Over and over, we are hearing tales of horror and woe associated with involvement with and within these guardianships.
Family members are being removed under the doctrine of ‘best interests’ from family on exaggerated and false charges. Family can do no right. These guardianships can do no wrong, and are not held accountable for abuses or funds.
The elderly person's situation does not get better, in fact, notably, conditions worsen to a marked degree in a short period. Loved ones can do nothing.
The elderly person's money disappears at an alarming rate. There is no accounting of the funds to family members. Protective laws are ignored. No attorney can or will help. Family members seek help but issues sit in attorneys office and nothing is ever done. Meanwhile the elder person suffers, family members are treated as criminals when they try to help.
The abuses of the guardianship are overlooked by the judicial system, whereas family must tow the line to a completely different standard of behavior.
People are robbed of their life savings and die in poverty and in abusive conditions. No one can or will help. Meanwhile, as the elderly persons suffers, family members suffer, third parties are gaining financially from this horrible mess and great abuse.
OVER AND OVER AGAIN, THIS APPEARS TO BE MORE OF A RACKET THAN A SINCERE ATTEMPT TO HELP THE ELDERLY.
Oftentimes, it is a matter of merely educating family on guardianship or care but this is usually not the option. Once in these guardianships, family members and loved ones are not allowed to see the records. Thus, these guardianships are protected from any checks and balances on their actions.
The legal system seems to be ignoring this very serious situation and those attempting to bring awareness are attacked and vilified.
Source:
Free Nancy - Conservatorship Reform
See also:
Help Free Nancy
Family members are being removed under the doctrine of ‘best interests’ from family on exaggerated and false charges. Family can do no right. These guardianships can do no wrong, and are not held accountable for abuses or funds.
The elderly person's situation does not get better, in fact, notably, conditions worsen to a marked degree in a short period. Loved ones can do nothing.
The elderly person's money disappears at an alarming rate. There is no accounting of the funds to family members. Protective laws are ignored. No attorney can or will help. Family members seek help but issues sit in attorneys office and nothing is ever done. Meanwhile the elder person suffers, family members are treated as criminals when they try to help.
The abuses of the guardianship are overlooked by the judicial system, whereas family must tow the line to a completely different standard of behavior.
People are robbed of their life savings and die in poverty and in abusive conditions. No one can or will help. Meanwhile, as the elderly persons suffers, family members suffer, third parties are gaining financially from this horrible mess and great abuse.
OVER AND OVER AGAIN, THIS APPEARS TO BE MORE OF A RACKET THAN A SINCERE ATTEMPT TO HELP THE ELDERLY.
Oftentimes, it is a matter of merely educating family on guardianship or care but this is usually not the option. Once in these guardianships, family members and loved ones are not allowed to see the records. Thus, these guardianships are protected from any checks and balances on their actions.
The legal system seems to be ignoring this very serious situation and those attempting to bring awareness are attacked and vilified.
Source:
Free Nancy - Conservatorship Reform
See also:
Help Free Nancy
4 comments:
This is FRAUD condoned by the state courts.
The legal system is not ignoring the problems...they know it and they like it!! Why upset the racket or stop the unending cash flow?
They are benefiting from the guardianship racket. And, many times the family of the deceased Ward is left dealing with the IRS with the unpaid tax bills.
We know Guardianship does not work in the best interest of the ward of the state.
The Guardianship racket is all about greed, power and control. I would feel more secure and safe meeting with members of the MOB in a dark alley in Chicago in the middle of the night, than be declared a ward of any state.
Where are the FEDS? Where is our Constitution?
When will "WE THE PEOPLE" have any meaning?
A very concise description of the guardianship racket from someone who has fought for his innocent daughter, Nancy Golin, for years --- Nancy was snatched by the system, abused by the system, and is now held by the system.
Visit www.freenancy.com. Make sure you have a box of Kleenex handy.
This is a list of problems with Probate with the Mentally Ill in Connecticut especially at Connecticut Valley Hospital.
By John Hubbard
hubbard_jr@yahoo.com copies of exhibits available on request.
I am concerned for the administration of justice in Connecticut for the mentally ill and especially for those hundreds of patients in Connecticut Valley Hospital (CVH) in Middletown, CT. This is a list of the issues that comprise that concern for the administration of justice:
1.The attorneys that are the most familiar with the patients at CVH, those from Connecticut Legal Rights Project(CLRP), are prohibited by consent decree in Doe v Hogan 1989 US District Court on page 10 section D from representing patients in most matters in probate court or on any matter where statute provides legal representation.
