No one should have to live intentionally kept apart from their loved ones.
Moreover, no sick or defenseless elderly parent who has a loving
family should have to spend their final years isolated from them,
surrounded only by careless and even hostile strangers whose only
interest seems to be exploiting the elderly.
That is why Bertha Bernal’s case matters to all of us.
Bertha Bernal is 93 years old and not permitted to see her children – by strangers.
“It’s criminal. It hurts me to see that they do it to other families,
too,” Bertha’s daughter Sandra Cobianchi, known in the family as Sandi,
says in a trembling voice. “These guardians and conservators are
accountable to no one.”
All it took was one disagreeing family member, her son Michael, to
insist on taking the matter to court, and the situation turned into a
living nightmare for Bertha and her family. A tale of state overreach
and lawlessness, of US citizens lost in the inescapable maze of
California Probate Courts, and suffering, under the deeply flawed
Conservatorship System.
“
LIKE A PLAGUE ON THE ELDERLY – PROBATE COURT DRAINS MONEY FROM VULNERABLE“,
blasted the Orange County Register in its cover, in 2018. It was not,
as we will see, a sensationalist claim, but rather a verifiable tragedy.
The Conservatorship System is “a flawed nationwide system,” Tony
Saavedra wrote for the Register, “in which strangers appointed by the
court decide where people live, how their money is spent and even who
they can see.”
“How can legal professionals have such power over the life of a noncriminal, to the point that even family has no voice?”
Daughter Sandi, who spoke exclusively to the Frank Report, has no
doubt about what is taking place all across the US: “That’s elderly
abuse, to me.”
A little over a dozen years ago, Bertha Bernal, then in her early
eighties, was happily living on her own. A widow of a WW2 and Korean War
veteran, Jack Lara Bernal, Bertha, now 93, has four children: two
daughters, Cathleen and Sandra, and two sons, Anthony and Michael.
Family members who were close to her began detecting signs indicative
of dementia. The situation progressed until, in 2008, Bertha was
diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease.
When the problem was first detected, it was discussed in the family,
and all siblings agreed that she needed daily assistance with tasks such
as food or taking her medicine on time – we all know how dealing with
many daily prescription pills can be confusing to anyone, let alone an
elderly lady with dementia.
Her daughter, who was living in the San Francisco Bay area, had to
move in, to help Bertha sell her house to make a cash reserve and face
her new situation. The family subsequently found an elderly home for
Bertha to live in.
One of her sons, Michael Bernal, who is the Trustee, resented that
decisions had been taken without his consent, arguments over money
followed, and the situation between the siblings escalated to the point
of a bitter family dispute.
With trustee Michael on one side, and all the other siblings and most
family members on the other, their fight landed on Probate Court.
And that’s when the unspeakable nightmare begins for Bertha and her family.
“It’s called probate court, and — used properly — it can be a way to
protect the elderly and disabled from physical and financial bullying by
family and friends.” But, Tony Saavedra found, probate court “also can
open the door for high-priced professionals to swallow a client’s life
savings and the family’s future inheritance.”
 |
| Gianna Gruenwald, was a court-ordered guardian |
In Orange County probate court, a Guardian Ad Litem was appointed to
Bertha Bernal: a woman by the name of Gianna Gruenwald. With Bertha
incapacitated by dementia and the family at odds, the Guardian Ad Litem
was supposed to advocate for Bertha’s best interests.
According to daughter Sandi, that is NOT how it worked. “She spent
approximately an hour a year with Mom, but her opinion was treated as
gospel by the court, and the judge looked up to her for answers, even
though she was not informed of day-to-day realities.”
The 2018 investigation by the Southern California News Group on the
probate court situation is faithfully reproduced here by the
circumstances of Bertha’s case.
“The family is fighting,” Gianna repeatedly told the court. According
to the siblings, she continuously misrepresented the nature of the
family conflict.
Indeed, critics in California have been vocal about how “Guardians
and Conservators often play one side of the family against the other”.
 |
| Add caption |
“It’s a sticky situation that can become a strain on the limited
resources of the client, who is billed for the salaries and legal fees
of the professionals involved in probate cases.”
Cristina Erickson-Taube, a fiduciary advisor advised that Bertha must have outside, paid caregivers.
In Bertha’s case, the playbook is in full display: Gianna brought
along with her fiduciary advisor Cristina Erickson-Taube who, at times,
insisted on having paid external caregiver services, even though Bertha
already had caregivers in the house she was living in.
A colossal waste of money.
The pattern of padding the bills and squandering the money away seems apparent.
When Bertha had an eye infection, Sandi had to fight hard and long
with the guardian to take her Mom to a doctor. The infection had by then
spread to both eyes.
