Family Files Elder Abuse Lawsuit Against In-Home Care Provider Following Death of 87-Year-Old Woman

News provided by

Siegal & Richardson, LLP

Lawsuit alleges caregiver negligence resulted in multiple fractures, severe pain, and suffering during elderly woman's final weeks

SAN FRANCISCO, Oct. 15, 2026 /PRNewswire-PRWeb/ -- A San Francisco court will soon be asked to determine the extent of the neglect and abuse that a family alleges an in-home care attendant inflicted upon an elderly woman, resulting in devastating injuries and contributing to her painful death.

What should have been a time of comfort, dignity, and compassionate care became a nightmare for 87-year-old June Cohen and her family. 

The lawsuit, Matt Cohen v. Aviva In Home Care, was brought by a San Francisco Bay Area family who entrusted the care of their elderly mother to a professional in-home care provider. Instead of receiving the safety and protection she desperately needed, Mrs. Cohen allegedly suffered catastrophic injuries at the hands of the very caregiver hired to help her.

According to the lawsuit, on the night of August 10, 2026, an allegedly inexperienced home care attendant dropped Mrs. Cohen, aggravating a preexisting fracture and causing several additional fractures. The injuries left her suffering through the final weeks of her life in hospice care, where, according to the family's allegations, she endured excruciating pain before her death.

The complaint alleges that Aviva In Home Care violated its legal obligations under California's elder abuse laws, including provisions of the Welfare and Institutions Code, by failing to provide the level of care and protection owed to a vulnerable elderly woman.

For families across America, the case raises a deeply troubling question: When we place our aging parents in the hands of professional caregivers, how can we be certain they are safe?

As our population ages, millions of families face the difficult decision of entrusting their loved ones to outside caregivers. They do so believing these professionals will provide compassion, competence, and protection. But as the Cohen family's allegations illustrate, failures in elderly care can have heartbreaking and potentially fatal consequences.

The Cohen family is now seeking accountability through the courts, while their case serves as a sobering reminder of the importance of proper caregiver training, oversight, and the protection of our most vulnerable citizens.

A copy of the filed complaint is available to members of the media upon request.

Media Contact

Joel H. Siegal, Esq, Siegal & Richardson, LLP, 1 (510) 271-6720, press@moiralouisepr.com, https://siegalrichardsonlaw.com/

Moira Noiseux, MoiraLouisePR, 1 5107179923, press@moiralouisepr.com, moiralouisepr.com

Source:
Family Files Elder Abuse Lawsuit Against In-Home Care Provider Following Death of 87-Year-Old Woman 

Montgomery County Council passes act aimed at fighting financial exploitation against seniors

by Odyssey Fields 

ROCKVILLE, Md. (DC News Now) -- Montgomery County Councilmember Kate Stewart announced Tuesday that the Financial Exploitation Act was approved.

The legislation, led by Stewart, provides the Montgomery County Office of Consumer Protection with the authority to deter and address deceptive trade practices, including those targeting residents who are vulnerable. The Montgomery County Council passed the Financial Exploitation Act by a unanimous vote.

The act prohibits the use of deception, intimidation or undue influence to obtain money, property or services from a vulnerable adult or person who is at least 68 years old.

"The Financial Exploitation Act will equip the Montgomery County Office of Consumer Protection with tools to deter and redress fraud and deceptive practices that target older residents and those who are vulnerable," said Stewart. "Financial scams are on the rise, and older residents are afraid to pick up a call or open an email to avoid being a victim. This act strengthens the safeguards and authority of the Office of Consumer Protection to go after bad actors, protect residents and prevent them from losing everything."

The expedited bill will also define the term, "vulnerable adult" to mean an adult who lacks the physical or mental capacity to provide for the adult's daily needs. The bill is aimed at deterring and addressing deceptive trade practices targeting vulnerable residents.

"We believe that people with disabilities have the right to live lives of their choosing in their community, directing their decisions with independence and authority. We also recognize that those with I/DD are more likely to fall victim to financial abuse. We believe this bill will help protect the dignity and safety of people we support," said Karen Lee, CEO of SEEC, a community provider for adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

In addition to its investigative authority, the bill allows the Office of Consumer Protection to operate a voluntary mediation program to resolve consumer protection disputes.

