Judge begins to unwind conflicts in Ventura County conservatorship cases

by Byrhonda Lyons

David Esquibias is an attorney who owns Townsgate In-Home Services, which received $2.7 million from his wife’s clients. Photo by David Buchan

For years, a fiduciary in Ventura County has been directing her clients’ money to her husband’s law firm and health care company, all with the court’s approval. A newly appointed judge has begun to unwind the arrangements weeks after a CalMatters’ investigation exposed the conflicts of interest. 

Ventura County Probate Judge Gilbert Romero ruled that Angelique Friend violated court rules in three cases when she hired her husband, David Esquibias, as her attorney, and her clients paid the bill. The judge ordered her to stop hiring Esquibias as her attorney and Townsgate In-Home Services, Esquibias’ company. Romero blocked Esquibias from collecting attorney’s fees in the three cases.

“Here, the conservator hiring her spouse as her attorney and paying his fees from the estate reasonably could create the appearance of a conflict of interest and be perceived as self-serving,” Romero wrote in a ruling.

The judge also suspended Friend as the trustee in a fourth case after beneficiaries of the Mettler Trust argued that she breached her fiduciary duties by paying Townsgate $1.1 million from the trust from 2021 to 2025. They are asking the court to force Friend to reimburse the estate. 

Friend argued that she disclosed her connection to Townsgate and that she has no ownership interest in the company. A hearing for the case is scheduled for July.

Romero started a March 23 hearing by establishing a timeline of Friend and Esquibias’ relationship and when it was formally disclosed. The more questions he asked, the more testy Esquibias became. The attorney called the judge’s line of questioning “rather sickening.” 

“I am helpless to protect her,” Esquibias said of his wife. “I should tell the court, ‘Do not question my client.’”

Romero responded, “Doesn’t that go to the conflict?”

In one case, Friend became the conservator over Brenna Clark’s estate in 2014, court records show, and Esquibias represented Friend before they married. They never formally disclosed their dating relationship on the record, only orally, Esquibias told the court. 

Romero said that was a problem, even though the previous judge allowed it. That judge, Roger Lund, was reassigned last fall, weeks after CalMatters began asking questions about the arrangement.

“As soon as you and Mrs. Friend started a dating relationship, that was a violation of the rule of court,” Romero said. “I think your services should have been terminated at that point.”

Esquibias expressed shock that his work relationship with Friend had now become an issue after years of the court’s approval.

“It was something that was actually celebrated in this very courtroom by colleagues … who attended my wedding,” Esquibias said. Indeed, retired Judge Glen M. Reiser signed their marriage license in 2019.

The judge also considered disallowing Townsgate’s payments in one case, but he gave Friend a chance to show that Townsgate’s hiring was in the best interest of her client. The judge is scheduled to rehear that case on May 4.  

The CalMatters investigation found that Lund approved Friend and Esquibias’s arrangement for years, even as family members complained. Court records show the couple brought in about $3 million from 2019 to 2025 from clients in the six cases CalMatters reviewed; $2.7 million went to Townsgate, even though court rules and the California Professional Fiduciary Bureau’s code of conduct generally prohibit such conflicts.

Nearly three weeks after the story ran, in a rare move, Romero brought his own motion to reconsider the attorney’s fees and Townsgate costs he’d recently approved. Romero noted that he could only review approvals that he’d signed, and he couldn’t do anything about the years of approvals that came before him. 

“I have an obligation to correct myself,” Romero said.

In an email, Friend said “these relationships were disclosed from the outset, repeatedly presented to the court, and previously approved.”

“While I respect the new judge’s ruling and have taken immediate steps to comply going forward, including retaining new counsel and replacing the care provider company,” she wrote, “I disagree with applying that new view retroactively to arrangements that were fully disclosed and previously approved.”

She said they are “evaluating the next legal steps to formally dispute the retroactive rulings.” 

Full Article & Source:
Judge begins to unwind conflicts in Ventura County conservatorship cases 

See Also:
She directed $2.7 million from her elderly clients to her husband’s company. The judge approved every penny

California Fiduciary Accused of Stealing from Alzheimer's Patient's Trust

Justice Department officials launch elder abuse forensic training

CLARKSBURG, W.Va. — U.S. Attorneys Matthew L. Harvey and Moore Capito, in partnership with Modell Consulting, launched a two-day training session this week at the FBI Criminal Justice Information Services facility to bolster the Department of Justice’s Elder Justice Initiative.

U.S. attorneys Matthew L. Harvey and Moore Capito launched the initiative.

The program, titled West Virginia SAFE (Safe and Accessible Forensic Interviewing with Elders), provides specialized training for law enforcement, prosecutors, and social workers on communicating with older crime victims. Led by Karen Hill, Ed.D., LCPA, the curriculum focuses on forensic interviewing techniques that account for age-related cognitive decline, dementia, Alzheimer’s, language capacity, and cultural backgrounds.

"Those who target older Americans for financial gain should be on notice: We will use every tool available to investigate and prosecute these crimes," Harvey said. "By investing in this training, we are standing up for our seniors and making clear that exploitation of the elderly will not be tolerated in our communities."

The initiative arrives as federal officials increase efforts to combat the physical and financial exploitation of seniors across the state.

"Elder abuse is a coward’s crime — preying on those least able to fight back," Capito said. "That’s why this training matters — it sharpens our ability to spot it, stop it, and hold offenders accountable. We will not overlook it, we will not excuse it — we will prosecute it, every time."

Participants in the session are eligible for professional education credits. The West Virginia State Bar is providing legal education credits, while the West Virginia Division Law Enforcement Professional Standards Program is providing law enforcement credits. Social work credits are provided by Crittenton Services Inc. of Wheeling.

