Friday, June 29, 2012

'Bringing Dorothy Home'

Purpose: to raise awareness of the growing phenomenon of nursing homes bypassing families' legally established authority in order to seize the assets of their "residents" ~ whether there by choice, or, as in my mother's case, not. Families can even lose their rights to VISIT their loved ones, as these predators follow their usual procedure of: "Isolate, Medicate, Liquidate."

I kept my mother out of a nursing home for more than seven years before she went to Wilton Meadows for stroke rehab and was kidnapped by them. We also paid considerably into a "state-wide asset protection plan" ~ a partnership between her LTC insurance carrier [Met Life] and the state, to protect the house. This was paid into for several years, earning "credits" against potential Medicaid claims on the property. Under the Medicaid "Caregiver's Exception," I am also entitled to keep the house. And, finally, under her Durable POA I also could have (and should have) transferred everything into my own name. This never would have happened to her if I had done so, to my terrible regret now. I was never in a rush to do that, however, because I never intended to allow my mother to go into a nursing home. It was always my intention to create whatever she needed at home. Had I ever anticipated this turn of events, I would have sold the Roton Point property to pay for the house, and put it into my name, for her protection. But I was preserving her familiar status quo for her sake and simplicity for tax purposes.

Source:
Blog: Bringing Dorothy Home

4 comments:

  1. I am sorry. Everyone should get the opportunity to care for one's loved one at home if at all possible.

    ReplyDelete
  2. If there's a DPoA, there's no need for guardianship. Did the judge examine the DPoA or just roll right over it? My guess is roll....

    ReplyDelete
  3. I hope you get to bring her home.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hello, friends.

    Yes, the Judge railroaded it. He has recused himself. He just provided a tape of this initial "hearing," which I hope has not been edited, as his "transcript" was, to omit my repeated objections and the court's repeated response that it was "too late" because the real estate attorney "was already appointed." There wasn't even any discussion of other alternatives to what they had planned before I was even permitted to enter the room.

    Thank you for your well wishes,

    ~ Marjorie Partch

    /for/ Dorothy Partch

    ReplyDelete