Full Article & Source:
Montgomery County Council passes act aimed at fighting financial exploitation against seniors  

Reported fraud losses among older Americans hit $3 billion in 2025 as losses of at least six figures surge, FTC report says

by Sarah Agostino

Key Points

• The fraud losses reported by consumers age 60 and older were up 25% in 2025 from 2024, a report from the Federal Trade Commission shows.
• The number of victims reporting losses of at least $100,000 rose nearly sixfold to 6,769 in 2025 from 1,136 in 2020, and those amounts of six figures or more have driven much of the growth in fraud losses.
• At least two bills in Congress that aim to provide relief and support for fraud victims are in Senate committees awaiting action after being passed by the House earlier this year.

Ekaterina Demidova | Moment | Getty Images

 

Fraud losses reported by older Americans jumped in 2025, driven largely by an increase in victims losing sums of at least six figures, according to a new report from the Federal Trade Commission.

Americans ages 60 and older reported losing about $3 billion to fraud last year, a 25% increase from $2.4 billion in 2024, according to the FTC’s annual report to Congress, released Monday, on fraud among older adults. That figure is up 400% from the $600 million reported lost in 2020.

Just 6% of older fraud victims reported losing $100,000 or more last year, but those losses accounted for 70% of the age group’s total reported losses. The number reporting losses of that magnitude rose nearly sixfold to 6,769 in 2025 from 1,136 in 2020.

Additionally, because many scams go unreported, the FTC estimates actual losses in 2025 could have been anywhere from $13.3 billion to $119.5 billion. In 2024, the estimated range was from $10.1 billion to $81.5 billion.

“The numbers and the increases are staggering,” said Bob Blancato, national coordinator for the Elder Justice Coalition, an advocacy group for ending elder abuse. “Part of it is that the perpetrators are always ahead. They seem to be one step ahead of everybody.”

Investment scam losses spiked 42% in 2025

The rising losses come as scammers increasingly target Americans’ life savings by impersonating banks, businesses and government agencies, according to an August 2025 analysis by the FTC. The schemes often involve fabricated emergencies that convince victims to transfer money to supposedly protect their accounts from being compromised.

The volume of scams has increased with the use of artificial intelligence. AI-generated scams are also increasingly difficult to detect and easier to produce, according to the FBI.

In many impersonation schemes, criminals pose as representatives of banks or government agencies and falsely warn that a consumer’s money is in danger of being stolen. Victims are then instructed to transfer funds, mail cash or deposit money into cryptocurrency ATMs, supposedly to protect their assets.

However, investment scams were the costliest fraud type reported by older Americans last year, with losses exceeding $1 billion, a 42% jump from 2024, the FTC’s new report shows. These scams often begin with social media ads promoting investment opportunities or messages from people posing as financial advisors, according to the FTC. Victims may then be directed to fraudulent trading platforms.

Government impersonation scams ranked second in total reported losses among older consumers, with $448 million in reported losses, followed by business impersonation scams, which resulted in $422 million in reported losses.

Lawmakers weigh relief for victims

Congress is considering legislation intended to provide additional protections and relief for people who lose money to scams.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 temporarily restricted victims’ ability to claim their fraud losses as a deduction on their tax return in certain cases. Prior to that legislation, fraud losses were generally deductible. The provision was scheduled to expire in 2025, but President Donald Trump’s “big beautiful bill” law enacted last year made that change permanent.

While investment fraud losses may be deductible, according to an IRS memorandum issued in March 2025, money lost to other scams — such as some impersonator or romance scams — is not, experts said.

You get scammed out of $100,000 and then you’re paying taxes on that $100,000. That’s crazy.

Bob Blancato
National coordinator for the Elder Justice Coalition

In addition, if the victim tapped a tax-deferred retirement account such as a traditional 401(k) or individual retirement account as part of the fraud, income taxes may be due on the distribution. And if the victim is younger than age 59½, an early withdrawal penalty of 10% may be imposed.

“You get scammed out of $100,000 and then you’re paying taxes on that $100,000,” Blancato said. “That’s crazy.”

The bipartisan Tax Relief for Fraud Victims Act, which was passed by the House in September in a 408-17 vote, would eliminate the deductibility restrictions and waive the 10% penalty if it applies, among other provisions. The bill was referred to the Senate Finance Committee. It’s uncertain whether it will gain traction in the upper chamber before this session of Congress is over.

Separately, the Financial Exploitation Prevention Act, which cleared the House in June by a vote of 414-2, would allow certain financial institutions such as mutual fund companies to temporarily delay transactions when they reasonably believe a customer is being financially exploited. It was referred to the Senate Banking Committee; whether it will get a floor vote is unknown.

Already, many banks and other financial institutions ask account holders for a “trusted contact,” which is someone who can be contacted in certain circumstances, including when financial exploitation is suspected. That person may be able to intervene to prevent the fraud by reaching out to the account holder. The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, or FINRA, requires brokerages to make a reasonable effort to add a trusted contact to accounts, although investors are not required to provide one.