AARP served as a limited sponsor for the event. For further information regarding the DOJ Elder Justice Initiative, the public may contact Elder Justice Coordinators Kimberley Crockett or Jonathan Storage at their respective U.S. Attorney’s Offices. 

Full Article & Source:
Justice Department officials launch elder abuse forensic training 

Hos­pital dis­charge law con­cerns advoc­ates

by Sarah Volpen­hein

A bill passed by the Wis­con­sin Legis­lature will make it easier for hos­pit­als to dis­charge cer­tain patients deemed inca­pa­cit­ated to nurs­ing homes, free­ing up hos­pital beds that might oth­er­wise be tied up for weeks.

The bill, which Gov. Tony Evers signed into law on March 20, has the sup­port of hos­pital sys­tems that com­plain of long, costly delays in dis­char­ging patients who can no longer make med­ical decisions for them­selves and haven’t des­ig­nated someone to act on their behalf. At present, they remain in the hos­pital while await­ing court pro­ceed­ings to appoint a guard­ian.

“This legis­la­tion will help ensure patients can move more quickly to the most appro­pri­ate set­ting for their recov­ery, while also improv­ing hos­pital capa­city for those who need hos­pital care,” said Kyle O’Brien, pres­id­ent and chief exec­ut­ive of the Wis­con­sin Hos­pital Asso­ci­ation, a trade group rep­res­ent­ing hos­pit­als.

The legis­la­tion was opposed by dis­ab­il­ity and aging rights advoc­ates, who say it cir­cum­vents the guard­i­an­ship pro­cess, designed to pro­tect the rights of vul­ner­able indi­vidu­als, and could res­ult in patients becom­ing con­fined to insti­tu­tions against their will.

“The guard­i­an­ship pro­cess is com­plex for a reason,” Lisa Has­sen­stab, pub­lic policy man­ager at Dis­ab­il­ity Rights Wis­con­sin, said dur­ing a Novem­ber hear­ing on the bill. “That reason is due pro­cess.”

The Sen­ate voted 28-5 in favor of the legis­la­tion on March 17 dur­ing what could be the body’s last floor ses­sion for the year.

The bill passed the Assembly in Feb­ru­ary with bipar­tisan sup­port, fol­low­ing an amend­ment adding price trans­par­ency require­ments for hos­pit­als.

Health sys­tems engaged in heavy lob­by­ing for bill

The legis­la­tion received a major push from Wis­con­sin health sys­tems, hos­pit­als and industry trade groups, which col­lect­ively spent more than 400 hours lob­by­ing in favor of the bill, accord­ing to reports made to the Wis­con­sin Eth­ics Com­mis­sion.

Wis­con­sin hos­pit­als spend hun­dreds of mil­lions of dol­lars every year hous­ing patients who no longer need hos­pital care and are await­ing dis­charge or trans­fer to nurs­ing homes or other facil­it­ies. While the reas­ons behind

dis­charge delays are many, the bill addresses only the guard­i­an­ship issue.

It does not address other under­ly­ing causes, such as lim­ited bed avail­ab­il­ity at nurs­ing homes or the lack of med­ical facil­it­ies accept­ing com­plex patients.

Up until now, if phys­i­cians deemed a patient no longer able to make med­ical decisions for them­selves and they did not have a power of attor­ney, the hos­pital could not dis­charge the patient to a nurs­ing home until a guard­i­an­ship peti­tion was filed with a court, even when fam­ily mem­bers agreed to the trans­fer. Those pro­ceed­ings could take weeks or months, hos­pital offi­cials said.

The patient may be someone who had a stroke, suffered a trau­matic brain injury, or has demen­tia or another agere­lated dis­ease and lacks the abil­ity to man­age their own health care, whether tem­por­ar­ily or per­man­ently.

The new law removes the require­ment to file for guard­i­an­ship and allows a fam­ily mem­ber, called a patient rep­res­ent­at­ive, to agree to the patient’s admis­sion to a nurs­ing home, make health care decisions for them and approve health-related spend­ing.

Dis­ab­il­ity advoc­ates argue the legis­la­tion removes pro­tec­tions like court over­sight that come with the guard­i­an­ship pro­cess while also grant­ing a lot of the same author­ity as a guard­ian. They say the legis­la­tion does not require that the patient be noti­fied of the rep­res­ent­at­ive’s appoint­ment or of their rights to ask for a ree­valu­ation of their men­tal capa­city. Nor does it require the rep­res­ent­at­ive to con­sider the wishes of the patient, they say.

The legis­la­tion, they said, also lacks pro­tec­tions against an abuser or estranged rel­at­ive assum­ing the role.

“Often­times the per­son who is an abuser is the per­son who is really keep­ing an eye on the per­son in the hos­pital,” said Tami Jack­son, pub­lic policy ana­lyst and legis­lat­ive liaison with the Wis­conVon sin Board for People with Devel­op­mental Dis­ab­il­it­ies. “Some­body who gets picked under this bill ends up with a whole lot of author­ity.”

Under the new law, the patient or another fam­ily mem­ber may object to the nurs­ing home place­ment, if aware.

Any­one may ask a court to review the patient rep­res­ent­at­ive’s actions or may request a ree­valu­ation of the patient’s capa­city.

Exten­ded hos­pital stays can con­trib­ute to over­crowding

While pro­mot­ing the bill, health sys­tems argued that patients may miss out on cru­cial rehab­il­it­a­tion or other health care while wait­ing in the hos­pital for dis­charge. By remain­ing in the hos­pital, they also are at increased risk of hos­pital-acquired infec­tions or falls espe­cially dan­ger­ous for eld­erly patients.

