Friday, March 27, 2026

Judge orders disclosure in dispute over Milford lawyer's estate conservatorship

by Ethan Fry


MILFORD - Probate Judge Ben Gettinger did not exceed his authority by ordering the disclosure of documents related to the estate of a former lawyer whose housekeeper became her new conservator the month she was diagnosed with Alzheimer's, a state Superior Court judge ruled this month.

In a 14-page ruling, Judge Barbara Bellis wrote that the documents requested by a longtime friend and prior conservator of the lawyer, Jackale Williams, "could reasonably lead to the discovery of admissible evidence" related to whether Williams' housekeeper, Sylvia Ponzo, or the housekeeper's mother, Gina McKay, who became conservator of Williams' estate in September 2024, acted in good faith and in accordance with Williams' best interests.

"It is undisputed that after being appointed power of attorney, McKay changed the beneficiary designations of certain financial accounts to the 2024 trust and also transferred over $32,000 from an account outside of the defendants' control," said Bellis' decision. "All these acts occurred in the same month the plaintiff was diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease."

In court filings, Williams' cousin and lifelong friend, Claudia Montecalvo, said she and Williams "had long ago made a pact to take each other 'from cradle to grave'" and that she had been appointed conservator following the death of Williams' husband.

But after Williams began having trouble with her memory three years later, Montecalvo and her daughter alleged in court papers, 18 of "Williams' friends and family began reporting that they were being denied access to Williams by Williams' cleaning person, Sylvia Ponzo."

The Montecalvos alleged that a few months later, Ponzo took Williams' phone away "such that Williams stopped responding to calls and texts, when it had otherwise been normal for her to do so." Later that year, Montecalvo's power of attorney was revoked, and a new power of attorney named Ponzo's daughter, McKay, as her new agent.

Montecalvo alleged Ponzo and McKay told Williams "that Claudia planned to sell Williams' home and commit Williams to a nursing home" before a revocable living trust was set up in Williams' name and her home was transferred into it.

After Gettinger ordered the disclosure of documents related to the setup of Williams' 2024 estate, the estate appealed to Superior Court.

Judge Bellis' decision denying the appeal, dated March 20, noted that the prior conservator will "ultimately have the burden of proving any breaches of an agent's duties."

Bellis wrote that the arguments cited by Williams' current conservator arguing against the documents' disclosure while Williams is alive is not consistent with state law or prior cases.

"Under the plaintiff's interpretation, a power of attorney could act in accordance with estate plans despite possibly knowing that (1) the principal was mentally compromised when making them, and (2) the estate plans were changed to benefit her and her relative," the decision said. "The court cannot hold, as a matter of law, that a breach of duty cannot be found under those circumstances." 

Full Article & Source:
Judge orders disclosure in dispute over Milford lawyer's estate conservatorship 

A New Push to Put Homeless Veterans Under Legal Guardianship

By Lee Pruitt

Takeaways

  • A new federal agreement allows government attorneys to seek legal guardianship over homeless veterans, or those at risk of homelessness, who are deemed unable to make their own health care decisions.
  • Supporters argue this policy is a necessary lifeline to move incapacitated veterans out of hospital limbo, while critics warn it is a serious threat to the veterans civil liberties and autonomy.


A new federal policy raises urgent questions about care, autonomy, and what it means to serve those who have served. Earlier this month, the Trump administration announced a significant action targeting homeless veterans in the form of a formal agreement between the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and the Department of Justice (DOJ). The policy gives VA attorneys new legal power to pursue guardianship over veterans who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless.

The policy has drawn praise from some quarters as a compassionate lifeline for the most vulnerable veterans. Others are calling it a threat to civil liberties that could strip men and women who served their country of their fundamental right to make decisions for themselves.

What exactly is happening and what does it mean?

What the Policy Does

The new initiative gives the DOJ authority to appoint VA lawyers as special assistant U.S. attorneys, allowing them to initiate and participate in state court guardianship cases or conservatorship proceedings. In plain terms, government attorneys can now go to court to ask a judge to appoint a legal guardian – often when a qualified family member is unavailable – over a veteran who is deemed unable to make their own health care decisions.

The stated goal is to help veterans who are stuck in a kind of bureaucratic purgatory. Without a legal decision-maker, some veterans become trapped in limbo. That is, they may be medically stable, but unable to leave a hospital because no one can legally authorize a discharge plan or placement in long-term care. The administration argues that guardianship can break that cycle.

VA officials say the move is intended to help veterans transition from prolonged hospital stays to appropriate care settings. A VA news release states that “the appointment of a legal guardian or conservator can be a lifeline for veterans in this situation.”

Who Could Be Affected by This New Policy

Nearly 33,000 veterans are experiencing homelessness in the U.S. Almost 14,000 of them live on the streets, according to a 2024 report from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

The VA said in a statement that the agency serves hundreds of veterans who cannot make their own health care decisions and don’t have family or legal representation, including those experiencing homelessness. VA press secretary Peter Kasperowicz has emphasized that the policy is not aimed at homeless veterans broadly, but rather at roughly 700 veterans currently in VA facilities who lack the capacity to make decisions for themselves and who don’t have anyone to make legal decisions for them.

Half of the nation’s homeless veterans have a mental illness, and 70 percent struggle with substance use disorders. These conditions can sometimes impair a person’s ability to advocate for their own care.

Why Critics Are Alarmed

While supporters frame this policy as a compassionate intervention, civil rights and advocacy groups are raising serious concerns.

Unlike a civil commitment, which has an expiration date, guardianships are designed to be permanent. These arrangements can be revisited periodically, but the burden falls on the ward (in this case, the veteran) to prove they should get their autonomy back.

Jennifer Mathis, the deputy director at the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, questioned whether guardianship is the right solution. She said that if veterans are in VA hospitals and not discharged, it’s likely because there aren’t enough services or housing for them, not because they don’t have guardians to make decisions for them.

The National Coalition for Homeless Veterans warned that “guardianship and other forms of involuntary intervention are serious legal actions that remove significant personal autonomy. They must be used sparingly, with strong safeguards, and always with the best interests and rights of the veteran at the center of the process.”