Just imagine that a guardian could have the power to even deny
medical care to an elderly lady, and overturn family decisions in this
field.
“The conservators, guardians, fiduciaries, their attorneys and judges
become almost cliquish in running people’s lives,” found Saavedra.
They cover each other’s backs, and get away with grave irregularities, even – it would seem – elderly abuse.
Eventually Gianna Gruenwald was taken out of the case.
The judge subsequently appoints the trustee son, Michael, as
Conservator for Bertha Bernal. The rival siblings, at first, did not
object. They must have felt, nothing could be worse than the guardian.
They were wrong.
According to Sandi, Michael proceeded to constitute three lawyers
with Bertha’s money to fight his siblings. He moved her from the good
home she was (and where she was reportedly thriving) to an atria home in
Irvine, California.
Sudden moves, we all know, are cruel to people with dementia.
Sandi had to fight even to get vitamin supplements for her Mom’s
Alzheimer’s. Then it was “no overnight stay” for her granddaughter. Then
it was “no meals for visitors.” Hygiene complaints in the house were
also an issue.
Eventually Bertha was forced to change yet again to another atria
home, because, as they said Bertha “would try to use her walker down the
stairs.”
With Michael as conservator, while the rest of the family felt that
“he never seemed to be concerned about her best interests” and the
problems were many, at least there was a constant and normal visitation
schedule.
While that seemed like an inalienable right, soon, that would also be at risk.
When Bertha’s money ran out, Michael finally resigned as Conservator.
 |
| Suzette Smith |
Court then goes on to appoint Suzette Smith – and the family
approves, because she promises to investigate Michael’s financial
misdeeds, and also the overcharging and false billing by Cristina
Erickson.
NIGHTMARE ENSUES.
Bertha’s conservator, Suzette Smith manages 60 families. She shows
the exact care for each one that this sheer number would suggest. She
seems to be dealing in volume, trying to maximize her upside.
Things instantly became more and more restrictive. More and more
‘rules’, and even going to the point of hanging up the phone on family
members, as she admitted in court.
The investigation Suzette promised was just for show. They didn’t even bother to relay the non-findings to the family.
 |
| Maila Soliven a caregiver who didn’t seem to care. |
Even more tragic, Suzette chose a problematic caregiver, Maila
Soliven. She is “an opinionated, aggressive woman” who loves her Pradas,
and displayed an incredible contempt towards the elderly she should be
caring for.
The Conservator took Bertha out of her atria home and installed her
in a Board and Care run by Maila, subjecting the elderly lady with
dementia to yet another change.
Bertha pleaded for Sandi to stay with her during the move: “I want my
daughter to go with me.” Caregiver Maila ignored her, and stuck a
finger in Sandi’s face, saying: “You’re staying here. I’m taking your
Mom.”
Whenever Sandi reacted to defend her mother, they used it against her in court.
In California and all-around America, conservators have a well-earned
bad reputation. Total unaccountability begets abuse and criminal
behavior.
At Maila’s “Home,” where Bertha is living, her children can never
arrive unannounced, because apparently the caregiver needs to ‘stage’
the conditions that she is kept in before a family member can see her.
Once, as Sandi arrived, the worker in the home frantically called Maila, who ordered: “Don’t let her in until I get there.”
But Bertha saw her daughter across the screen-door.
“Why don’t you let my daughter in?” she cried.
THAT’S ABUSE OF THE WORST KIND.
Sandi left the scene to avoid a confrontation. But she never leaves a fight.
People around her urge her to just give up. “Stop. Walk away. You did what you can.”
But can you really give up on your own mother? WHO CAN ASK THAT OF THEIR FELLOW HUMAN BEING?
The situation worsened even more with the advent of the pandemic,
when the very restrictive visitation, reduced to a very limited amount
of phone calls.
At Maila’s place, the elderly are permitted to talk to their family members “only once a week for a few minutes.”
THAT’S ELDERLY ABUSE.
Consequently, Bertha’s condition is “deteriorating rather rapidly”.
“When am I going see you? I miss you. I love you.” From the depths of
Alzheimer’s, Bertha can still find the strength to call for help. But
for how long?
It breaks our hearts. It should break yours, too.
Bertha Bernal needs justice – NOW.
[Frank Report reached out to the conservator Suzette Smith and the
caregiver Maila Soliven, Neither has responded to our request for
comment.]
Stay tuned for part 2.
Full Article & Source:
‘We Want to See Our Mom Before She Dies’ – California Probate Court and Abusive Conservatorship System Denies Children of 93 Year-Old Visitation