From Janu­ary to Octo­ber 2025, Mayo Clinic Health Sys­tem coun­ted about 35 patients with exten­ded stays at its north­w­est Wis­con­sin hos­pit­als, Gina

Ruden, a Mayo senior nurse admin­is­trator, said at a Novem­ber hear­ing on the bill. At Mayo’s Eau Claire hos­pital, that added up to patients spend­ing a col­lect­ive 1,200 days in the hos­pital because of guard­i­an­ship delays, she said.

The exten­ded stays con­trib­ute to hos­pital over­crowding. Mayo Clinic has seen an influx of patients, Von Ruden said, ever since the abrupt clos­ure in 2024 of two area hos­pit­als by Hos­pital Sis­ters Health Sys­tem, a com­pet­ing health sys­tem.

When over­crowded, the Mayo hos­pital in Eau Claire has to board patients in the emer­gency depart­ment, Von Ruden said, where they may spend the rest of their hos­pital visit if no bed becomes avail­able on an inpa­tient floor.

“They might be in a hall­way in the emer­gency depart­ment or even in the ambu­lance bay when things get real tight,” Von Ruden said.

The bill has a three-year sun­set pro­vi­sion, which allows legis­lat­ors to check if the bill is work­ing as inten­ded before renew­ing it. 

Full Article & Source:
Hos­pital dis­charge law con­cerns advoc­ates 

Washington courts rarely discipline guardians ad litem accused of misconduct in custody cases

Minimal oversight of these court evaluators makes it difficult for parents to challenge flawed reports without risking damage to their cases

By Kelsey Turner

Stephanie Maya thought the facts were on her side in the custody case for her 3-year-old son.

She’d recently escaped an abusive relationship with her ex-boyfriend, the father of her son. He had been arrested for physically assaulting and strangling her, an experience that Maya says happened repeatedly throughout their relationship, often while he was drunk and often in front of their toddler.

The guardian ad litem — court appointed in May 2024 to represent the best interests of her son and investigate issues that could impact his safety, like domestic violence — knew about the dad’s pending domestic violence charges and court orders prohibiting him from contacting Maya.

So Maya was shocked when the guardian ad litem, Meredith Gerhart, submitted a report that portrayed Maya as a potentially criminal abuser. Gerhart, a well-respected attorney in Thurston County, a community on the southern tip of the Puget Sound, wrote that Maya had three “prior offenses involving domestic violence” based on a list provided to her by Maya’s ex-boyfriend. Yet a background check would have confirmed that Maya was the one who reported those assaults to law enforcement — as a victim and witness.

“The fact that I was trying to do something good, and she used that against me to try to paint me as this criminal, as an abuser, was very upsetting,” said Maya, 34. “She never once even asked me if any of that was true.”

The report, which Maya says includes many other false claims from her ex-boyfriend stated like facts, had a near immediate impact on her custody case. A court commissioner ordered that the child spend weekends with his dad — who, until that point, was only allowed supervised visits — and said the report “clearly establishes” that Maya was causing conflict in the co-parenting relationship, a finding that can lead to restrictions on parenting time. Gerhart, who’s still working as a guardian ad litem in Thurston County, said she cannot comment for this article because the case is active.

It took nearly a year and the help of a lawyer for a court review board to formally reprimand Gerhart for failing to make “any effort” to substantiate the claims of Maya’s ex, who pleaded guilty in February 2026 to assaulting Maya and interfering with her attempt to call 911. It’s a rare instance of a parent successfully proving that an investigation of a guardian ad litem — a neutral third-party court investigator also referred to as a GAL — was unfairly biased, although parents and attorneys say they see biased reports all the time.

Guardians ad litem have been appointed in over 7,100 Washington family law cases since 2020, according to data from the Washington State Administrative Office of the Courts. Although they don’t have a direct say in custody outcomes, their conclusions and recommendations can hold significant weight in court.

But despite courts’ frequent reliance on these professionals — and the sometimes tens of thousands of dollars that parents must pay for them — there’s little independent oversight of the role, leaving many parents without a meaningful way to hold them accountable for inaccurate, biased or shoddy investigations that shape custody cases.

The decision to remove guardians ad litem or their reports from a case is up to the judge, yet judges have limited insight into how investigations are conducted. Even in instances when court committees or judges found that a guardian ad litem conducted a biased investigation, or stepped outside the scope of their role, discipline rarely extended beyond a reprimand and orders for additional training, according to InvestigateWest’s review of grievances and removals of guardians ad litem in Washington.

While those court investigators may go on to work with more families, some parents are left fighting the consequences of questionable reports for years. Parents say their kids have been placed in homes with potentially abusive adults, and some have even lost custody to their abusers.

Other than a state-mandated three-and-a-half-day training, Washington’s guardians ad litem — like those in other states — have few standardized qualifications, and they have no managers or statewide agencies vetting their work. Some started their careers over a decade ago, when there were even fewer training requirements.

Advocates and researchers across the nation — from Washington to Idaho to Georgia to New Hampshire — have called on their legislatures to require more training and accountability for guardians ad litem as their use in family court and influence in custody cases has grown in recent decades. Washington state legislators acknowledged the need to address this insufficient oversight in a work session in December that discussed gaps in the oversight system and impacts of biased investigations on parents.

State Rep. Jamila Taylor, chair of the House Civil Rights and Judiciary Committee who led the session, noted a “strong interest” for guardian ad litem reform within the family law community.

“We probably do need to have a commission or some sort of review of the GAL statute and how we can navigate these issues around a very unregulated practice,” Taylor said in the session.