Veterans’ advocates also say that the phrase “at risk of homelessness” is vague and undefined in the agreement. They worry the definition could expand, such as applying to a veteran behind on rent or others in precarious but not incapacitated situations.

What Supporters Say

Not everyone opposes the initiative. Michael Figlioli, director of the National Veterans Service for the Veterans of Foreign Wars, applauded the move, telling Newsweek that “some of our nation’s most vulnerable veterans must be approached through a public health and social services framework,” and that guardianships can provide “structured support” for vulnerable veterans.

Stephen Eide, a homelessness expert at the Manhattan Institute, argued in the same Newsweek piece that for some veterans with severe untreated conditions like schizophrenia, “the choices are either no treatment or some kind of involuntary treatment.” He did, however, acknowledge that executing such a policy at the federal level “will require a lot of coordination between police, social workers, state, and local governments.”

What Comes Next

The policy’s real-world effects will depend heavily on how the guardianship powers are used, as well as oversight and accountability of the guardians. Veterans who are deemed in need of a guardian may benefit from being able to choose their guardian.

For now, the agreement is in effect. Veterans’ rights organizations, legal advocates, and members of Congress will likely be watching closely. Veterans themselves will need clear information about this policy, what it means for them, and what resources are available to protect their well-being and autonomy.

Resources for Veterans Experiencing Homelessness

If you are a veteran who is homeless or at imminent risk of homelessness, help is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week: Call the National Call Center for Homeless Veterans at (877) 4AID-VET (877-424-3838).

Here are other key organizations and programs:

Housing Assistance Programs

  • HUD-Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (HUD-VASH). This program combines HUD’s Housing Choice Voucher rental assistance for homeless veterans with case management and clinical services provided by the VA. Contact your nearest VA medical center and ask about HUD-VASH.
  • Supportive Services for Veteran Families (SSVF). Through referrals and direct outreach, nonprofit agencies use SSVF funding to quickly house veterans and their families who are homeless and to keep others from slipping into homelessness by providing supportive services that promote housing stability.
  • VA Grant and Per Diem Program. State, local, and tribal governments and nonprofits receive funding to develop and operate transitional housing for veterans who are homeless, with a maximum stay of up to 24 months and a goal of moving veterans into permanent housing.
  • Disabled Veterans National Foundation – Homeless to Housing (H2H). This program provides up to $2,000 to cover essential costs related to securing permanent housing, such as security deposits and initial rent payments, as well as up to $2,000 worth of essential household items.

Mental Health and Crisis Support

Legal Help

  • Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law. The Bazelon Center advocates for the rights of people with mental disabilities.
  • National Homelessness Law Center. NHLC provides legal resources and advocacy for people experiencing homelessness.

Find Local Help

You can also call or visit your local VA Medical Center or Community Resource and Referral Center, where VA staff are ready to help. Use the VA locator tool at va.gov/directory to find the nearest location.

Every veteran deserves a home, health care, and the dignity of making their own choices. If you or someone you know is at risk, please know that help is available.

Additional Reading

For additional reading on topics relevant to veterans, check out the following articles:

Full Article & Source:
A New Push to Put Homeless Veterans Under Legal Guardianship 

Thursday, March 26, 2026

AIM Services will lead Supported Decision Making in New York

By Aaron Shellow-Lavine


A nonprofit based in Saratoga County is set to pioneer the statewide expansion of a program that supports individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

Dwight Joyner says supported-decision making has allowed him to live a more independent, fulfilling life.

“It means that I can make my own choices and I can do things I want to do – making my own meals, take a walk down the street, be able to have relationships without somebody telling me I can’t be in a relationship,” said Joiner.

First piloted in New York in 2016, supported decision-making, or SDM, is a process that allows people with intellectual and developmental disabilities to make decisions with the help of a network of trusted individuals. The idea is to promote independence for people with IDD, putting them at the center of their day-to-day management, rather than relying on a singular person – typically a parent – as often happens in a traditional guardianship model.

In 2021, the New York Office for People With Developmental Disabilities expanded the state's pilot SMD program utilizing federal American Rescue Plan Act funds. Now, a nonprofit in Saratoga County — AIM Services — is continuing to expand SDM programming within the state over the next five years with a nearly $8 million contract.

OPWDD Commissioner Willow Baer says with AIM’s guidance, New York could be a model for the rest of the country.

“It's also available in New York State for people without disabilities, other people who are aging, for example, might need a little support in making decisions as they age. And supported decision making is available in New York State for anyone that wants to use it right. The $8 million contract focuses on people with developmental disabilities. We are excited to be the first in the nation to make that available, and to really be a model nationally for this program and for how person-centered it makes services in New York State,” said Baer.

Through SDM, an individual creates and signs an agreement that outlines various people, or supporters, to whom they can turn to help make decisions regarding their health, finances, and living opportunities.

“So, for example, for medical or health decisions, maybe somebody really wants their mom to assist with that. But when it comes to relationships, they actually want their best friend to help,” said Alexis Harrington.

Alexis Harrington is chief of program implementation at AIM, which in 2024 served 4,000 people in nearly 400 supported and independent residential facilities in Saratoga, Washington and Warren counties.

She says individuals participating in SDM are better equipped to lead their own lives.

“We make decisions every single day of our lives, and we don't even think twice about that. So, the fact that we have people with disabilities that are discriminated against for assuming no capacity. Right? We are now flipping that concept on its head. We are aligning with the United Nations perspective that every person is a person and a human being that is able to make their own decisions,” said Harrington.

AIM CEO Christopher Lyons says the organization is well on its way to reaching the roughly 100,000 New Yorkers who live with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

“People are having legal capacity. They're having autonomy. They're making their own choices. It's a beautiful thing to see somebody enjoy the good and the bad of their own choices. That's what makes us human right. It's the mosaic of our choices, our experiences, the good and the bad. You know, we used to keep somebody from dating somebody because they might break their heart who hasn't had their heart broken. So now everything is natural. It's we don't substitute our judgment. We're not in a control model or in a support model. Life is messy, but because of that, it’s beautiful,” said Lyons. 