2.There is no mandatory training for attorneys that represent the mentally ill in probate court, a complex area of the law, although CLRP is providing some voluntary training.
3.All of the attorneys for the mentally ill at CVH are appointed by the same judge- which decreases the independence of the attorneys.
4.All of the hearings for the mentally ill are held in a room at a CVH residential facility and is therefore not a neutral site.
5.None of the indigent patients have any outside psychiatric witnesses at any hearing to determine their release and therefore the judge has any little legally justifiable basis to release the patient except at the request of the hospital.
6.The same judge hears all the cases and is elected by the community and therefore susceptible to making rulings that will be unlikely to cause him problems at re-election.
7.The appointment of attorneys' to represent a patient is not seen by the attorneys as authorization to represent the patient in an appeal to the Superior Court if the ruling is adverse to the interest of the patient (Example: see exhibit 4).
8.The local bar members seem unwilling to represent patients in Superior Court even if their customary fee is paid (see exhibit 1 part V).
9.The local attorneys seem to be unwilling to even take the civil case of a mentally ill person even when assigned by the Superior Court (See exhibit 1 Part V) .
pg 2
10.The Attorney Statewide Grievance Committee is unwilling to appoint counsel for an indigent person to prosecute a grievance against a probate court appointed attorney. (See Exhibit 201 page 3)
11.A person cannot get a Superior Court Judge to appoint an attorney to prosecute a complaint against a probate court appointed attorney in the Statewide Grievance Committee because that would be ex-parte communication with the Superior Court Judge (See exhibit 105 of a letter drafted to Judge Pickard that was blocked by the court clerk, because it was deemed ex-parte communication with a judge).
12.The Connecticut Legal Rights Project is unwilling to provide counsel for an indigent person to prosecute a grievance against a probate court appointed attorney. ( See exhibit 201 page 1)
13.Office of Protection and Advocacy has refused to represent patients to grieve their probate court appointed attorney in the Statewide Grievance Committee. The Office of Protection and Advocacy has indicated in a letter that they provide legal assistance, but when you call them, they say “not really”, we just provide legal referrals.
14.Office of Protection and Advocacy has a strict policy that creates a catch 22 for the mentally ill. The Office of Protection and Advocacy makes sure that if a “next friend” tries to assist in soliciting their assistance to protect a patient, their primary response is solely to determine if the patient is in absolute agreement with the request. (See exhibit 107) If not then they seem mandated to never do anything for the patient, deeming the entire request to be the concern of the advocate and not the patient, and then can therefore do nothing for the patient with immunity. And the advocate can never get a straight answer about the issue because they are claiming they are protecting the confidentiality of the patient.
15.The Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities(CHRO) is unable to handle any complaints other than employment and housing and public accommodations. It is therefore completely useless in protecting the mentally ill for any but these issues. (Request for assistance, see exhibit 106)
16.The Legislature passed PA 07-116 that gives all Connecticut residents the right to not have a conservator under certain circumstances. Unfortunately Judge Marino has decided that he will not appoint an attorney to any patients at CVH to adjudicate the effect of the new law on their rights (See exhibit 1 Part VI) .
17.The Legislature passed PA 07-116 does deal with affirmative jurisdiction of the probate court over persons. The issue is unclear if that means that a person has the right to the probate court in his Connecticut hometown or just deals with the jurisdiction of the court in dealing with out of state residents. Judge Marino was requested to have a hearing on this matter ( See exhibit 1 part VI), but after more than a year, no hearing has been scheduled.
18.There is currently a shortage of supportive housing and group homes that would be the ideal place to put a person being discharged from CVH, and as a result the Middletown Probate Court is abusing its power to prevent people from being discharged from the hospital without going to the ideal suportive housing or group home (See Exhibit 1).
19.None of the law school clinics, when consulted, were able to help patients at CVH in their legal difficulties.
pg. 3
20.Connecticut Legal Aid, when asked to help indicated that they would be unable to help with any conservator issues for persons under the age of 60, although they said to another agency that am not correct about the age restriction. But that is what I was last told personally.
21.This list does not attempt to deal with the issues that the mentally ill may face in the Superior Court, because after 4 years we have never gotten there.
Thank you for reviewing this serious matter.
John Hubbard
Volunteer Patient Advocate
What a great job you're doing, John! It's so hard to keep going when the deck is so stacked against you.I'm so sorry you have to deal with that. I've tried making proposals for improvement to judges and other areas of government to no avail. They can save so much money and improve quality of service at the same time. Their goal is certainly not serving the people. When there is so much corruption we would be far better off to get rid of the system altogether.
You give them hell!
Post a Comment