This minimal oversight makes it difficult for parents to challenge flawed reports without risking damage to their own cases — and, in some cases, even their chances of retaining custody of their children.

“Complaining about the way a GAL is going about something can be a dangerous space, because the court can feel like you’re distracting from the main issue,” said Jeffrey Keddie, a managing attorney at the Northwest Justice Project, a nonprofit legal aid program, who helps lead the state’s guardian ad litem trainings. “It’s about likability half the time, and if you become less likable, that can be very problematic.”

Their lack of understanding of issues like domestic violence can harm children for life, said Dawn Sydney, a family law attorney and former guardian ad litem in King County. “There has to be some system set up where there’s some accountability for these people.”

Discipline is rare, and limited

In Washington, the only avenue for parents to formally complain about a guardian ad litem is through the same superior court where their family law case is taking place. While most large counties have review committees made up of judges or other court officials to handle complaints, in King County — the state’s most populous county that appoints among the most guardians ad litem — grievances are reviewed by just one judge.

InvestigateWest requested complaints from six counties with the highest number of guardian ad litem appointments in Washington family law cases, and reviewed other complaints and court filings by parents alleging misconduct. While they flag common concerns with reports, such as one-sided investigations, incorrect or misleading information, and missed deadlines that delay cases for months, many parents and attorneys say they hesitate to file grievances because they fear it will do more harm than good.

“I don’t have faith that most GALs can separate their anger at a complaint being lodged at them from their neutrality as a GAL,” said Jennifer Summerville, Maya’s attorney.

In 2024 and 2025, a total of 31 grievances were filed against guardians ad litem across King, Snohomish, Pierce, Thurston, Cowlitz and Clark counties, according to each superior court’s administrations. Just four were found to have merit and are publicly available, including Maya’s. However, at least in some cases, grievances are dismissed without any evaluation of their merit.

Those four founded complaints offer a window into how guardians ad litem face limited discipline and continue holding influence in cases, despite the deficiencies:

• Thurston County’s review board found that Gerhart’s report and investigation “do not show independence, objectivity, or the appearance of fairness.” Apart from a requirement to correct the report regarding Maya’s criminal history, the report remains part of Maya’s case, meaning it could still influence the custody outcome.
• After a father called a Clark County guardian ad litem to raise concerns about her investigation, the court investigator became hostile and told him, “If that comes out in court I will take you to the wall,” according to the father’s notes from their phone call. A judge removed the court investigator from the case, and a court committee admonished her to remain respectful. She still works as a guardian ad litem, and her report remains part of the case.
• Only one grievance resulted in removal from a county registry — meaning a guardian ad litem can no longer work in that county, the most severe discipline a court can impose. But a Thurston County judge reversed the removal after the guardian ad litem appealed the decision. A review committee found that he repeatedly inserted personal commentary and humor in his reports and acted outside of his role, such as creating his own “trauma scale” and facilitating a meeting between a domestic violence victim and perpetrator. He’s currently suspended but can be reinstated after completing a corrective action plan.
• A Snohomish County guardian ad litem who was reassigned to a case in 2021 to conduct a quick follow-up investigation dropped out of contact with the court and could not be reached by the mom or her attorney for over a year. The court investigator resigned before the grievance was filed, limiting any sanctions the court could impose.

Parents aren’t notified about guardians ad litem’s disciplinary history when they’re appointed to a case, according to judicial officers. To get that disciplinary history, a person would need to file public records requests with the court where a guardian ad litem has worked. While many counties require guardians ad litem to disclose past grievances or case removals on their applications to continue working in the county, only Pierce County publishes those applications online.

If a guardian ad litem is barred from working in a county due to a grievance, the county’s superior court must notify the Administrative Office of the Courts, which will then share that information to courts across the state. But this is rare. The office said it hasn’t been notified of any such removals in the last five years.

The mom in Snohomish County, Katie Buss, spent two years trying to get a $2,500 refund for a report that was never written after the court investigator disappeared from the case. But she estimates that the guardian ad litem cost her closer to $8,000, between the cost of removing her from the case, an initial report that was later thrown out and attorney fees for the 15 months they could not reach her. Buss also spent another $1,575 for a new guardian ad litem.

Because the court investigator had resigned, the only sanction the court could impose was a promise not to reinstate her if she ever applied again. It couldn’t help Buss recoup the lost money.

“I did everything the system asked of me,” Buss told InvestigateWest. “I followed court orders, participated in evaluations, and relied on the processes that were supposed to protect my child. Instead, the system failed to provide meaningful accountability.”

Risks to filing a complaint

On Christmas Eve 2024, Maya logged into Zoom for a court hearing to review Gerhart’s guardian ad litem report. She listened as Thurston County Superior Court Commissioner Nathan Kortokrax praised Gerhart’s “thorough” work. While some judicial officers may balk at a 50-page report, Kortokrax said he actually appreciated it. He even read it twice.

With Gerhart seated in the courtroom and no attorney representing her at the time, Maya stayed quiet.

“Right then and there, I was like, ‘I will not have a voice tonight,’” she said. “I was just so scared to speak up against her.”

Due in part to parents’ fear of retaliation by the guardian ad litem or the court, only a couple dozen formal grievances have been filed across Washington’s most populous counties since 2024, despite guardians ad litem having served on hundreds of cases.

For parents who are already facing reputational attacks in the family law arena, convincing the court that a well-known guardian ad litem is not trustworthy can seem like an insurmountable task.

“If that guardian ad litem has the respect of the court, you’re going to have to really prove that they did a lot wrong to get them removed from a case,” said Keddie, the Northwest Justice Project attorney. “It’s near impossible.”