Full Article & Source:
AIM Services will lead Supported Decision Making in New York 

Former Flagler County home health aide gets 3 years’ probation after no contest plea in senior fraud case

Katie Swain, 32, arrested in late December

Katie Swain (Flagler County Sheriff's Office)

BUNNELL, Fla. – A former home health aid will spend the next three years on probation after pleading no contest to theft and fraud, according to a Flagler County Sheriff’s Office news release.

Investigators say 32-year-old Katie Swain targeted elderly people. She was originally arrested in late December after a month-long investigation found she had stolen cash and used a senior’s debit card for unauthorized purchases totaling more than $660.

Then, management at HarborChase Assisted Living, the same home as the original victim, said a second person had also experienced fraud while Swain worked there.

“Swain abused her position of trust and authority and rightfully cannot be placed in that position for several years,” said Flagler County Sheriff Rick Staly. “We hope she uses this time to reflect on her life choices and avoids returning to the Green Roof Inn in the future.”

Swain is barred from working unsupervised with the elderly and must pay $236 in restitution as part of her probation. 

Full Article & Source:
Former Flagler County home health aide gets 3 years’ probation after no contest plea in senior fraud case 

Wednesday, March 25, 2026

11-minute hearings, hidden conflicts: inside Oklahoma’s broken guardianship system


by By J.C. Hallman, Oklahoma Watch 

On the afternoon of Aug. 26, 2021, Ismail Safi brought his wife and six children to the Abbey Gate of Kabul International Airport. The Americans were leaving Afghanistan. Crowds of individuals who had worked for the Americans and their families lined up, despite threats of violence, to be screened for seats on a flight out of the country.

At approximately 5:50 p.m., as the family approached the gate, a suicide bomber detonated an explosive device. That blast and another nearby killed 13 Americans and hundreds of Afghans; the bombings became a political cudgel and a violent symbol of the messy end of the longest war in American history.

Ismail Safi’s family was separated in the blast, said Ghulam Nabi Safi, Ismail Safi’s brother. Three of the children were initially missing. Two turned up quickly. But S.S., an 8-year-old girl, appeared to have vanished.

She remained missing for several days. Then her family received a call.

S.S. was on her way to Oklahoma.

What happened next — how a traumatized Afghan child ended up in the custody of an evangelical family she had never met, and how a new guardianship judge with a peculiar background handled the fight by her uncle and biological parents to bring her home — is a story that exposes structural weaknesses at the heart of Oklahoma’s guardianship system: sealed records, shortened hearings, conflicts of interest, and judges working without adequate training or oversight.

It is not a story unique to child guardianships. Multiple attorneys, former judges and national experts who spoke with Oklahoma Watch — some on the condition of anonymity — described systemic problems in both the adult and child guardianship systems in Oklahoma. In the former case, the crisis will grow acute as Oklahoma’s population ages.

Attorneys familiar with Oklahoma’s guardianship proceedings lamented a system beholden to money, resulting in a growing avalanche of pro se cases — that is, individuals who had no other choice but to represent themselves in court.

Harvey Brownstone, a jurist and author who served in the Ontario Court of Justice for 26 years, expressed surprise at Oklahoma’s closed system.

“The system was not designed to be navigated by people who didn’t go to law school,” Brownstone said. “Courts should be open. We can still protect the privacy of the people, without sealing files.”

A Child Unaccompanied

Ghulam Nabi Safi was in a secure location when the bombs went off, having worked as a translator for the U.S. government at the U.S. Embassy. His clearance got him onto a plane; he arrived in the United States on Sept. 1, 2021.

S.S.’s parents were sent to Pakistan. Although they had been cleared for visas, administrative delays had prevented them from being admitted to the United States. Meanwhile, eight-year-old S.S., dazed by the blast, made it through the airport gates on her own.

She found the family of distant cousins, Mohammed and Azizah Hashemi, Safi said. The Hashemis were able to use S.S.’s association with someone who had worked for the Americans to board a plane, Safi said. S.S. arrived in the United States as an unaccompanied minor.

Mohammed Hashemi, reached at a home in Oklahoma City, offered a different account. He said that Ghulam Nabi Safi had approached him at the airport and asked the Hashemis to keep S.S. for 15 days, until Safi could arrive in the U.S. and claim her.

The Hashemis were sponsored in Oklahoma by Jason Garner, an oil and gas executive who is also an elder of Memorial Road Church of Christ and chairman of the board of trustees of Oklahoma Christian Academy. In 2025, Garner joined the board of directors of the Oklahoma City branch of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.

Patrick Raglow, executive director of Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City, recalled the shock of Oklahoma’s Afghan refugee crisis in September 2021. In the year prior to the fall of Kabul, Catholic Charities processed 26 total refugee arrivals. Then came a request from Gov. Kevin Stitt to assist 1,000 arrivals in Oklahoma City and 800 in Tulsa.

“Sometimes we got notice of 12 hours, sometimes it was two days,” Raglow said. “Sometimes it was after they arrived and the airport called and said, ‘Hey, who’s got this family?’”

Garner’s Memorial Road Church took on the largest number of Afghan families of any faith organization that partnered with Catholic Charities, according to a 2023 article in the Christian Chronicle, a publication for the worldwide Churches of Christ network. Raglow said he was aware that some partner organizations viewed the refugee influx as an opportunity.

“Some of them thought that this was a great opportunity to Christianize,” Raglow said.

The Christian Chronicle article documented Memorial Road’s outreach to Afghan refugees, including the Hashemis. The piece made clear that conversion was a goal of the church’s engagement.

‘We Are Going to Take Her

Safi spent months in Virginia working as an advisor for the Kuwaiti embassy and a translation services firm before he had the resources to travel to Oklahoma. When he could finally visit, his niece’s reaction was immediate.

“She was flying,” Safi said. “She was very happy.”