Approach potential victims with care

If you suspect an older adult in your life is being victimized, it’s important to approach the situation with care, experts say.

“It’s usually best to start with an open, nonjudgmental, compassionate approach,” said Marti DeLiema, an associate professor at the University of Minnesota and associate director of education for the school’s Center for Healthy Aging and Innovation.

“You never say ‘you’re being scammed,’ because they’ll throw their guard up,” DeLiema said. “Scammers will try to intentionally isolate the target from potential interveners. They’ll say, ‘Don’t tell anyone about our relationship’ or ‘Don’t tell anyone that you won the lottery.’”

If the money is already gone, it’s important not to blame the victim, DeLiema said. “We do that to scam victims all the time. We say, ‘What were you thinking? How could you be so foolish?’” she said.

“We really need to move away from the shame, because I guarantee you, they’re already doing that to themselves,” DeLiema said. “They’re already pointing the finger inward.”

Full Article & Source:
Reported fraud losses among older Americans hit $3 billion in 2025 as losses of at least six figures surge, FTC report says

Rochester Woman Accused of Taking $16,000 From Ailing Relative

Rochester, MN (KROC-AM News) - An arrest warrant has been issued for a Rochester woman accused of financially exploiting a vulnerable adult.

Granted Power of Attorney After Victim Admitted to Memory Care

A criminal complaint filed in Olmsted County Court details the allegations against 39-year-old Danielle Linae Nimox-Johnson involving the finances of an elderly relative who was "living out her final days in a memory care facility." The felony charge indicates Nimox-Johnson had been granted power of attorney and was responsible for managing the ailing relative's finances and paying her bills.

Suspicious Withdrawals From the Victims Bank Accounts

Instead, Nimox-Johnson is accused of using funds from the victim's bank accounts to pay her own housing expenses and other personal costs after the individual was admitted to the memory care facility in October 2025. According to the criminal complaint, an investigator with the Olmsted County Sheriff's Office identified numerous withdrawals for rent payments on an apartment used by Nimox-Johnson, as well as debit transactions for Uber and Lyft rides and DoorDash payments.

Photo by Andy Brownell TSM Rochester

Charges Involved More Than $16,000

The criminal complaint also includes calculations provided to the investigator by a witness in the case. According to those calculations, Nimox-Johnson allegedly withdrew more than $16,000 from the victim's bank accounts between October 2025 and June 2026, when the accounts were frozen.

The court document states that Nimox-Johnson's last known location was in Wisconsin, but her current whereabouts are unknown. 

Full Article & Source:
Rochester Woman Accused of Taking $16,000 From Ailing Relative 

Life, Liberty and Guardians: She lives alone and can travel internationally. But a guardianship still controls her life.

A San Antonio woman has spent more than two years fighting to regain her rights under a guardianship, costing her and her husband more than $300,000.

Author: Tanya Eiserer, Jason Trahan, John Gibson

SAN ANTONIO — Allison Singleton lives alone in her historic San Antonio home. She volunteers at a food bank, sings in her church choir and recently flew to Canada to take her daughter to college.

But Singleton cannot vote.

She cannot drive.

She cannot control her own money or have a credit card.

"I have had all my decision-making stripped from me," Singleton said. 

For more than two years, Singleton has been under a court-ordered guardianship in Bexar County, a case that began amid a bitter divorce and allegations about her mental state.

Singleton and her husband, Scott, have since reconciled. They have tried to dismiss their divorce. Two assessments have raised questions about whether she still needs a guardian.

Yet the guardianship remains.

And the fight over it has cost the Singletons more than $300,000 — and perhaps more. The bills aren't all in.

"Who would have ever thought that could go down in America?" Allison Singleton said.

"I'm spewing venom all the time because I'm mad as hell," she said. 

How the guardianship began

Singleton and her husband say she was struggling in 2024 as the divorce and protective orders took a toll on her mental health.

"I was in a very, very dark place," Singleton said.

Scott Singleton said that, at the time, he was concerned for his safety.

"She was scaring me," he said.

Allison Singleton has an autoimmune disease that means she can work only intermittently. She receives Social Security disability as a result. Before being placed under guardianship, she periodically did contract work as a process engineer.

The guardianship case began after Singleton's own divorce attorney recommended a mental health evaluation, setting a separate probate case in motion.

In May 2024, the court placed Singleton under temporary guardianship, giving one person control over her money and another control over decisions about her life. She did not know either of them.