Some parents also worry that a guardian ad litem’s collegial relationships with judicial officers and attorneys make courts less willing to hold them accountable. Like Gerhart, who has been chair of the Thurston County Bar Association’s family law section since 2019, many guardians ad litem are respected attorneys or social workers. Some even work as temporary judicial officers.

Alicia Burton, a Pierce County Superior Court judge who chairs the county’s guardian ad litem grievance committee, said that as a family law judge, she didn’t hesitate to call out biased behavior. But Burton acknowledges that making such accusations can be intimidating even for judicial officers.

“It’s a hard thing to do as a judge, to tell a well-respected guardian ad litem who’s been in Pierce County for years, to say, ‘I thought your investigation was one-sided,’” Burton said.

In heated custody battles involving allegations of abuse, judges face the challenge of sorting through many competing accusations. Parents accuse each other of lying, abusers claim to be victims, and both parents may have histories that raise concerns about the children’s safety. These dynamics can make it difficult for judges to discern whether a parent’s complaint against a guardian ad litem is valid or just an expression of their personal dissatisfaction with how a report portrays them.

Superior Court Judge Aimée Sutton, who oversees King County’s family court and handles such grievances, said she’s received only a couple of complaints in the last two years and decided neither had merit.

“We all, in this line of work, have to deal with people complaining about us. It happens to lawyers all the time, it happens to judges every day,” Sutton said, adding that complaints are often from parents unhappy with the outcome of a report or ruling.

For many parents, however, the possibility of retaliation feels real — and they don’t always trust that the court will protect them. This is the risk that a Clark County dad weighed when he tried to remove a guardian ad litem in 2024.

Leslie, who asked to go by his first name, questioned the guardian ad litem in his custody case for relying heavily on a previous ex-girlfriend for information that he said was inaccurate. Leslie had been arrested 15 years before for allegedly assaulting that ex-girlfriend during an argument, a history that Leslie says he had disclosed to the guardian ad litem. That charge was also dismissed.

The guardian ad litem, Robin Jones, threatened to take him “to the wall” if he brought his concerns about Jones to the court, according to Leslie’s notes from their phone call. He took that to mean that Jones would do “everything in her power” to try to minimize his time with his child, he said.

In the weeks after their phone call, according to Leslie’s complaint, Jones contacted two of Leslie’s workplace supervisors and shared some of these claims about his previous relationship, as well as medical information about his gender transition surgery without his permission. One of Leslie’s supervisors said in a court declaration that the conversation with Jones “did not sit well” and that she was “very surprised with the lack of confidentiality for such sensitive information.”

Leslie felt that it was an intentional effort by Jones to sabotage his employment and wanted her off his case. His lawyer wasn’t supportive of removing Jones and withdrew, so he hired another to help him file the motion. A judge approved the removal in October 2024, finding that Jones had disclosed information to third parties without Leslie’s consent. Jones declined to comment due to the active case, and her responses to Leslie’s grievance are not publicly available.

But her report remains part of the court record, and even though a court advisory committee found merit to his claim that Jones threatened him, the only discipline was an admonishment for Jones to “remain respectful and courteous.” The committee did not find merit to his allegation that Jones disseminated false information to third parties and found insufficient evidence supporting that she disclosed confidential medical information to third parties.

Leslie, whose case is still pending, felt like he had to put a lot on the line to get any form of accountability.

“It is so dangerous because you are putting recommendations for your time with your children at risk by taking those steps,” he said.

Few guardrails

As courts entrust them to represent what’s best for the children, even some guardians ad litem say they feel unsupported or unprepared for complex cases.

Dawn Sydney, a family law attorney in King County, became a guardian ad litem in 2017. After serving on around a dozen cases, she stopped taking assignments because she felt uncomfortable with the power she held over families and the prospect of getting it wrong.

It’s time consuming to write a thorough report, Sydney said, especially for guardians ad litem who, like her, often have other jobs as attorneys or social workers. Conducting more in-depth investigations also means charging parents potentially exorbitant fees, as private rates can reach up to $300 per hour.

“My rates for GAL cases are lower than my attorney hourly rate, and yet as much as I’d like to say, ‘I don't charge for that,’ I do have a practice, I have staff, I have a mortgage that I have to pay,” Sydney said.

She thinks these challenges, along with insufficient training, mean many court investigators “just don’t do great jobs.”

Although she’s no longer taking cases as a guardian ad litem, Sydney continues seeing the consequences of shoddy investigations as a lawyer representing domestic violence survivors. In 2020, while representing a mom in King County, she successfully removed a guardian ad litem from a case who admitted to altering the mom’s form consenting to the release of medical information and falsely attributing a quote to a therapist. The resulting discipline for the guardian ad litem, Meera Shin, was no more than a “slap on the hand,” Sydney said.

“I would lose my license for that. A doctor would lose their license for that,” Sydney said.

Shin continued working as a guardian ad litem in Snohomish County for several years and is still on King County’s registry. The removal process, meanwhile, cost Sydney’s client thousands of dollars.

Shin said her errors were not in bad faith — she thought she had the mom’s permission to access the medical records, and she altered the release to speed up the paperwork process. She admits it was a mistake and agrees with the judge’s decision to remove her, she told InvestigateWest. It was the first big family law case that she’d been assigned to, and she felt largely unprepared for its complexity.

“If they did not remove me, and if I did not have this experience, I wouldn’t have known,” she said.

Yet in the court order discharging Shin, the judge said it was “far from clear” whether Shin “understands the gravity of what she did.” Six years later, Shin, who has a Ph.D. in child development and family studies, said she still doesn’t feel confident in the role and plans to leave the profession once her current cases wrap up. She thinks more ongoing training could have helped her find more success.