That visit brought Safi into direct conflict with Jason Garner. Safi said that S.S.’s biological parents, concerned that their daughter was not being raised in America according to their wishes, asked him to seek custody of S.S. When Garner learned that Safi intended to seek guardianship, the relationship turned hostile. Garner told Safi that he knew Oklahoma’s rules, and that Safi would not win guardianship because he lacked a wife and Oklahoma residency, Safi said.

Safi said he was not deterred, despite a disturbing incident in which Garner showed Safi his gun collection in a way that Safi interpreted as menacing.

Hashemi recalled Garner’s position clearly.

“Garner said that if someone comes from outside, and we don’t know who they are, then we are going to take [S.S.],” Hashemi said.

Hashemi said that he had insisted to Garner that any transfer of custody be handled through legal channels. He said his own knowledge of the subsequent court proceedings was minimal. At a hearing, he said, the judge asked only his name before issuing an order.

“The only thing the judge asked me was ‘What is your name?’” Hashemi said. “That’s it. And then they make an order, and they said that after this day that [S.S.] has to live with the Garner family.”

Janie Tapia, the Oklahoma City attorney who represented Garner, declined to comment. A.J. Ferate, Garner’s appellate attorney with Spencer Fane, also declined an interview request on behalf of his client.

A Chaotic Trial

Safi contacted Dallas-based attorney Sehla Ashai, who previously represented an Afghan couple who said that an American soldier effectively stole their baby after a raid by U.S. forces killed the infant’s family.

To represent S.S.’s biological parents, Dallas-based attorney Sehla Ashai contacted Mikael Bryant, general counsel of National Litigation Law Group and a member of Oklahoma’s Muslim community, for help. Bryant, along with Oklahoma City attorney Rob Hopkins, formed the legal team representing Ghulam Nabi Safi and S.S.’s parents.

Bryant described a custody trial that stretched across six months — a week’s worth of testimony — heard in the courtroom of Oklahoma County Special Judge Michelle “Shel” Harrington, a former divorce attorney who ascended to the bench just months before the fight over S.S. erupted.

Last September, Oklahoma Watch covered another of Harrington’s cases. Matthew Simonton successfully fought for his right to visit his mother, Estelle Simonton, who is under the guardianship of Adult Protective Services.

“I should have some rights as an American citizen,” Estelle Simonton said at the time. “It’s the law that is taking me away from my family, who I dearly love.”

Harrington subsequently issued a restraining order preventing the press from further interviewing Simonton.

For Andy Lester, chair of the Oklahoma Free Speech Committee, Harrington’s order encroached on the First Amendment.

“[This ruling] looks like a restriction on Ms. Simonton, but, as worded, it purports to bar all press,” Lester said at the time. “That is a step too far.”

From S.S.’s guardianship trial, Oklahoma Watch obtained audio recordings made by Azizah Hashemi in which she made graphic allegations about what would happen to S.S. in Garner’s custody. The recordings also included claims about her own role in transferring the child. A translation by Alqalam Nangarhar Translation Center documented the contents, and an independent Pashto translator retained by Oklahoma Watch confirmed the character of the recordings.

“The general tone of the audio recordings is taunting, aggressive, and centered on intimidation and revenge,” the second translator said in an email.

The recordings were one of numerous exhibits presented as evidence in Harrington’s courtroom, Bryant said.

“They had no argument,” Bryant said. “The only thing they ever said about Ghulam Nabi is that when all the families were in this room with Catholic Charities, and there’s a room full of adults arguing, [S.S.] seemed tense. And she was sitting next to her uncle. That was the only argument of substance they ever made.”

Theresa Flannery, senior director of social services at Catholic Charities, who attended the meeting Bryant described, said she recalled nothing that would have indicated S.S.’s preference for anyone. Flannery was called as a witness at trial but said that she could not recall what she had been asked.

The case ended with custody of S.S. awarded to Daniel and Amy Roberts — the youth and family pastor of Memorial Road Church of Christ and a vice president of admissions at Oklahoma Christian Academy, respectively. Neither responded to requests for comment.

Safi was granted limited visitation rights. Bryant said Harrington left open the possibility of returning S.S. to her parents if they arrived in the United States, but until then, S.S. would remain with the Roberts family.

“A full week of trial, and I still don’t understand how they were actually able to win that thing,” Bryant said.

Safi said that as of February, S.S.’s biological parents had relocated from Pakistan to Germany. Attorneys will soon file a motion in Harrington’s courtroom to have S.S. sent to Germany to be reunited with them.

Orders Entered
Without Following Rules

The case of S.S. is not an isolated example. Another case from Harrington’s courtroom in the adult system reveals how Oklahoma guardianship sometimes fails those it is meant to protect.

When she was five years old, Norma June Bowden performed a daring 12-foot ladder dive at the 1938 World’s Fair in Los Angeles.

Nearly a century later in Oklahoma City, 90 years old and widowed, Norma June Harris became the subject of a contentious guardianship battle among four of her children, represented in the main by two sons, Glenn Harris Jr., a wealthy insurance agent, and Hal Harris, a flight instructor.

Norma Harris was a feisty, independent-minded business owner who did not respond docilely when Glenn Harris first sought and was granted temporary guardianship over his mother’s estate, Hal Harris said.

“My brother is very domineering and controlling,” Hal Haris said. “He needs to be in control of everything or everyone will pay like hell.”

Norma Harris marched to the courthouse so she could tell the judge who originally heard the case that she did not need guardianship, Hal Harris said.

The judge revoked the temporary guardianship; no finding of incapacity was entered. Norma Harris promptly rewrote her 2010 will to exclude Glenn Harris.

Glenn Harris appealed, and managed to get the first judge disqualified. Harrington was then assigned to the case.

The first irregularity in the case, Hal Harris said, was Harrington’s order to assign a guardian ad litem, a court-appointed advocate, to Norma Harris’s case in the absence of any finding of incapacity.

“My mom was adamantly opposed to it,” Hal Harris said.

A civil case was filed alongside the guardianship case, making some of the proceedings public and drawing in more attorneys whose fees began to drain the estate over which the battle was being fought.

An attorney who worked on the case was struck by the number of judicial decisions that were made without any finding of incapacity. It was a fundamental denial of due process, the source said.