"In no short order of time Allison lost her car. She lost her driver's license. Her bank accounts were seized by the guardians," Scott Singleton said.

Two caretakers were quickly placed in her home.

"Two people were living inside my house at all times, 24 hour care," Singleton said. "I was trying to just stay in my room."

Credit: WFAA-TV

Allison Singleton and her husband, Scott, have reconciled, but their divorce case remains unresolved because of her court-ordered guardianship.

In June 2024, a psychiatrist showed up at her home to conduct an evaluation. Singleton refused to allow him inside or consent to the evaluation.

She says she talked to him for about six minutes. He says it was about 30 minutes, according to his report.

From that porch conversation, he said she was psychotic and paranoid. He gave a preliminary diagnosis of schizophrenia and recommended 24-hour home supervision — which was already happening at her home.

After Singleton stopped allowing the caretakers into her home that summer, the guardian overseeing her personal care obtained a mental health warrant.

Singleton resisted efforts to take her into custody. She was arrested on assault charges. She later pleaded no contest to a lesser charge and received two years' probation.

In late 2024, a six-person jury in a Bexar Count probate court was asked to decide whether to make Singleton's guardianship permanent.

Jurors heard a series of disturbing allegations about Singleton's behavior — claims she and her family dispute.

There were claims that she had held a gun to Scott's head. They both deny it.

There were claims that a caregiver heard Singleton offer $5,000 to have her mother killed. No caretaker testified to having heard it.

There were also claims that she abused illegal substances. Singleton denies it.

Singleton does acknowledge that she spit on her first guardian of the person and threw a small bottle of wine at her.

"I will admittedly say I lost my cool," she said.

Her own therapist testified at the trial that she had done 10 sessions with Singleton in 2024, diagnosed her with PTSD and believed the guardianship had exacerbated the stress in Singleton's life.

The main argument for a permanent guardianship centered on protecting Singleton's financial interests during the divorce. Her entire family opposed it.

The jury found Singleton incapacitated.

"This whole terrible situation has forced me to come back to aid Allison to try to emancipate her through this process," Scott Singleton said.

The Singletons have tried to dismiss their divorce case. But as long as Allison Singleton remains under guardianship, the probate court won't let them.

Credit: WFAA-TV

Allison Singleton and her husband, Scott, sit at their dining table with their son as she continues her fight to regain her rights under guardianship.

More than $300,000

The Singletons see the guardianship system as a money grab — their money.

"It has to be about money," Scott Singleton said. "I'm paying all of those people out of our estate to do this to us." 

In the first five months of the guardianship alone, about $150,000 in fees and expenses were billed to the Singletons — to be paid from their own assets, according to court records.

That included more than $70,000 for round-the-clock caregivers.

One of Singleton's original guardians, Bill Bailey, ultimately billed more than $100,000 for work on the case over about an eight-month period, records show.

More recently, a court-appointed guardian ad litem, whose job is to investigate Singleton's circumstances and make recommendations to the judge about her best interests, submitted a bill for more than $9,400. Singleton's attorney is challenging the fees, arguing the guardian ad litem went beyond his duties, including billing more than $1,000 for work that involved preparing a motion to remove her chosen attorney. 

The guardian ad litem also billed for pursuing a psychiatric evaluation Singleton opposed. The filing points out errors in the billing paperwork, including references to Singleton as deceased, even though she is alive.

"They use our money to fund themselves to fight us," Scott Singleton said.

"Right. We pay for them," Allison Singleton said.

On Sept. 9, the Singletons were back in court.

Bailey and other lawyers were there, too, demanding their money. Singleton represented herself during that part of the hearing.

Judge Veronica Vasquez gave Scott Singleton two weeks to decide which investment accounts to cash out to pay the bills.

WFAA approached Bailey after the hearing.

"Mr. Bailey. How are you doing today?" Eiserer asked.

"We have no comment. It's an ongoing litigation," Bailey said. "And no one else should comment."

Credit: WFAA-TV

Bexar County Probate Judge Veronica Vasquez is overseeing Allison Singleton’s guardianship case as Singleton fights to regain her rights.

Two assessments raise questions

Two years after the guardianship began, there are questions about whether Singleton still needs a guardian.

Last October, Daniel Groven, who works for the Bexar County Guardianship Program and was appointed after the trial to oversee Singleton's personal and medical decisions — not her money — recommended that Singleton get her rights back.

"Mrs. Singleton is able to meet her own needs," he wrote.

This spring, psychologist Dr. Melissa Graham independently evaluated Singleton.