In Maya’s case, Gerhart defended her investigation by pointing to a disclaimer that she includes in all her reports, which states: “The content of this report assumes that all information provided and reported to the GAL is true and correct.” Gerhart didn’t see a need to correct the false information about Maya’s criminal history because it was the father’s statement, not hers, and the father later clarified his claims directly with the court.

The review board disagreed. In a November letter of reprimand, they concluded that her report “appeared to be written from the perspective” of Maya’s ex-partner and that Gerhart is still obligated to make reasonable efforts to be informed about the case. The board required her to correct the report regarding Maya’s criminal history, stop using the disclaimer and complete at least two hours of guardian ad litem training.

It was a bittersweet outcome for Maya, who’s still waiting for her more-than-two-year custody case to go to trial. Several other statements that Maya had flagged in the report, which remains a part of the case, also were not corrected.

But for parents like Maya, the impact of guardian ad litem misconduct runs deeper than the words themselves. Gerhart’s report plunged Maya into a deep depression as she confronted the possibility of losing time with her son.

“I started to believe that I was a bad person,” Maya said. “That maybe I wasn’t good enough for my child. That maybe I was the problem.” 

Full Article & Source:
Washington courts rarely discipline guardians ad litem accused of misconduct in custody cases 

Former police officer accused of threatening judge, court officials has competency restored

by MARY ANN GREIER

LISBON –A visiting judge Friday found that a former East Palestine police officer accused of allegedly making threats against a judge, the prosecutor’s office and three others had his competency restored, but now must be evaluated regarding his sanity at the time of the offenses.

Matthew Elser, 45, Market Street, Columbiana, appeared for the hearing via video from Heartland Behavioral Healthcare in Massillon, with retired Tuscarawas County Common Pleas Court Judge Edward O’Farrell presiding in Columbiana County Common Pleas Court.

Elser’s appointed defense attorney, Rhys Cartwright-Jones, was present in the courtroom, along with attorney Edward A. Czopur, who was assigned as special prosecutor for the case.

In October, Elser was ordered hospitalized at Heartland after O’Farrell found he was not competent to stand trial, noting that he was not capable of understanding the nature and objective of the legal proceedings against him and not capable of assisting in his defense of the criminal charges.

At that time, O’Farrell also found a reasonable probability that the defendant could be restored to competency to stand trial within the six-month time period allow by law. At the time, he said the time period was one year, but corrected that entry this week.

O’Farrell explained that the court received a competency restoration report on Wednesday. He said it was the opinion of the examiner that Elser was currently capable of understanding the nature and objective of the legal proceedings against him and was capable of assisting in his defense.

Both attorneys stipulated to the finding that Elser was now competent.

O’Farrell ordered the sanity evaluation be conducted and ruled that Elser will remain at Heartland as a condition of his $100,000 cash or surety bond. The judge explained to Elser what was happening.

O’Farrell was assigned by the Ohio Supreme Court to handle the case due to conflicts cited by Common Pleas Court Judges Scott Washam and Megan Bickerton. The Columbiana County Prosecutor’s Office also cited a conflict, resulting in Czopur’s appointment as special prosecutor.

Charges against Elser include one count third-degree felony intimidation, four counts of third-degree felony retaliation, one count third-degree felony intimidation of an attorney, victim or witness in a criminal case, and misdemeanors of five counts telecommunications harassment, five counts aggravated menacing, and one count unlawful restraint.

According to the indictment, the unlawful restraint charge dates back to Oct. 10, 2024 when Elser allegedly restrained a woman of her liberty at a house in Columbiana. An affidavit filed in county Municipal Court regarding the incident alleged he was drunk and throwing the woman’s phone, restricting her from getting up off of the couch by standing over her. He also allegedly grabbed her phone and threw it, breaking a window, and in order to escape she had to allegedly slap him. When she tried to regain control of her phone, he wouldn’t give it back and she fled to a neighbor’s house to call police.

He was charged with the unlawful restraint in county Municipal Court and while that case was pending, on June 24, 2025, the victim in the case came to the police station in Columbiana to report receiving multiple unwanted phone calls from Elser. The police affidavit noted that “the victim states that in these messages the defendant threatened to kill her, her family members, and the judge and prosecutor of his case.” At that time, one count of misdemeanor telecommunications harassment was filed. The judge in question was county Municipal Court Judge Tim McNicol. The indictment was served on Elser in July 2025 with those charges plus additional charges.

County Prosecutor Vito Abruzzino confirmed that Elser previously worked as a police officer for the East Palestine Police Department and briefly with the Perry Township Police Department.

Most of the charges stem from June 24, 2025 although there were two charges from June 25, 2025 and the one from Oct. 10, 2024. Besides allegedly knowingly causing McNicol to believe he would be harmed, Elser also allegedly knowingly caused the Columbiana County Prosecutor’s Office to believe he would cause harm to the county Prosecutor’s Office or property of the county Prosecutor’s Office. He also allegedly threatened the victim from the first case and two others. 

Full Article & Source:
Former police officer accused of threatening judge, court officials has competency restored 

Church Point caretaker accused of using elderly person’s card at Lafayette Parish jail

by: Scott Yoshonis

LAFAYETTE, La. (KLFY) — A Church Point woman has been arrested and accused of using the bank card of the elderly person under her care to buy things at the Lafayette Parish jail, authorities said.

Paris Chavis, 39, of Church Point, is charged with one count of exploitation of the elderly or persons with infirmities and 19 counts of identity theft.