“All the significant orders just got entered without following the rules,” the source said.

Norma Harris died on May 4, 2025.

Glenn Harris continued the fight. Three sources familiar with the case expressed surprise that, in choosing among Norma Harris’ children for a special administrator of her estate, Harrington chose Glenn Harris, the son that Norma Harris had written out of her will.

After a November 2025 hearing, Glenn Harris called Oklahoma Watch to offer his unvarnished opinion of guardianship judges.

“They don’t know shit,” Glenn Harris said. “They don’t know the law. It’s mind-boggling.”

A dim view of Harrington was a rare point of agreement between the feuding Harris brothers.

“She is inept and incompetent, and she should not be a judge,” Hal Harris said.

Frustrated litigants may or may not be the best source to expound on the performance of guardianship judges. However, Diane Dimond, a seasoned investigative journalist who wrote numerous stories about the guardianship system nationwide before authoring a book on the subject, is highly qualified. Dimond singled out the secrecy of guardianship and conservatorship systems as central to their susceptibility to fraud and abuse.

She also pointed to the role of guardianship judges.

“There are so many threads to abusive and financially exploitative guardianships that it’s hard to grab on to one and say, ‘This is the problem,’” Dimond said. “But after hearing hundreds of stories, I came to realize that none of this would happen except for the judges.”

Dimond offered a singular piece of advice for anyone investigating the system.

“Always look at the background of these judges,” Dimond said.

Oh, For the Love of God

Since issuing her ruling against the press, Harrington’s online presence has begun to evaporate. Her LinkedIn page has been taken down, as has the website for the solo law firm she ran prior to becoming a judge. Harrington advertised herself as a “divorce attorney who doesn’t like divorce.”

By way of contrast, a side hustle as a humorist and public speaker that Harrington has sustained since at least 2016 has not disappeared.

A website, fatbottomfiftiesgetfierce.com, promotes two books that are collections of satiric neologisms. Despite Amazon rankings below 5 million, the website claims that the first book was a bestseller and the second a #1 bestseller. A corresponding Facebook group boasts of 487,000 followers and has continued to feature pithy daily axioms even after Harrington took on the role of special judge in December 2023.

Harrington uses a second Facebook group, Oh, For the Love of God!, with 83,000 followers, to offer similar daily tidbits with an explicit Christian theme.

During the months of the custody fight over Afghan refugee S.S., which resulted in the girl being given to an evangelical family despite the presence of a fit biological relative, Harrington put out hundreds of posts espousing bits of scripture.

An 11-Minute Hearing

A third case of Harrington’s, another child case, reveals that the underlying problems in the Oklahoma guardianship system do not begin or end in a single courtroom.

In 2014, Kristine and Dennis Rice were awarded co-guardianship of Dennis Rice’s granddaughter, K.R., then an infant. K.R.’s biological mother was in prison in Colorado; her biological father was unknown.

Kristine Rice raised K.R. as her own child for more than a decade.

The Rice marriage deteriorated. In 2018, a physical altercation resulted in Dennis Rice’s arrest; a police report photo documents an injury to Kristine Rice’s face. In 2021, K.R., then about 7 years old, wet herself during one of Dennis Rice’s outbursts of anger, Kristine Rice said. Kristine Rice left with K.R. and complex court battles began.

The first guardianship judge assigned to K.R.’s case, Special Judge Allen J. Welch, affirmed supervision orders limiting Dennis Rice’s visitation. Dennis Rice then disappeared from the proceedings from June 2023 to January 2025.

When he returned, Welch had retired. The case was transferred to Harrington, who immediately restored Dennis Rice’s visitation rights.

Oklahoma Watch obtained treatment reports from K.R.’s therapist that were available to Harrington and contained direct statements from the child.

In January 2025, K.R. described home with Kristine Rice as her only refuge: “Well, I feel like I don’t get a break from stuff happening in my life so school, my friends, and being at home helps distract me from everything else but now it’s like I can’t escape it at all.”

In March 2025, K.R. said she did not want overnight visits with Dennis Rice: “I definitely know that I don’t want to do any overnights with him though, unless I was somehow able to trust him again but I know his anger is still there.”

By April 2025, K.R. was expressing fear about the future: “I’m afraid of how he’ll treat me and I’m so scared that he will somehow get all the control and keep me from ever seeing my mom again.”

On Oct. 8, 2025, Kristine Rice filed a motion to have Harrington removed from the case. The following day, because of that motion, Oklahoma County Special Judge Karen Aguilar was brought in to conduct a hearing.

Kristine Rice’s attorney, Rob Hopkins, who was also on the team of attorneys representing the family of S.S., was out of state for medical reasons and participated only by phone. Technical difficulties impaired Hopkins’ ability to follow the proceedings. The hearing lasted 11 minutes. The transcript shows that Hopkins was given only a few minutes to argue his client’s position.

Despite the documented arrest for domestic abuse and the abbreviated hearing, Aguilar awarded sole custody of K.R. to Dennis Rice.

“She wasn’t going to give Ms. Rice a fair shake,” said Hopkins, describing Harrington’s position before the recusal motion was filed.

“Every time I go to court now, I lose more of her,” Kristine Rice said of K.R. “Every hearing strips her of rights. Every ruling pulls her further into a situation she begged me to protect her from.”

The story took another troubling turn in February, when Kristine Rice said she overheard, from outside Aguilar’s chambers, the judge telling Hopkins that she was recusing from the case. The reason: Courtney Schamel, K.R.’s court-appointed guardian ad litem, was also Aguilar’s personal attorney in Aguilar’s own divorce proceeding.

Court documents confirm that Schamel represents Aguilar. There was no explanation for why Aguilar did not disclose the conflict of interest at the time of the 11-minute hearing that determined K.R.’s fate.

In December 2025, Oklahoma County District Court Judge Amy Palumbo separately removed Harrington from K.R.’s case, citing the high probability of bias given the recusal motion Kristine Rice had filed.

The case has now been assigned to yet another judge. Dennis Rice, his attorney Lindsey Sherwood, and Schamel all declined to comment.

