The first is making it MORE DIFFICULT to conserve someone. Conserved parties lose their constitutional rights - the right to vote, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the right to legal representation of their choice and more. Even the most afflicted person is usually able to make choices about where they want to live, what they eat, what they wear, who they see... Taking away these rights should not be taken as lightly as it is. It should be one of the most difficult things to do. Since Guardianship is a matter of removal of constitutional rights, it follows that Guardianship should be the jurisdiction of Federal courts. This is key! It takes the net out of the water.
Again, making it MORE DIFFICULT to accomplish and EASIER TO GET OUT OF should be the focus. It would get many of us out of the current net we are currently caught in.
The second issue is one of family. Third party Guardianships destroy families. This should almost NEVER be allowed. As far as I'm concerned, if a Guardianship needs to be placed forced on someone, a bad family guardian is still better than the best 3rd party guardian. The law is SUPPOSED to consider family members first but instead uses family disagreements as a tool to destroy and pillage the estate of the ward. Changing the law to make this mandatory would go a long way. Ideally, there would have to be some verifiable abuse required in order to preclude a member of the family from being appointed.
The third issue is making Third Party Guardianship a nonprofit agency with a cap on fees. I believe the cap for Public Guardians is 1.9% of the estate per year. Making this amount uniform removes most of the "chum" from the water and attract fewer sharks to a tank where there is little or no profit!"
Again, making it MORE DIFFICULT to accomplish and EASIER TO GET OUT OF should be the focus. It would get many of us out of the current net we are currently caught in.
The second issue is one of family. Third party Guardianships destroy families. This should almost NEVER be allowed. As far as I'm concerned, if a Guardianship needs to be placed forced on someone, a bad family guardian is still better than the best 3rd party guardian. The law is SUPPOSED to consider family members first but instead uses family disagreements as a tool to destroy and pillage the estate of the ward. Changing the law to make this mandatory would go a long way. Ideally, there would have to be some verifiable abuse required in order to preclude a member of the family from being appointed.
The third issue is making Third Party Guardianship a nonprofit agency with a cap on fees. I believe the cap for Public Guardians is 1.9% of the estate per year. Making this amount uniform removes most of the "chum" from the water and attract fewer sharks to a tank where there is little or no profit!"
Written by a NASGA member
2 comments:
States are free to promulgate their own law on these issues, but many states do not conform to the most basic due process requirements, nor do the other branches enforce the law as written.
What, then, is the purpose of the Uniform Law Commission, when only several states have adopted their recommendations?
What also is the purpose of the White House Conference on Aging, which rejected the only two resolutions for guardianship reform at their last convening?
This is by design to give the politians' supporters and campaign contributors jobs and more jobs for life!
Always follow the stench:
1) The $$$$$ and,
2) The votes
And where does this roadmap lead?
Post a Comment