church funds and his elderly mother, according to the Pennsylvania attorney general.

Gregory Madeya

Investigation uncovers drugs and financial records

"This is a very serious matter involving a lot of money and many victims. An entire community was betrayed," Attorney General Dave Sunday said.

The investigation into Madeya began in early 2023, and a search of his West Mifflin home uncovered heroin, marijuana, crack cocaine residue, financial documents, bank cards, and church offering envelopes. Authorities then interviewed individuals connected to Madeya’s three parishes in McKeesport, Derry Township, and Jeannette. 

According to the criminal complaint, Madeya allegedly misused funds from church fundraisers, rent payments, church fees, and donations since 2018. Investigators claim he spent nearly $320,000 on personal items, including a Mustang, drug paraphernalia, and sexual acts.

Church responds to allegations

The Ukrainian Church Eparchy of St. Josaphat released a statement addressing the allegations:

"Fr. Madeya was suspended from his priestly duties on February 8, 2024. The Eparchy will work diligently to recover any funds entrusted to Fr. Madeya that were lost. As matters develop, the Eparchy will keep its parishioners informed."

Investigators also allege Madeya stole nearly $250,000 from his mother.

"She was at an age where she would not have been able to manage her own finances," Sunday said.

Between the church, his mother, and unaccounted-for taxes, Madeya allegedly stole just over $740,000. His charges include theft by unlawful taking and financial exploitation of an older adult.

"This conduct is an egregious betrayal of public trust. Madeya was someone who was supposed to be of great wisdom and integrity," Sunday said.

Madeya faces extradition to Pennsylvania

Madeya was arrested late last week in Florida, where he has been living for a few years. The attorney general’s office said he will be extradited to Pennsylvania, and a preliminary hearing will be scheduled upon his return. 

Full Article & Source:
Former Pennsylvania priest accused of stealing $740,000 from church and mother 

South Carolina man accused of contractor fraud in Greene

A South Carolina man is accused of defrauding a Greene County couple of $2,400 while posing as an asphalt contractor.

Johnny Carroll, 43, of North Augusta, S.C., faces charges of financial exploitation of an older adult and theft by deception. Both were filed with Judge Thomas Ankrom Tuesday afternoon. 

Carroll allegedly approached Anetta and Thomas Neff in the driveway of their home in Morgan Township on Aug. 10.

Carroll claimed to be affiliated with D.B. Paving, which had paved her driveway the previous month, according to court documents.

Carroll, who identified himself as John Riley of Riley’s Asphalt, told Neff he was there to finish the job and apply a seal coat, the complaint said.

By the time the Neffs provided a check for $2,400, Riley’s crew of at least three people had already sprayed something on the driveway, the complaint said. The Neffs told investigators they doubt it was a sealant. 

The D.B. Paving owner said the company had no ties with Carroll, and he had recommended the Neffs call police, the complaint said.

Carroll was not in custody as of Tuesday afternoon. 

Full Article & Source:
South Carolina man accused of contractor fraud in Greene