A System Under Strain

The systemic shortcomings in these three cases — compressed hearings, undisclosed conflicts of interest, sealed records that make outside scrutiny nearly impossible — reflect problems that experts say are widespread in American guardianship courts, and that Oklahoma is particularly ill-equipped to address.

Furthermore, the law has not kept pace with the scenarios that guardianship courts now encounter. Child guardianship cases in Oklahoma are presumptively closed, making them even harder to investigate than adult guardianship cases.

In adult guardianship cases, the financial stakes compound the problem.

The guardianship industry handles an estimated $50 billion in wards’ assets annually nationwide, according to Rick Black, founder of the Center for Estate Administration Reform, which has investigated more than 5,000 suspect adult guardianships since 2013.

“A system that is incapable of correcting its most outrageous defects is the definition of a broken system,” Black said. “Sadly, due to the influence and independence of this system’s managers and beneficiaries, executive and legislative branch leaders in each state have not taken appropriate action. In this regard, the checks and balances between the judicial, legislative, and executive branches are all failing vulnerable Oklahomans and their loved ones.”

Journalist Dimond continued to hold that the quality of guardianship judges is the linchpin on which all other problems with the guardianship system turn.

“People don’t understand,” Dimond said. “Judges in these cases can erase your will, your power of attorney, your health care proxy — they can even break your irrevocable trust.”

Attorneys familiar with Oklahoma’s guardianship system said the bench is unevenly prepared. Several lawyers said the system could be improved with training for new judges before they take office and continuing education as their careers proceed.

“If you get elevated to special judge and you’ve never practiced in probate or guardianship, it’s gonna be an uphill climb so you don’t get bamboozled by counsel who appear before you,” said one guardianship attorney who practices in multiple states.

Anthony Palmieri, former president of the National Guardianship Association and a long-time fraud investigator in the Florida guardianship system, said that most guardianship judges are sincere professionals but that bad actors exist.

“I’ve found cases in which the professional guardian was engaging in corruption with the judiciary,” Palmieri said.

Cost is its own obstacle. Attorneys said it is nearly impossible to fully litigate a guardianship case in Oklahoma for less than $100,000, a threshold that puts meaningful legal recourse out of reach for most families.

Canadian jurist Brownstone acknowledged the differences between his system and Oklahoma’s, and argued that transparency ought to serve as a form of accountability.

“I do think that would help people come to understand decisions by the same judge that are off the rails,” Brownstone said. “If the documents were public, more people would find out about these decisions and then they could get together and make an effort to get this person removed.”

For Kristine Rice, the system’s failures are not abstract. She found a provision in Title 43 of Oklahoma statutes — the section governing marriage, not guardianship — that appears to directly contradict Aguilar’s order granting sole custody of K.R. to Dennis Rice. Section 109.3 specifies that, absent other evidence, custody should not be granted to anyone who has engaged in abusive or harassing behavior, and establishes a rebuttable presumption against such grants.

Kristine Rice’s fight will continue with another hearing before Oklahoma County Special Judge Martha Oakes on April 7. It has been more than five months since K.R. saw the only woman she ever knew as mother.

Editor’s Note: This story was updated on Mar. 19, 2026, to correct Ghulam Nabi Safi’s job description.  

Full Article & Source:
11-minute hearings, hidden conflicts: inside Oklahoma’s broken guardianship system 

Tuesday, March 24, 2026

California Fiduciary Accused of Stealing from Alzheimer's Patient's Trust

Angelique Friend allegedly used her position to hire her husband's company and pay herself over $165,000 while caring for the incapacitated woman. 


A California fiduciary named Angelique Friend is accused of stealing from the trust of an Alzheimer's patient, Patricia Mettler, whom she was put in charge of overseeing. Friend allegedly hired her husband's company, Towngate In-Home Services, to care for Mettler and paid the company over $1.1 million, while also paying herself over $165,000 from the trust. The lawsuit alleges Friend failed to disclose the conflict of interest to Mettler's attorney.

Why it matters

This case highlights the importance of oversight and accountability for those entrusted with managing the affairs of vulnerable individuals. Fiduciaries have a legal and ethical duty to act in the best interests of their clients, and this alleged abuse of power for personal gain raises concerns about the potential for elder financial exploitation.

The details

According to court documents, Mettler was in poor health with Alzheimer's when Friend was put in charge of her trust in 2021. Friend immediately hired Towngate In-Home Services, a company owned by her husband David Esquibias, to care for Mettler. Over the nearly four-year period, the estate paid Towngate $1.1 million, while Friend also paid herself over $165,000, totaling $1.275 million. The lawsuit alleges Friend failed to disclose the conflict of interest to Mettler's attorney.

  • Friend was put in charge of Mettler's trust in 2021.
  • Towngate In-Home Services cared for Mettler for nearly four years.

The players

Angelique Friend

A California fiduciary accused of stealing from the trust of an Alzheimer's patient, Patricia Mettler, whom she was put in charge of overseeing.

Patricia Mettler

An Alzheimer's patient in Southern California whose trust was allegedly mismanaged by Angelique Friend.

David Esquibias

Angelique Friend's husband, who owns the company Towngate In-Home Services that was paid over $1.1 million to care for Mettler.

What’s next

Relatives are asking for Friend to be removed as trustee and for the return of all assets 'improperly disbursed'. They are also asking for attorney fees to be paid.

The takeaway

This case highlights the need for stronger oversight and accountability measures to protect vulnerable individuals from financial exploitation by those entrusted with managing their affairs. It underscores the importance of fiduciaries upholding their legal and ethical duties to act in the best interests of their clients. 

Full Article & Source:
California Fiduciary Accused of Stealing from Alzheimer's Patient's Trust 

Tommy Hearns Under Conservatorship


A Michigan judge appointed Ronald Hearns as the sole guardian and conservator for his father, Tommy Hearns.

The ruling follows a series of emergency hearings in Oakland County prompted by concerns from Adult Protective Services regarding the 67-year-old’s vulnerability and potential financial exploitation by other family members. This ruling gives Ronald authority over his father’s personal and medical care, including where he lives and his healthcare decisions. Hearns, who was diagnosed with dementia, is currently living with Ronald.

