The Ombudsman received a phone call from a man who knows the Ombudsman from our regular visits to the nursing home where he resides. He called as a result of his court appointed guardian making the decision to move him from his home to a different nursing home. The man shared that he has friends at the nursing home and these relationships are meaningful to him. He also expressed that the nursing home staff know him and he feels safe with them providing his care.
The guardian had made arrangements for his move without ever visiting him or discussing the matter with him. The right to determine, to our best ability, where we live and with whom we are friends is fundamental. The man asked the Ombudsman to help him remain in his home.
During a meeting with the Ombudsman the man stated that at one time he was quite ill and needed to have someone make decisions on his behalf, however, he has recovered his health and his ability to make decisions and doesn’t believe that he needs a guardian anymore. The Ombudsman informed the man that he could request a re-evaluation of his guardianship status by the county probate court where he was adjudicated incompetent and appointed the guardian. The Ombudsman also shared that the guardian, per the county guardianship handbook, should allow him to participate in decisions if capable.
The man decided that he wanted to address the situation directly with the county probate court. He dictated a letter to the social worker of the nursing home with the Ombudsman present. The man provided specific reasons as to why he did not agree with the action the guardian was taking and that the guardian did not include him in the decision-making process. He also requested the court to re-evaluate his competency and his future need for a guardian.
Prior to the hearing a psychiatrist with the nursing home visited the man for an evaluation and determined he no longer needed a guardian. The county probate court held a preliminary hearing with the man and the guardian present. The guardian then understood that the client did not want to move. The magistrate decided the man would remain in his current home while a decision about the competency was made. The county probate court magistrate also ordered a competency evaluation and scheduled a hearing date.
The Ombudsman and staff from the nursing home attended the hearing with the man. The final outcome was that the guardianship was terminated.
Source:
Resident Fights Guardian's Decision to Move Him
The guardian had made arrangements for his move without ever visiting him or discussing the matter with him. The right to determine, to our best ability, where we live and with whom we are friends is fundamental. The man asked the Ombudsman to help him remain in his home.
During a meeting with the Ombudsman the man stated that at one time he was quite ill and needed to have someone make decisions on his behalf, however, he has recovered his health and his ability to make decisions and doesn’t believe that he needs a guardian anymore. The Ombudsman informed the man that he could request a re-evaluation of his guardianship status by the county probate court where he was adjudicated incompetent and appointed the guardian. The Ombudsman also shared that the guardian, per the county guardianship handbook, should allow him to participate in decisions if capable.
The man decided that he wanted to address the situation directly with the county probate court. He dictated a letter to the social worker of the nursing home with the Ombudsman present. The man provided specific reasons as to why he did not agree with the action the guardian was taking and that the guardian did not include him in the decision-making process. He also requested the court to re-evaluate his competency and his future need for a guardian.
Prior to the hearing a psychiatrist with the nursing home visited the man for an evaluation and determined he no longer needed a guardian. The county probate court held a preliminary hearing with the man and the guardian present. The guardian then understood that the client did not want to move. The magistrate decided the man would remain in his current home while a decision about the competency was made. The county probate court magistrate also ordered a competency evaluation and scheduled a hearing date.
The Ombudsman and staff from the nursing home attended the hearing with the man. The final outcome was that the guardianship was terminated.
Source:
Resident Fights Guardian's Decision to Move Him
Wonderful story.
ReplyDeleteIt's so good to see a victory!
ReplyDeleteWhen the system works the way it was designed based on fact and truth with a process to follow with support omg what a difference.
ReplyDeleteHugs to the Ombudsman for - he is a gift to society especially the Ohio man who was heard, believed and counseled according to law.
I guarantee you there are courts where the 'ward' went through the process resulting in disregard, silence whatever it takes to keep the case open for one purpose: to generate income.
See Danny Tate and Ginger Franklin and Jewell Tinnon Davidson County TN Judge Randy Kennedy.
Franklin case: Conservator Jeanan Mills Stuart who resigned or got fired why?
NEWS COVERAGE by main stream press !!! BY WALLY ROCHE JR AT THE TENNESSEAN !!!
Curiously the TV news was soft on the facts.
This is how the system is supposed to work, but seldom does.
ReplyDeleteSome ethical questions remain. Why didn't the guardian consult the client on the decision to move? Why didn't the guardian petition the court to be relieved of responsibility when it became clear the man had regained competency?
What financial incentives or other unexplored conflicts of interest caused the guardian to want to move this man rather than keeping him where he was happy and apparently well cared for?
How many other clients is this guardian treating like a piece of meat to be put on one shelf or another because they are not competent, but just need a BETTER GUARDIAN?
What a way to spice up my day. Thank you to this Ombudsman and congratulations to this man!
ReplyDeletewhat a pleasant unexpected surprise i had to see this for myself one lucky dude is free of the probate chains putting him in the minority of the minority of a living surviving former ward thats a small number in the club i have to wonder at what financial costs but the big deal is free at last free at last wonderful and best to this ohio man for a great life free at last
ReplyDeleteThe Ombudsman who should have helped me didn't, but I'm glad to know there are good Ombudsman out there who do their job and care.
ReplyDeleteThank you for this story and inspiration.
A victory? It warms my heart. And it is a victory obtained by a ward, which make it all the sweeter!
ReplyDeleteThis is great and what an accomplishment too.
ReplyDeleteThis is a wonderful outcome. It's good that justice was served! In so many cases it isn't.
ReplyDelete