"Honestly, I have absolutely no idea how she got to be in this position in the first place," Graham said. "I don't see any reason at all psychologically, physically or any other reason why she needs a guardian."

Singleton had chosen Graham to perform her evaluation. That was her right under a guardianship reform lawmakers passed in 2023.

But that right came with an exception: If a judge wants "additional information," the judge can bring in another examiner.

As part of Singleton's fight to get her rights back, a court-appointed investigator interviewed people she volunteered for.

Dawn Laubach, Singleton's guardian of the estate who controls her money, reported concerns to the investigator that "unrestricted access to funds could potentially facilitate future substance abuse." She also reported concerns that Singleton might sell "valuable jewelry if given unrestricted access to those assets."

Singleton refused to allow a home visit, the investigator wrote. The investigator also noted that Singleton had written countless emails threatening legal action.

Based on her interactions with Singleton, the investigator said she had concerns about Singleton's "ability to regulate her emotions when confronted with situations, decisions or individuals with whom she disagrees."

At the Sept. 9 hearing, Vasquez cited concerns about Singleton's impulse control and ordered another psychiatric evaluation.

Graham came to the hearing but did not get a chance to testify about her assessment.

The judge said she wanted "additional information," citing what she characterized as Singleton's impulse control issues.

Singleton's attorney says state law doesn't mention impulse control.

"If impulse control was an issue, then I think everyone at a Cowboys game would be under a guardianship, you know?" Daniel MacNeil said.

"It's basically if somebody can ... do their independent activities daily living right, feed themselves, clothe themselves. Pay their bills. She seems perfectly capable of doing that," MacNeil said.

Asked why Singleton was still under guardianship, MacNeil said, "That's a good question, right?"

"To be honest, I haven't seen anyone get restored," he said.

MacNeil said the Legislature needs to close the exception that allows a judge seeking "additional information" to bring in another examiner.

"Even if she says I want more information, then it should be the doctor of the ward's choice, right?" he said.

The new evaluation will be paid for by the Singletons.

In September, Singleton was released more than a year early from probation. It was a type of probation that left her without a criminal conviction.

Taking her fight to the Texas Supreme Court

Singleton also challenged the guardianship through the Fourth Court of Appeals.

She filed an appeal on her own.

Her court-appointed attorney ad litem filed a brief saying her appeal was "frivolous and without merit" and requested to withdraw as counsel.

The court found no "arguable grounds for an appeal exist" and decided the appeal was "wholly frivolous." The court issued its ruling in May.

Singleton is now taking her fight to the Texas Supreme Court.

She's challenging the evidence used to take away her rights, whether less restrictive options were properly considered — and whether the appeals process itself was fair.

MacNeil argues it was problematic for the appeals court to accept a brief filed by the same attorney who represented Singleton at trial.

"A trial lawyer asked to identify arguable appellate issues must evaluate that lawyer's own actions, omissions, stipulations, and objections. The Fourth Court accepted that self-evaluation, described it as a professional and thorough review, and relied upon it in holding the appeal wholly frivolous," MacNeil wrote.

For Singleton, the legal arguments come back to the rights she has spent more than two years trying to regain.

In August, she flew to Canada to take her daughter to college.

She can travel internationally. She can live by herself. She can help her daughter begin a new life.

But she remains under guardianship.

"You do not have life nor liberty when you are in a guardianship," Scott Singleton said.

"And when a guardianship removes your right to life and liberty, they remove your ability to pursue happiness," Allison Singleton said. 

Full Article & Source:
Life, Liberty and Guardians: She lives alone and can travel internationally. But a guardianship still controls her life. 

San Antonio Woman Can Fly to Canada Alone, But a Guardian Still Runs Her Finances

By Maya Bushman

Allison Singleton lives by herself in a historic San Antonio home, sings in her church choir, volunteers at a food bank, and this past August flew to Canada by herself to drop her daughter off at college. Yet more than two years into a court-ordered guardianship in Bexar County, she still cannot vote, drive, or control her own money. She cannot even carry a credit card.

A Case Built On Capacity, Not Freedom

The gap between what Singleton can clearly do and what the guardianship still forbids her from doing is at the center of an investigation by WFAA. The station reports that two separate mental health assessments have now raised questions about whether Singleton still needs a guardian at all. Dr. Melissa Graham, who evaluated Singleton independently this year, said she saw no psychological, physical, or other reason Singleton needed a guardian. Daniel Groven, who was appointed after trial to oversee Singleton's personal and medical decisions but not her money, wrote that Mrs. Singleton is able to meet her own needs and recommended last October that she regain her rights.