Lafayette Parish Sheriff’s Office detectives said Chavis, who was employed as the victim’s caretaker, used the victim’s bank card to make 19 purchases through an inmate communications service at the Lafayette Parish Correctional Center.

Chavis was booked into the jail and released on $5,000 bond, online records show. 

No other information was released. The investigation remains ongoing. 

Full Article & Source:
Church Point caretaker accused of using elderly person’s card at Lafayette Parish jail 

New program expands in­de­pen­dence for New Yorkers with dis­abil­ities

by Corey James

New strides are being made to help New Yorkers with disabilities live more independently and make more of their own choices.

For Keith Knox, that starts with something as simple as checking the mail. The routine walk to his mailbox is easy. Reading what is inside is not.

“I’m visually impaired,” Knox said in an interview. Once a month, he brings his mail to the Capital District Center for Independence, where staff read it with him, help him fill out food stamp and Medicaid forms, and navigate paperwork that has become harder to see as his vision declines.

Knox has hydrocephalus, a condition that can cause blurry, impaired vision. As his sight worsened over the years, he turned to the center for help staying in his own home.

“They call me frequently to check on me,” he said. “I told them I needed housing, and then they referred me.”

Beyond regular check-ins with Knox, the Capital District Center for Independence serves people of all ages with all types of disabilities from across the region and partners with organizations around New York state.

“People with disabilities are people first,” said Laurel Kelley, executive director of the center. “So everyone wants to live in the community. I mean, I think it’s a human need.”

Kelley said the organization follows the independent living philosophy, the idea that people with disabilities should have the same rights and choices as anyone else about where and how they live.

That push for independence is increasingly reflected in state policy. On Tuesday, the state Office for People With Developmental Disabilities and AIM Services, a nonprofit that supports people with developmental and other disabilities across New York, announced a new supported decision-making program.

Supported decision-making allows a person with a disability to choose trusted supporters to help them understand options and communicate decisions, instead of handing that authority to a court-appointed guardian. Advocates say it is a less restrictive alternative to guardianship and keeps control in the hands of the person.

“I do my own cooking, do my own meds,” said Dwight Joyner, who receives services through AIM. “When my meds get low, I can call people. I can call the pharmacy [and] tell them I’m low on meds, low on pills [and] low on insulin.”

Christopher Lyons, chief executive officer of AIM Services, said the model is designed to replace “draconian” forms of control.

“This replaces the draconian control of guardianship with the opportunity for people to learn from their choices, with support from those who they identify to impart meaning in their lives, on their terms,” Lyons said. “That’s what supported decision-making is designed to do.”

OPWDD Commissioner Willow Baer said the state’s goal is to expand tools that let people direct their own lives.

“We are putting the right tools in the hands of people with disabilities to make sure they can direct their own decisions about their own lives,” Baer said.

As more programs like this roll out, advocates say the goal is simple: treat everyone equally, and keep supporting independence for people with disabilities, no matter the label.

Full Article & Source:
New program expands in­de­pen­dence for New Yorkers with dis­abil­ities 

The Insider Guide to the New York Power of Attorney 2026: What It Does and Why It Matters

Article source: Burner Prudentilaw PC 

A medical crisis strikes without warning, instantly stripping away your ability to manage your finances or authorize healthcare. Yet, only 24% of U.S. adults possess a designated financial or healthcare power of attorney, leaving a staggering 76% completely unprepared for sudden incapacity. Broadening the scope, research shows that only 36.7% of U.S. adults have finalized some type of advance directive. The New York Power of Attorney acts as an active financial shield against this vulnerability. Without this legal instrument, individuals risk surrendering their personal agency to the courts the moment tragedy occurs.

An Overview of the New York Statutory Short Form Power of Attorney

A Durable Power of Attorney grants a designated agent the legal authority to manage your financial and legal affairs if you become incapacitated. This document ensures your bills get paid, your investments remain managed, and your real estate stays protected while you recover. The state explicitly defines the scope of this power through the Statutory Short Form, a standardized baseline for transferring financial authority.

Strict Execution Requirements in New York

State lawmakers have overhauled the execution requirements to protect vulnerable individuals while streamlining compliance. The updated statute dictates that the document must “substantially conform” to statutory wording and requires the physical presence of two witnesses during execution. Furthermore, the legislature modified default agent permissions regarding asset transfers. Unless otherwise specified, the default amount an agent can gift on behalf of the principal now stands at $5,000 annually. Minor errors no longer automatically invalidate the document, provided the principal strictly follows these updated execution protocols.

The Financial Stakes: POA vs. Court-Appointed Guardianship

Failing to designate an agent forces your family to petition the Surrogate’s Court for control over your assets. Unplanned Article 81 guardianship proceedings in New York rapidly drain estates. Families routinely face legal fees ranging from $3,000 to $10,000 or more just to establish guardianship. The court, rather than your personal preference, ultimately dictates who controls your bank accounts and medical decisions.

Feature	With a Power of Attorney	Without a Power of Attorney (Guardianship)
Cost	Minimal upfront preparation fees.	$3,000 to $10,000+ in ongoing court and legal fees.
Timeframe	Immediate authority upon execution or incapacity.	Months of delayed court hearings and frozen assets.
Privacy	Completely private family matter.	Public court record detailing assets and medical status.
Control Over Agent Selection	Principal chooses a trusted individual.	A judge appoints a guardian, potentially a stranger.

