A circuit court judge has turned down a motion filed by Davidson's former public guardian in a suit filed by a Hendersonville woman who has charged she was wrongly placed in a conservatorship.
Stuart's lawyers had argued that Ginger Franklin's claims should be decided under a law limiting the claims that can be filed against public agencies because Stuart was acting as an agent of Davidson County.
But Gayden concluded that he could not grant the motion because Metro government was not even a party to the suit.
He wrote that he would reconsider the matter if Metro becomes a party to the suit within the next 30 days.
Gayden also noted that Franklin's suit charges that Stuart's conduct was "knowing and willful" which, if true, would negate the limitations.
 |
Ginger and her best friend |
Stuart was removed from the public guardian's job by Probate Judge David "Randy" Kennedy after questions were raised about her billing practices. She submitted a resignation the same day.
The position remains unfilled, but a proposal by Mayor Karl Dean would created a new Public Guardian's office funded by Metro government.
Gayden's ruling comes on claims by Franklin that she was placed in a group home by Stuart and put to work caring for other residents.
In an earlier ruling Gayden dismissed other claims Franklin made relating to the loss of her condo and car due to actions or inactions by Stuart during the conservatorship. The condo was auctioned off and the car was abandoned.
Source:
Judge Denies Motion to Block Suit Against Former Guardian
Isn't there a Constitutional amendment against slavery, and therefore slave labor? She was forced to work in the facility where she was being cared for?
ReplyDeleteIt's time to hold a guardian accountable for wrongdoing. Hopefully, this is the case!
ReplyDeleteNews flash: guardians, even public guardians (ESPECIALLY public guardians) do not have immunity.
ReplyDeleteJudges who grant guardianships involving improper or non-existent notice, improper jurisdiction, judge-shopping, hand-picked guardians ad litem, and unethical attorneys who obstruct justice and prevent the incapacitated person from obtaining review, substitution, or removal of guardians, ESPECIALLY public guardians, do not have immunity.
Callous, shameless, lazy public officials who swat away each and every legitimate complaint, who deliberately and repeatedly obstruct any and all communication between complainants and other regulatory agencies or boards, and who even go so far as to repeatedly defame the private citizens and honest private attorneys who attempt to bring these problems to the attention of the responsible government authorities DO NOT HAVE IMMUNITY.
Stuart is fortunate that this case was apparently filed under state law. If it had been filed under 42 U.S.C. section 1983, the involvement of these governmental agencies would actually be AN ELEMENT of the suit against her, rather than a putative defense.
Who's next? Jewish Family Service of Tidewater, anyone? Catholic Charities of Eastern Virginia?
These programs both had clients in the five now-closed facilities with 379 people operated by the notorious Scott Schuett, in one case for seven months in violation of a court order. (Please google Scott Schuett for the appalling details.) These programs still receive public funds, and operate more like the Mafia than a social services agency.
State agencies like the Virginia Department for Aging and Rehabilitative Services were repeatedly informed of these problems beginning in late 2010, almost four years ago. Now, their unethical attorneys preposterously claim they had no idea about Scott Schuett, and are STILL going to great lengths to cover up the ongoing problems with dangerous, filthy placements in these appalling facilities and to defame those who insist on the truth.
The other shoe will drop on these out of control public guardianship programs, their unethical attorneys, and their hand-picked guardians ad litem soon.
I am sure Ms. Franklins attorney is well aware of the laws wanna be attorney. Did not work for you now did it?
DeleteHow all of this is not front page news on every newspaper in the nation is the BIG question anyone who thinks this is an isolated case is fooling themselves into fantasy land. Probate court: business deals conducted in a courtroom before a lawyer wearing a robe with his her rubber stamp and we have to ask anothe BIG question: why? To he people who continue to side with the protection industry let's hear from you while you're at it volunteer yourself for this terrific system. VOLUNTEERS?
ReplyDeleteI hope the former public guardian is more than sued. I hope she goes to jail for what she did to this woman.
ReplyDeleteIn an earlier ruling Gayden dismissed other claims Franklin made relating to the loss of her condo and car due to actions or inactions by Stuart during the conservatorship. The condo was auctioned off and the car was abandoned. And how much money did the conservator Jeanan Stuart bill for her sloppy work?
ReplyDeleteAs an American citizen I am deeply offended and outraged that we the taxpayers are financially supporting a disgraceful system turned into a racket under color of law.
If her lawyer didn't file in federal court he's either a fool or not properly protecting her interests.
ReplyDelete