83-year-old at center of two-state guardianship battle can stay in Colorado — and may not have to return to Dallas

A judge declined to hold Peggy Hill’s son and daughter-in-law in contempt but found they had significantly interfered with her guardianship. 

Author: Tanya Eiserer 

DALLAS — Peggy Hill will get to stay in Colorado — at least until further notice.

A Dallas County probate judge issued an order Wednesday allowing the 83-year-old retired real estate agent to remain in Colorado to undergo brain surgery next month and recuperate there afterward. Hill, who has dementia, is under a court-ordered guardianship. She repeatedly refused court orders to return to Dallas from Fort Collins, Co., where she has been living with her youngest son, Rucker Hill, his wife, Rebecca, and their three young sons.

Under a court-approved settlement among Peggy Hill’s four adult children, she was to spend six months of the year in Colorado and the other six months at a Dallas assisted living facility. Peggy has been in Colorado since October and repeatedly refused efforts to return her to Dallas.

WFAA aired a story Monday night detailing Peggy’s fight to remain in Colorado. "I get up in the morning and think I've already died and gone to heaven living here," Hill said in that interview. She also said that the only way she would return to Dallas was in a “pine box.” On Tuesday, WFAA filed this report on the hearing to determine next steps in Peggy's case.

In a series of rulings following that hearing, Judge Julia Malveaux stayed enforcement of her prior orders that would have required Hill to return to Dallas.

“Ms. Hill is pleased with the Judge’s ruling and appreciates her careful consideration of all the evidence and Ms. Hill’s expressed preferences in accordance with the Ward’s Bill of Rights,” Brian Hill, an attorney representing Peggy Hill wrote in a statement. “Ms. Hill looks forward to remaining in Colorado for the foreseeable future.”

A second order indicates Peggy Hill may ultimately be allowed to stay in Colorado permanently. The judge wrote that pending additional orders from the court regarding transfer of the guardianship to Colorado and acceptance by a Colorado court, Hill “shall be authorized to remain in Colorado.”

The orders came a day after Rucker and Rebecca Hill were forced to testify about whether they had violated the court’s order to get Peggy back to Dallas. The hearing stretched for more than three hours, and the couple faced the possibility of being held in contempt of court.

“The actions of the Colorado family members do not rise to the level of contempt,” Probate Judge Julia Malveau wrote in the order.

But the judge also concluded Rucker and Rebecca Hill had engaged in “significant interference” with the guardianship, including disclosing Peggy’s private health and personal information.

The judge found that the Colorado family members:

• Failed to cooperate fully with the guardian and guardian ad litem.
• Failed to provide care managers reasonable access to Peggy.
• Enabled Peggy’s living situation to become public even though, according to the court, she lacked the legal capacity to consent.
• “Likely” failed to follow instructions from Peggy’s medical providers.

The order requires the Colorado family members to get advance written approval from Peggy’s attorney ad litem (which is akin to a defense attorney and is appointed by the court to represent what the person under guardianship wants), guardian ad litem (who is court-appointed and is supposed to represent what’s in the best interest of the person under guardianship) and guardian before providing any of her health, financial or personal information to a news, internet or other media outlet.

“They shall not engage in any act or omission that might reasonable be interpreted as interference with Ward’s guardianship, protection and safety,” the judge wrote.

The judge also ordered that Peggy receive examinations and treatments recommended by her medical providers. The order prohibits the family from interfering with the guardian’s access to medical providers or Peggy’s medical and health information.

Rebecca and Rucker Hill have previously said they did everything they could to get Peggy to return. They also denied in court testimony interfering with her care.

The judge’s order applies to all family members, not just Rucker and Rebecca Hill.

Brian Hill, the attorney representing Peggy, also has asked the court to direct the bank managing Peggy’s finances to end lease at an assisted living facility, which has been costing her estate $6,000 a month. The motion asks that her “personal effects” be sent to her in Colorado.

In a separate motion, he asked that the court approve transferring her guardianship to Colorado. 

Full Article & Source:
83-year-old at center of two-state guardianship battle can stay in Colorado — and may not have to return to Dallas

‘Menace II Society’ Star Samuel Monroe Jr.’s Wife Fights Mother’s Conservatorship Bid

As the actor remains hospitalized, Shawna Stewart says he chose her to manage his affairs — and accuses his mother of seeking control of his finances.

By Bernadette Giacomazzo

Key Takeaways

• Samuel Monroe Jr.’s wife, Shawna Stewart, is fighting his mother Joyce Patton’s conservatorship bid, saying the actor wanted her to manage his medical and financial decisions.
• Stewart denies misusing GoFundMe donations or Monroe Jr.’s film residuals and accuses Patton of seeking control of his finances, while Patton questions whether the couple is legally married.
• The Menace II Society actor remains hospitalized after meningitis spread to his spine and brain, leading to MRSA pneumonia, seizures, brain swelling, life support, dialysis and multiple brain surgeries.

Samuel Monroe Jr.’s months-long medical crisis has now spilled into court, with the Menace II Society actor’s mother seeking a conservatorship while his wife pushes back against the effort.

According to TMZ, Monroe Jr.’s mother, Joyce Patton, has petitioned to establish a conservatorship over her son as he remains hospitalized and unable to manage his own affairs. His wife, Shawna Stewart, is challenging the move and says Monroe Jr. had previously made it clear that he wanted her — not his mother — to handle his medical and financial decisions.

Stewart also accused Patton of being motivated by money rather than Monroe Jr.’s care. Patton’s court filing reportedly raises questions about a GoFundMe Stewart established to help cover medical expenses and whether Stewart has access to Monroe Jr.’s film residuals.