This specifically grants Ronald control over his father’s finances and assets. The move was deemed necessary after reports surfaced of unauthorized GoFundMe campaigns and suspicious real estate transactions involving other relatives while Hearns’ health was in decline.

The Future

The guardianship comes as Hearns continues to navigate a challenging physical and cognitive recovery. In July 2025, Hearns underwent a successful hip replacement surgery to address a long-standing “bone-on-bone” condition. While the surgery was a success, his recovery has been complicated by the ongoing progression of dementia. Despite his health issues, Ronald Hearns noted that his father remains active and is still scheduled to make a public appearance at the Box Fan Expo in Las Vegas on May 2, 2026.

“My job with the conservator and the court is to make sure that nobody takes advantage of him and he is treated with dignity and respect that he so richly deserves,” Wolf Mueller (Ronald’s attorney) 

“Just keep praying for my dad and the family as we move forward in our lives. That’s my main goal, to make sure that he’s enjoying his life and nobody else can hurt him in any kind of way, financially, physically, or mentally,” Ronald

Full Article & Source:
Tommy Hearns Under Conservatorship 

Monday, March 23, 2026

Accused of Neglect: Connecticut conservator faces disbarment and lawsuits


by Alex Appel

Kristin Exner, a Connecticut lawyer and state-appointed conservator, made headlines last year when another attorney petitioned to have her disbarred. That petition followed two instances in which she sold houses owned by people whose estates she controlled to the co-owner of her real estate business. The houses were allegedly sold below market rate and then resold by her real estate company for a profit. 

The complaint was forwarded to a local grievance panel by the Statewide Bar Counsel’s Office on Feb. 26. In the meantime, Exner will not be appointed to manage new cases in the Milford-Orange Probate Court, according to court documents. 

In addition to that petition, court records show that three Connecticut nursing homes have accused Exner of neglecting eight people in conservatorships by failing to maintain their Medicaid benefits. These nursing homes have not received payments for care, one of Exner’s responsibilities as a conservator, allegedly shorting them almost $195,000, which they are seeking to recover via lawsuits.

Exner tells a different story. She calls these suits “baseless,” “frivolous,” and says they “have no merit.”  Court records show that the lawyer who filed the petition to have Exner disbarred has represented multiple people in suing Exner, and defended a woman who was ultimately removed from a conservatorship that Exner took over. 

This investigation provides an overview of the role of a conservator, a summary of the issues documented at the Norwalk-Wilton Probate Court, and the allegations made by nursing homes currently working their way through Connecticut’s judicial system.

An Appointed Power

conservator is someone appointed by a probate court judge to oversee the personal or financial affairs of an incapacitated adult who is deemed incapable of competently managing on their own. According to a report published by Connecticut’s Probate Court Administrator Workgroup, conservators are most often relatives; however, if a court determines that an adult needs a conservator but cannot find a relative or close friend who is fit to manage that adult’s affairs, a judge may appoint a third-party lawyer.

That’s where Exner’s role as a state-appointed conservator comes in. 

Exner is one of hundreds of lawyers in the state whom judges appoint to manage conservatorships. Like other lawyers in this line of work, she is either paid by the conserved person via their financial assets or through a state fund. As is required by law, if she is working for a person with an estate, she charges an hourly rate for the work she does to manage the conservatorship and then submits the invoices to a probate judge for approval. Once the invoices are cleared, she can receive payment. 

If a person is indigent, Exner receives compensation through the Probate Court Administrative Fund, which has taxpayer money that is appropriated to the Judicial Department. In those instances, there is a flat rate of $90 a month, with an additional one-time payment of $1,300 to handle Medicaid applications, which her case files indicate is substantially less than what she charges in her private practice. 

Conservatorship can be controversial in Connecticut and across the country. In the past few years, there have been highly publicized instances of conservators abusing their power. 

There are even some high profile celebrities that were placed under conservatorships, including Britney Spears, whose parents allegedly forced her to have an IUD and prohibited her from getting married, former Beach Boys member Brian Wilson whose conservator Eugene Landy who gave him unnecessary psychiatric medication and had him monitored 24-7, and former NFL quarterback Michael Oher, the player who inspired “The Blind Side,” who claimed that his conservators lied to him to get him to sign away his rights by claiming he was being adopted. In all of these cases, the conservators extracted millions of dollars from the conserved people over the course of many years. 

But most instances of conservatorship abuse do not involve millionaires or celebrities. 

There are an estimated 1.5 million adults and $273 billion under the control of guardians or conservators in the United States.

“The extent of elder abuse by guardians [and conservatorship] nationally is unknown due to limited data on key factors related to elder abuse by a guardian, such as the numbers of guardians serving older adults, older adults in guardianships, and cases of elder abuse by a guardian,” a 2016 report from the federal Government Accountability Office (GAO) found. 

The lack of transparency and comprehensive understanding is, in part, due to a lack of comprehensive documentation of the various types of elder abuse committed by different types of guardians, including conservators. However, the GAO researchers did find indications that financial abuse is the most common form of elder abuse in guardianship. 

No one has accused Exner of abusing any of her conservatees, but she is facing multiple charges of negligence. Additionally, she is accused of selling two houses that were a part of estates she managed, including one that was in a conservatorship, to a man with whom she co-owned a real estate company.

Exner declined to comment on the house sales because they were a part of ongoing litigation. 

The Norwalk-Wilton Probate Court District

Inside Investigator reviewed the files for 16 open conservatorships Exner manages in the Norwalk-Wilton Probate Court District. This is not a comprehensive list of her conservatorship cases, and Exner did not respond to a question about how many conservatorships she is managing in total. 

Filings show that Exner charges $250 per hour for her services when she is managing someone who has an estate, and one of her paralegals charges $150 an hour. For one of the conserved people she is managing—a 72-year-old man with depression, benign prostatic hyperplasia, and who thinks he has dementia, even though his medical evaluations do not indicate that—her law firm was paid $13,800 for services rendered in a two-year period between April 2023 and May 2025.