Despite those assessments, Dr. Graham did not testify about her findings at a recent hearing. Judge Veronica Vasquez ordered another psychiatric evaluation on September 9, citing concerns about Singleton's impulse control, and that new evaluation will be paid for by the Singletons themselves. Daniel Macneil, an attorney involved in the case, pointed out that state law does not actually mention impulse control as a standard, and said he had not personally seen anyone restored from guardianship.

How a Divorce Became a Guardianship

The case began amid a bitter divorce between Allison and Scott Singleton, along with allegations about her mental state. Her divorce attorney at the time recommended a mental health evaluation. The court placed Singleton under temporary guardianship in May 2024, splitting control between one person over her money and another over decisions about her life. Scott Singleton told the station that the guardians seized Allison's bank accounts and that she lost her car and her driver's license. Two caretakers ultimately lived in her home around the clock, which Allison described bluntly: “Two people were living inside my house at all times, 24 hour care.”

The Singletons have since reconciled and tried to dismiss their divorce, but Bexar County probate court would not allow the case to be dismissed while Allison remains under guardianship. A six-person jury in Bexar County Probate Court No. 1 ultimately found her incapacitated in 2024 and considered whether to make the guardianship permanent, with the argument centered on protecting her financial interests during the divorce. Singleton's family opposed making it permanent.

A Porch Visit, a Warrant, and an Arrest

A pivotal moment came in June 2024, when a psychiatrist visited Singleton's home to conduct an evaluation. Singleton refused to let the psychiatrist inside or consent to the evaluation, and the two disagree on how long their porch conversation lasted — Singleton says about six minutes, while the psychiatrist's report puts it at roughly 30 minutes. The psychiatrist preliminarily diagnosed her with schizophrenia, described her as psychotic and paranoid, and recommended 24-hour home supervision.

The guardian overseeing her personal care then obtained a mental health warrant, and police came to take Singleton into custody. She was arrested on assault charges after resisting, and ultimately pleaded no contest to a lesser charge of resisting arrest, receiving two years of probation that left her without a criminal conviction. She was released from that probation more than a year early this past September. Singleton acknowledged spitting on her first guardian and throwing a small bottle of wine at her, saying, “I will admittedly say I lost my cool.” She and Scott have denied a separate claim that she held a gun to his head, and a caregiver was not brought to testify about an allegation that Singleton had offered $5,000 to have her mother killed. Singleton has also denied abusing illegal substances.

The Financial Toll of Fighting Back

The guardianship fight has cost the Singletons more than $300,000, according to WFAA's reporting. Guardianship fees and expenses totaled about $150,000 in just the first five months, with round-the-clock caregivers billed more than $70,000. Bill Bailey, who billed more than $100,000 for case work over roughly eight months, told the station only, “We have no comment. It's an ongoing litigation. And no one else should comment.”

The court-appointed guardian ad litem submitted a bill for more than $9,400, which Singleton's attorney has challenged, including more than $1,000 billed for preparing a motion to remove Singleton's chosen attorney and additional work pursuing a psychiatric evaluation she opposed. Billing paperwork from the guardian ad litem reportedly included references to Singleton as deceased, despite her being alive. On September 9, when the Singletons appeared in court together, Judge Vasquez gave Scott Singleton two weeks to decide which investment accounts to cash out to cover the bills.

Under Texas Estates Code Chapter 1155, guardianship court expenses, attorney ad litem fees, and professional guardian compensation are generally billed directly against a ward's estate, according to FindLaw, which helps explain why contested cases like this one can drain an estate so quickly. Guardian compensation for personal care alone is capped by statute at $3,000 annually or 5% of gross income unless county funds are allocated.

Fighting Before the State's Highest Court

Singleton filed an appeal through the Fourth Court of Appeals, but her own guardian ad litem filed a brief calling the appeal frivolous and without merit, and requested to withdraw as counsel. The appeals court agreed in May 2026, ruling that no arguable grounds for appeal existed. Daniel Macneil has argued that the appeals court improperly accepted a brief written by Singleton's trial lawyer. Singleton is now taking her fight to the Texas Supreme Court, challenging the evidence used to remove her rights, the consideration of less restrictive options, and the fairness of the appeals process itself.

Her case lands amid a broader legislative effort in Texas to protect wards' autonomy. Lawmakers passed guardianship reform in 2023 giving people under guardianship the right to choose their own evaluator, and Senate Bill 1624 that same year clarified that attorneys representing wards must advocate for their expressed wishes rather than a lawyer's own assessment of their best interest, according to Texas Legislature Online. Under Texas Estates Code § 1151.351, wards retain constitutional rights and legal privileges except those specifically restricted by court order, per FindLaw's breakdown of the statute. Daniel Macneil has urged the legislature to close an exception that still allows judges to bring in another examiner even after a ward chooses their own.