Stewart denied taking any of his money and told TMZ she believes the conservatorship effort is instead aimed at gaining control over his finances.

The dispute also extends to the status of Stewart and Monroe Jr.’s relationship. Patton has questioned whether the couple is legally married and claimed they have not lived together in approximately 15 years. Stewart disputed that account, saying she and Monroe Jr. have two children together, have maintained an on-and-off relationship in recent years, and lived together during portions of that time.

Asked about proof of their marriage, Stewart declined to provide documentation to TMZ but said Patton “is in for a surprise.”

The case has already moved deeper into the probate process. According to court documents cited by TMZ, an attorney has been appointed to represent Monroe Jr.’s interests, while his medical records have been ordered released to a probate investigator.

A conservatorship could give a court-appointed person authority over some or all of his personal, medical, or financial affairs if a judge determines he cannot make those decisions himself.

The legal fight comes as Monroe Jr. continues to battle severe health complications that began months ago. The actor was hospitalized in April after a prolonged case of meningitis that Stewart previously said had gone undiagnosed for months. She said the infection eventually spread to his spine and brain.

He later developed MRSA pneumonia and required life support, dialysis, multiple blood transfusions, and several brain surgeries.

His condition has fluctuated sharply during the hospitalization. At one point, Monroe Jr.’s kidneys improved enough for doctors to stop dialysis, and he was able to breathe without a ventilator for several hours.

By August, however, Stewart said he was again in a medically induced coma, suffering seizures and brain swelling, with doctors warning that he could remain in a vegetative state.

Monroe Jr., whose credits also include Set It Off, Tales from the Hood and The Players Club, remains hospitalized. 

Full Article & Source:
‘Menace II Society’ Star Samuel Monroe Jr.’s Wife Fights Mother’s Conservatorship Bid 

Update: 

Quick Facts about Samuel Monroe Jr.

• Born: November 28, 1973, in Los Angeles, CA

• Died: August 26, 2026, in Burbank, CA

 

Wendy Williams Reportedly Pleads for Freedom Amid Ongoing Legal Battle in Her First Public Appearance in 6 Months

The former talk show host was spotted grabbing lunch in N.Y.C.

by Chanel Vargas

Wendy Williams attends an event on the Atlanta Tech Village rooftop in Atlanta, Georgia on August 29, 2017.
Credit: Getty Images

The Gist

• Wendy Williams was spotted grabbing lunch in New York City, marking her first public appearance since February.

• The former talk show host allegedly made a plea for help amid her ongoing guardianship battle and health concerns. "I want out!" Williams reportedly said about the guardianship.

• Williams's care team shared that she was diagnosed with aphasia and frontotemporal dementia (FTD) in February 2024.

Wendy Williams, 62, was seen grabbing lunch at a New York City restaurant on August 20, marking her first public appearance in six months, per The Daily Mail.

When asked what she wants the public to know about her ongoing health challenges and legal battle, the former talk show host, 62, allegedly proclaimed, "I want out!"

The sighting comes five years after Williams stepped down as the host of her eponymous daytime talk show due to mounting health challenges. At the time, Williams cited her struggles with Graves' disease—an autoimmune disorder that affects the thyroid—hyperthyroidism, and lymphedema as the basis for her departure.

Wendy Williams walks through a crowd in New York City on September 16, 2025.
Credit: Getty Images

In February 2022, Williams's care team announced that she had also been diagnosed with primary progressive aphasia and frontotemporal dementia (FTD). According to the statement, the conditions have "presented significant hurdles in Wendy's life," impacting her cognitive functions and her ability to communicate. "Over the past few years, questions have been raised at times about Wendy's ability to process information, and many have speculated about Wendy's condition, particularly when she began to lose words, act erratically at times, and have difficulty understanding financial transactions."

The statement continued, "The decision to share this news was difficult and made after careful consideration, not only to advocate for understanding and compassion for Wendy, but to raise awareness about aphasia and frontotemporal dementia and support the thousands of others facing similar circumstances."

Bach Mai and Wendy Williams attend the Bach Mai Fashion Show during at New York Fashion Week on September 14, 2025.
Credit: Getty Images

Shortly after sharing her diagnoses, Wells Fargo froze Williams's bank accounts and petitioned for a financial guardianship, claiming she was the "victim of undue influence and financial exploitation," per The Hollywood Reporter. Following a high-pressure legal battle, Williams entered a court-appointed financial and medical guardianship. Since 2023, she has been living in an assisted living and memory care facility in New York City, which she has previously referred to as a "luxury prison" in a January 2025 interview on The Breakfast Club.

In July 2025, Williams celebrated her 61st birthday, allegedly claiming that her birthday wish was to be freed from her guardianship. "[My wish is] obvious: to get out of my guardianship, and go back to work in the most magnificent way," she reportedly told Page Six.

Williams's legal team continues to navigate evaluations of her cognitive abilities and legal capacities in an effort to dissolve the guardianship.

Wendy Williams sits for an interview on "Late Night With Seth Meyers" on June 15, 2021.
Credit: Getty Images

Before her brief public appearance on Thursday, Williams was last seen attending her father's funeral in Miami on February 16, per the Miami Herald. In September, the former broadcaster also attended New York Fashion Week, appearing at the Bach Mai and LaQuan Smith Spring/Summer 2026 shows.

Read the original article on InStyle

Full Article & Source:
Wendy Williams Reportedly Pleads for Freedom Amid Ongoing Legal Battle in Her First Public Appearance in 6 Months  

See Also:
Why the Wendy Williams Lifetime lawsuit ended the way it did 

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