Invitation to Comment

San Mateo Court is proposing to make changes to its Local Fees and the Local Court Rules. These new changes will become effective on July 1, 2008 when adopted. The court invites you to review and provide your comment on these proposals as required by the State of California Rules of Court, Rules 10.613 and 10.815.

You may send your comments to: smsccomment@sanmateocourt.org
with a subject line stating “Comments on Proposed Fee or Rule changes. Please state the proposal number, the line number of the section on which you are commenting and your comment.

Comments must be received no later than 4 PM, May 15, 2008.

The Proposals are:

SP08 –01 Proposed Local Court Fee Change for Investigations conducted by Court Investigators in Guardianship or Conservatorship cases

SP08-02 Amendment to Local Rule 5.6 E. – Family Law Ex Parte Orders, Notice Requirements

Source: San Mateo Court

Fleecing of the Elderly

Remember that old axiom? "Work hard, pay your taxes and........"

You know, a house, kids, little white picket fence, 2 dogs, 2 cats..... the Great American Dream! Save a couple bucks, retire, spoil your grandchildren and enjoy the golden years. Sounds good, huh?

In America the golden years are not too "golden" as so many - too many - will attest! But, actually, the golden years have become a gold mine for many others, and the "fleecing of the elderly" has become the hottest game in town!

Or more commonly called Guardianship/Conservatorship!

If that isn`t a contradiction in terms - "Guardianship", "Conservatorship?" The terms in the code and statutes are even more confusing, given the wording and the actual real life accounts of conservatees and their families.

The Public Guardianship program was created to help and protect vulnerable elderly who have few resources and no loved ones to help them as they struggle with physical or mental decline.

PROBATE CODE CALIFORNIA
SECTION 2920-2922
2920. If any person domiciled in the county requires a
guardian or conservator and there is no one else who is
qualified and willing to act and whose appointment as
guardian or conservator would be in the best interest of
the person: (a) The public guardian may apply for appointment

as guardian or conservator of the person, the estate, or the
person and estate.
(b) The public guardian shall apply for appointment as
guardian or conservator of the person, the estate, or the
person and estate, if the court so orders. The court may
make an order under this subdivision on motion of an
interested person or on the court's own motion in a pending

proceeding or in a proceeding commenced for that purpose.
The court shall not make an order under this subdivision
except after notice to the public guardian for the period
and in the manner provided in Chapter 3 (commencing with
Section 1460) of Part 1,consideration of the alternatives,
and a determination by the court that the appointment is
necessary. The notice and hearing under this subdivision
may be combined with the notice and hearing required for
appointment of a guardian or conservator...........

What the statutes describe is not what is happening in our country today. The Public Guardians look for wealthier men and women to "protect."

Judges and their favorite professional conservators and guardians, expert witnesses and court investigators have embedded agendas: Money, power and control!

In a continuing trend that seems to threaten America's successfully aging population, judges are imposing an increasing number of unwanted and unnecessary conservatorships and guardianships upon the allegedly "incompetent" men and women, to "manage" their property and personal affairs.

When an elderly person is brought into court and forced to prove his or her competence, we soon see that the system does not work!

It is similar to the Mob extorting "protection" money from small business owners in the `40s. What the business owners really needed was protection from the Mob!

Frankly, I have more respect for the Mob than our guardianship system of court-sanctioned corruption!

Written by a NASGA member

Probate Judge Misconduct

A Plymouth County probate and family court judge has apologized and resigned in exchange for having judicial misconduct charges dropped.

Judge Michael Livingstone has agreed to begin a 40-day leave today and retire from the bench on June 12 under the deal with the Massachusetts Commission on Judicial Conduct.

He also agreed to waive his right to a public hearing and acknowledged running a real estate business and collecting fees as an attorney while serving on the bench, in violation of judicial conduct rules.

Source:
Plymouth probate judge resigns following misconduct charges


It was previously reported that it is only the fifth time the commission has brought charges against a judge in the last 20 years.

See also:
Plymouth judge accused of breaking rules of conduct

Commission files misconduct charges against probate judge

Probate Judge apologizes, agrees to retire

Probate Court Manager Sues

James Locke fought for the rights of elderly and disabled people to be free from abuse by court-appointed conservators, and for that he was fired by Sacramento Superior Court, he claims in federal and state lawsuits.

Locke started in May 2001 as an investigator for Probate Court. With excellent performance reviews, he rose through the ranks and became probate manager. He was terminated without an administrative hearing May 7, in violation of his rights under federal and state laws and the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of due process, according to the suits, filed by lawyer Stewart Katz.

The suit alleges it was retaliation by the Superior Court and its executive staff for Locke's persistent, outspoken and constitutionally protected advocacy of needed improvements to the court's legally mandated oversight of conservatorships.

Locke said in an interview: "I never quit harping on it."

Locke recalled that his role as a whistle-blower, not appreciated by the executive staff, came to a head when Assemblyman Dave Jones, D-Sacramento, contacted probate's then-supervising judge. Jones cited Locke's testimony before a judicial panel and expressed concern that the court was not in compliance with the law.

Locke said: Judge Jerilyn Borack told him "You're dead," after her January 2007 conversation with the assemblyman.

Full Article and Source:
Sacramento County Probate Court manager sues over job loss

Sacramento court official sues over his dismissal


About the writer:
Denny Walsh, (916) 321-1189

dwalsh@sacbee.com

Raise the Ceiling

North Carolina's House Bill 794, entitled "Raise the Ceiling/Personal Property Sale/Guardianship", proposes increasing the limit from $1500 per reporting period of the guardianship to $15,000 per reporting period for the value of personal property that can be sold without court order from a ward's estate.

17)a. Without a court order to lease any of the ward's real estate for a term of not more than three years, or to sell, lease or exchange any of the ward's personal property including securities, provided that the aggregate value of all items of the ward's tangible personal property sold without court order over the duration of the estate shall not exceed one thousand five hundred dollars ($1,500) .fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000). When any item of the ward's tangible personal property has a value which when increased by the value of all other tangible personal property previously sold in the estate without a court order would exceed one thousand five hundred dollars ($1,500), .fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000).

(14)a. Without a court order to lease any of the ward's real estate for a term of not more than three years, or to sell, lease or exchange any of the ward's personal property including securities, provided that the aggregate value of all items of the ward's tangible personal property sold without court order over the duration of the estate shall not exceed one thousand five hundred dollars ($1,500) .fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000). When any item of the ward's tangible personal property has a value which when increased by the value of all other tangible personal property previously sold in the estate without a court order would exceed one thousand five hundred dollars ($1,500), .fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000).

Source: General Assembly of North Carolina - House Bill 794

Massachusetts Elder Abuse

The number of elderly residents being abused or neglected is on the rise in Massachusetts, and advocates for the elderly say the state is not properly funding a program that was designed to protect vulnerable seniors.

Elder service agencies northwest of Boston say they do not have enough money to run the state-sanctioned protective services program, so they are forced to pull funds from other important programs. As state officials work on next year's budget, advocates for seniors are putting on a full-court press to draw attention to the problem.

The protective services program responds to reports of elders in situations that include physical, emotional, and sexual abuse, neglect by a caregiver in the home, self-neglect, and financial exploitation.

In fiscal year 2005, the state received 11,503 reports of elder abuse, all of which were reviewed and investigated by local agencies. Of those, 3,713 were confirmed cases of abuse. In fiscal year 2007, the number of cases rose to 14,197 and of those, 4,292 were confirmed. Advocates for the elderly say the numbers continue to rise each year.
Source: Elder abuse up in state

See also:
Massachusetts Senior Citizens

Client Saved from Guardianship Abuse