A Statewide Pattern of Strain

Singleton's case is not an isolated data point. The Texas Office of Court Administration estimates that between 34,000 and 50,000 active adult guardianships are under judicial supervision statewide, managing an estimated $4.9 billion to $5 billion in assets, even though specialized statutory probate courts exist in only 10 of the state's 254 counties. The same office's Guardianship Abuse, Fraud, and Exploitation Deterrence Program found that roughly 33% to 41% of reviewed guardianship files were out of compliance with mandatory annual reports or financial accountings.

Nationally, the picture is larger still: the National Center for State Courts estimates that about 1.3 million adults across the country live under guardianship or conservatorship, managing roughly $50 billion in assets, with that population growing by about 32% over the past decade. Research compiled by the National Core Indicators initiative has found that adults under full guardianship report higher rates of self-assessed helplessness and lower psychological well-being than those who retain rights through supported decision-making alternatives — a dynamic disability advocates cite in urging courts to exhaust lighter-touch options before imposing plenary guardianship.

Bexar County Probate Court No. 2 Presiding Judge Veronica Vasquez, who was first elected in 2018 as the court's first woman of color judge and ran unopposed for a third term this year, co-chairs the Bexar County Elder Abuse and Exploitation Task Force, according to Ballotpedia. For Singleton, the legal and financial stakes remain deeply personal. “I have had all my decision-making stripped from me,” she said. Scott Singleton put it more starkly: “You do not have life nor liberty when you are in a guardianship.” Allison added, “And when a guardianship removes your right to life and liberty, they remove your ability to pursue happiness.”

Singleton's therapist, who conducted 10 sessions with her in 2024 and diagnosed her with post-traumatic stress disorder, testified that she believed the guardianship itself had worsened Singleton's stress. Before the guardianship began, Singleton worked periodically as a contract process engineer and now receives Social Security disability; she has an autoimmune disease that limits her work to intermittent periods. Daniel Macneil said Singleton appeared capable of daily activities including feeding herself, dressing, and paying bills. Hoodline previously covered a related Bexar County guardianship dispute in its courtroom defamation showdown report this summer. 

Full Article & Source:
San Antonio Woman Can Fly to Canada Alone, But a Guardian Still Runs Her Finances 

Handling visitation disputes in guardian cases

Attorney Jehan Crump-Gibson with Great Lakes Legal Group explains how families can navigate visitation disputes. 

Source:
Handling visitation disputes in guardian cases 

Former Disney star accused of elder abuse and fraud

by: Christine Samra

An elderly Southern California couple is suing former Disney star Erik von Detten and Rosland Capital, a precious metals company, for elder abuse and fraud.

On May 11, 97-year-old Norman Greenberg and his 85-year-old wife, Sheila, of La Jolla, filed a lawsuit against von Detten and Rosland Capital LLC in Los Angeles Superior Court, according to USA Today. The lawsuit notes that the “Brink!” actor is a broker for the company.

TMZ broke the story on Tuesday morning.

The couple claims that around the summer of 2020, they reached out to the company after seeing television ads that “created real concern for the safety of their wealth,” docs obtained by E! explained.

“Rosland’s marketing campaigns are and were, at all times relevant,” the lawsuit said. “(They were) designed in large part to appeal to senior citizens through their television and internet advertising, direct mail brochures, and high-pressure boiler-room type sales practices.”

When the Greenbergs reached out to Rosland, they were connected with von Detten. During their conversations, they revealed they didn’t know much about gold and had over $2 million in their retirement accounts.

“Von Detten acknowledged that he understood their goals and their lack of knowledge and that he possessed sufficient experience and expertise and could help,” the filing reads. “He earned their trust and confidence such that they agreed to accept his recommendations without question.”

The couple said they placed two orders for Lady Liberty gold coins, which were about $1 million each. Instead of being delivered to them, the items were sent to Delaware Depository for storage, which led to fees from both companies to store the coins and to maintain the account.

Court documents stated that while they never saw the first shipment, this happened to them again when von Detten encouraged them to invest another $1 million in coins.

The transactions took place between October 2020 and August 2021. It wasn’t until 2025, when the couple investigated the worth on their own, that they realized they paid more than what the coins were actually worth. The Greenbergs said they spent over $2.1 million on gold coins only worth $1.3 million.