Selecting an Agent and Executing the Document

Appointing the right individual and formalizing the paperwork demands strategic foresight. Follow these steps to secure your financial continuity:

1. Assess Financial Acumen: Choose an agent with a proven track record of financial responsibility and strict attention to detail.
2. Define the Scope of Power: Decide whether to grant sweeping, universal authority or to limit powers specifically to certain accounts and real estate transactions.
3. Address the Modifications Section: Explicitly detail custom powers, such as creating trusts or making gifts exceeding the $5,000 default, which the standard statutory form ignores.
4. Execute with Precision: Sign the document before a notary public and two disinterested witnesses to satisfy New York’s rigorous statutory demands.

The Danger of Blank Modifications and Generic Forms

Downloading a generic legal template online severely jeopardizes your estate. These rigid, standardized forms frequently leave the critical “Modifications” section entirely blank. This crucial omission strips your agent of the legal authority to perform vital Medicaid planning, establish protective trusts, or execute complex tax strategies.

To truly safeguard unique assets and prevent catastrophic financial losses, these documents require customized legal drafting. Engaging an experienced estate planning attorney guarantees your documents cover every possible financial contingency.

Their firm ensures your advance directives, including the Power of Attorney, are precisely tailored and fully compliant with New York law. They structure every document to meet the unique statutory requirements of your estate, securing your assets against unpredictable medical crises and strict judicial scrutiny.

Managing Potential Challenges: Exploitation and End-of-Life Authority

Mitigating the Risk of Financial Exploitation

A Power of Attorney transfers immense financial control, inherently carrying a severe risk of abuse if handed to the wrong person. Financial exploitation currently affects 42 out of every 1,000 older New Yorkers, marking it as the most prevalent form of elder mistreatment in the state. The reality is actually far grimmer, as an estimated 44 cases go unreported for every single incident reported to authorities. Principals must institute strict checks and balances, such as naming co-agents or appointing an independent monitor to oversee the primary agent’s transactions.

Navigating New York’s Shifting End-of-Life Directives

Financial continuity means little without a parallel strategy for medical decision-making. Your financial POA must operate in coordination with a legally binding Health Care Proxy and a detailed Living Will. The landscape of medical directives in New York is rapidly shifting, fundamentally altering end-of-life planning.

State lawmakers have expanded these options significantly. The Medical Aid in Dying (MAiD) Act, taking effect in August 2026, establishes new legal end-of-life choices for terminally ill adults. This legislation makes possessing flawlessly executed healthcare directives alongside a financial POA absolutely urgent. Clear, legally sound documents provide the only guarantee that medical professionals will honor a patient’s exact treatment wishes.

Taking Command of Your Financial Continuity

A New York Statutory Short Form Power of Attorney operates as a foundational pillar of modern asset protection, far exceeding a simple contingency plan. It guarantees your financial framework remains intact, and your family avoids the devastating costs of judicial intervention. Act methodically today to secure your legacy, designate a trusted agent, and keep your financial destiny entirely out of the courtroom.

Full Article & Source:
The Insider Guide to the New York Power of Attorney 2026: What It Does and Why It Matters

Judge orders disclosure in dispute over Milford lawyer's estate conservatorship

by Ethan Fry

MILFORD - Probate Judge Ben Gettinger did not exceed his authority by ordering the disclosure of documents related to the estate of a former lawyer whose housekeeper became her new conservator the month she was diagnosed with Alzheimer's, a state Superior Court judge ruled this month.

In a 14-page ruling, Judge Barbara Bellis wrote that the documents requested by a longtime friend and prior conservator of the lawyer, Jackale Williams, "could reasonably lead to the discovery of admissible evidence" related to whether Williams' housekeeper, Sylvia Ponzo, or the housekeeper's mother, Gina McKay, who became conservator of Williams' estate in September 2024, acted in good faith and in accordance with Williams' best interests.

"It is undisputed that after being appointed power of attorney, McKay changed the beneficiary designations of certain financial accounts to the 2024 trust and also transferred over $32,000 from an account outside of the defendants' control," said Bellis' decision. "All these acts occurred in the same month the plaintiff was diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease."

In court filings, Williams' cousin and lifelong friend, Claudia Montecalvo, said she and Williams "had long ago made a pact to take each other 'from cradle to grave'" and that she had been appointed conservator following the death of Williams' husband.

But after Williams began having trouble with her memory three years later, Montecalvo and her daughter alleged in court papers, 18 of "Williams' friends and family began reporting that they were being denied access to Williams by Williams' cleaning person, Sylvia Ponzo."

The Montecalvos alleged that a few months later, Ponzo took Williams' phone away "such that Williams stopped responding to calls and texts, when it had otherwise been normal for her to do so." Later that year, Montecalvo's power of attorney was revoked, and a new power of attorney named Ponzo's daughter, McKay, as her new agent.

Montecalvo alleged Ponzo and McKay told Williams "that Claudia planned to sell Williams' home and commit Williams to a nursing home" before a revocable living trust was set up in Williams' name and her home was transferred into it.

After Gettinger ordered the disclosure of documents related to the setup of Williams' 2024 estate, the estate appealed to Superior Court.

Judge Bellis' decision denying the appeal, dated March 20, noted that the prior conservator will "ultimately have the burden of proving any breaches of an agent's duties."

Bellis wrote that the arguments cited by Williams' current conservator arguing against the documents' disclosure while Williams is alive is not consistent with state law or prior cases.

"Under the plaintiff's interpretation, a power of attorney could act in accordance with estate plans despite possibly knowing that (1) the principal was mentally compromised when making them, and (2) the estate plans were changed to benefit her and her relative," the decision said. "The court cannot hold, as a matter of law, that a breach of duty cannot be found under those circumstances." 

Full Article & Source:
Judge orders disclosure in dispute over Milford lawyer's estate conservatorship