“The prices Defendants charged Plaintiffs in every instance were not fair and reasonable but were instead grossly in excess of the market value for each order at the time each order was executed,” the lawsuit explained.

The filing continued by saying Rosland and von Detten misled the two “into believing that they were paying a fair price relative to the things they bought and for the reasons they bought them.”

“Instead of helping them protect their hard-earned wealth, Defendants helped themselves to it,” the lawsuit claims. “In addition, Defendants committed financial elder abuse because they took, secreted, appropriated, obtained or retained Plaintiffs’ money with the intent to defraud.”

The couple is requesting a jury trial and is seeking at least $900,000 in damages. They also want to recover their losses and punitive damages. In addition to claims of elder abuse and fraud, the couple is accusing the defendants of constructive fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and conversion.

In a statement to E! News, Rosland Capital said they “cannot comment directly on the lawsuit,” but continued by offering some information on what’s next in the lawsuit.

“However, we can state that as counsel for Rosland Capital LLC as debtor in possession, we have worked with the Creditors Committee to create a liquidating trust which will have the power to investigate the financial history of the company to provide answers to the claims of the Greenbergs and other investors.”

Von Detten hasn’t publicly addressed the lawsuit. KTLA 5 has reached out to his team.

USA Today reports that the case has been assigned to Judge Bradley S. Phillips, and court records show a case management conference is scheduled for Nov. 9 at 8:30 a.m. in Santa Monica. 

In July, two months after the Greenbergs filed their lawsuit, Roseland Capital filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

Von Detten, 44, famously starred opposite Anne Hathaway in 2001’s “The Princess Diaries.” He also starred in the Disney Channel television movie “Brink!” and the Disney Channel series “So Weird.”

He voiced the character of Sid in 1995’s “Toy Story” and later returned to the franchise to voice an older Sid in a cameo in 2010’s “Toy Story 3” before he stepped away from acting. He joined Rosland Capital in 2018.

His latest acting role is listed as Mark in the 2024 TV movie “My Acting Coach Nightmare.”

Full Article & Source:
Former Disney star accused of elder abuse and fraud 

Family Files Elder Abuse Lawsuit Against In-Home Care Provider Following Death of 87-Year-Old Woman

Lawsuit alleges caregiver negligence resulted in multiple fractures, severe pain, and suffering during elderly woman's final weeks

SAN FRANCISCO, Oct. 15, 2026 /PRNewswire-PRWeb/ -- A San Francisco court will soon be asked to determine the extent of the neglect and abuse that a family alleges an in-home care attendant inflicted upon an elderly woman, resulting in devastating injuries and contributing to her painful death.

What should have been a time of comfort, dignity, and compassionate care became a nightmare for 87-year-old June Cohen and her family.

The lawsuit, Matt Cohen v. Aviva In Home Care, was brought by a San Francisco Bay Area family who entrusted the care of their elderly mother to a professional in-home care provider. Instead of receiving the safety and protection she desperately needed, Mrs. Cohen allegedly suffered catastrophic injuries at the hands of the very caregiver hired to help her.

According to the lawsuit, on the night of August 10, 2026, an allegedly inexperienced home care attendant dropped Mrs. Cohen, aggravating a preexisting fracture and causing several additional fractures. The injuries left her suffering through the final weeks of her life in hospice care, where, according to the family's allegations, she endured excruciating pain before her death.

The complaint alleges that Aviva In Home Care violated its legal obligations under California's elder abuse laws, including provisions of the Welfare and Institutions Code, by failing to provide the level of care and protection owed to a vulnerable elderly woman.

For families across America, the case raises a deeply troubling question: When we place our aging parents in the hands of professional caregivers, how can we be certain they are safe?

As our population ages, millions of families face the difficult decision of entrusting their loved ones to outside caregivers. They do so believing these professionals will provide compassion, competence, and protection. But as the Cohen family's allegations illustrate, failures in elderly care can have heartbreaking and potentially fatal consequences.

The Cohen family is now seeking accountability through the courts, while their case serves as a sobering reminder of the importance of proper caregiver training, oversight, and the protection of our most vulnerable citizens.

A copy of the filed complaint is available to members of the media upon request.

Media Contact

Joel H. Siegal, Esq, Siegal & Richardson, LLP, 1 (510) 271-6720, press@moiralouisepr.com, https://siegalrichardsonlaw.com/

Moira Noiseux, MoiraLouisePR, 1 5107179923, press@moiralouisepr.com, moiralouisepr.com 

Full Article & Source:
Family Files Elder Abuse Lawsuit Against In-Home Care Provider Following Death of 87-Year-Old Woman