That man’s files contain an email exchange between him and Exner during her annual check-in, and the notes from that check-in. According to those documents, both he and Exner are happy with the conservatorship arrangement. 

Some of her other cases are more complex.

Sometimes she made decisions that the conserved individual did not like. 

For example, Exner sold the house of one of the conserved persons under her care, against that woman’s wishes. The house in question had plumbing and structural issues, which the woman could not afford to fix, according to Exner’s report. Even though the woman was financially supporting her two adult sons, who lived in the house, prior to becoming conserved she had not paid her bills for months leading up to the sale. Finally, the home was facing foreclosure. Exner was appointed as the conservator, paid the bills, and by the time Exner sold the house, the woman had already moved in with her granddaughter.

Almost all of the people identified by Inside Investigator whose affairs Exner managed needed help managing their healthcare. All but three people under her care in the Norwalk-Wilton district suffered from dementia or severe mental illness when they were assigned a conservator. 

Of the three conserved people who Exner managed without dementia or documented mental illness, one of them was a brain-dead homeless man who was brought to Norwalk Hospital after he was discovered unconscious in a bush. He was on a ventilator for several weeks but was not responding to treatment. The staff at the Hospital could not find a living relative, nor any documentation that stated whether or not he wanted to be resuscitated. Hospital officials petitioned the court to appoint a conservator, who wound up being Exner, then advised Exner to tell them to take him off life support. She did.

The second was a woman who did not have any documented mental illnesses, but she was flagged for conservatorship when she refused medical treatment at a hospital. Exner was appointed to her case to get her medical treatment. According to filings in her conservatorship case, the Department of Children and Families (DCF) opened a case into that woman’s child because of suspected domestic violence. A Motion for Advice submitted by Exner states, “the Conservator has a reasonable belief of domestic violence and abuse in the home against (her), and that she is not capable of making decisions for her safety and well being.” 

The last person was a 79-year-old woman of sound mind who petitioned the court to voluntarily enter a conservatorship last year because she needed help re-applying for Medicaid. 

Even though Medicaid is legally guaranteed for people below a certain income threshold, it can be difficult to obtain. 

In 2012, a group of 5,000 Connecticut residents sued the Department of Social Services (DSS) for taking too long to process Medicaid applications. State law required most Medicaid applications to be processed within 45 days, but thousands of people had to wait longer. The class-action lawsuit was settled in 2014, and as a part of the settlement, the state had to commit to hiring 109 more people to help process applications and to process at least 92% of Medicaid and short-term care applications within the statutory timeframe by 2016. The state was given a two-year extension to meet that deadline, but fell behind. In 2018, only 85% of applications were processed on time.

Things turned around shortly after. By 2022, 98% of Medicaid applications were being processed within 24 hours of submission. However, submitting the application is only one step in the process. To get Medicaid for assisted living, a person needs to submit financial documents from the previous five years to prove they qualify for help. It can take months to gather the paperwork needed to apply for Medicaid.

While attorney fees vary, typically, the type of lawyer who practices elder law charges between $200 and $250 per hour.

The consequences for not obtaining Medicaid can be dire. 

There are only six reasons that a nursing home can evict a patient, and non-payment is one of them. A home is required to give residents 30 days’ notice before eviction, and a resident or their representative can appeal. These appeal processes can drag on for months, but at the end of the day, state officials cannot force a nursing home to continue to care for a nonpaying resident. 

The lawsuits against Exner show that homes will keep a resident despite months, and sometimes years, of non-payment. If a resident has a pending application for Medicaid, a nursing home legally cannot evict them. However, during this time, debt can accumulate. 

Sometimes, this debt can be paid retroactively from portions of the person’s estate. One of the nursing homes that is suing Exner is trying to access the estate of a deceased man whose conservatorship she managed. Since she was his legal representative in life, she is automatically listed as a defendant, even though she is no longer managing his estate. That man has a daughter, who is also being sued.

In the worst-case scenario, a resident is evicted. 

One of Exner’s conservatees was evicted from a nursing home in 2023, before she managed his case. The man, who had severe medical conditions, was homeless for a period of time and lived in various hospitals until Exner found a home where he could live. This conservatee was determined to be not of sound mind and couldn’t make decisions for himself.

Less than a year ago, Exner became a conservator of that 79-year-old woman who was of sound mind. When Inside Investigator reviewed the court records in mid-February, it was not clear if Exner had yet successfully helped the woman reapply for Medicaid. The records also did not contain any invoices.  The conserved person continued to live at the nursing home she resided in when she voluntarily asked to be placed under a conservatorship, Wilton Meadows Nursing & Rehabilitation in Wilton, until Feb. 9, according to a social worker at the center. She left the nursing home to live with her family.

The social worker said that Exner and her office were “nothing but excellent and responsive,” and “we had no issues or problems working with them.” 

But not every nursing home has had positive experiences with Exner. 

Nursing Home Allegations

Nursing Home Allegations

Inside Investigator found four lawsuits filed by nursing homes against Exner in the state of Connecticut. Three of them, which were all filed in 2023, are still ongoing. Those three each contain allegations that Exner neglected people under her care by mismanaging their Medicaid payments and applications. 

The three active lawsuits came from the Waterbury Center for Nursing & Rehabilitation, the West Haven Center for Nursing & Rehabilitation, and the Southport Center for Nursing & Rehabilitation. Together, these lawsuits allege Exner improperly managed Medicaid applications and payments made to eight senior citizens. 

All three lawsuits were filed by attorney Taruna Garg at Harris Beach Murtha Attorneys at Law. Each lawsuit starts with a list of 19 identical lines outlining the responsibilities Exner had to ensure the people in her care had Medicaid, and why that was important. Then, it repeats those 19 lines when it outlines each “count” of negligence it accuses Exner of. In each lawsuit, there is one count per resident in Exner’s care.

“In connection with her appointment as conservator of the estate of the wards referenced herein,” each lawsuit states, “Exner has been granted both the duty and authority to enroll in, apply for, and claim benefits from federal or state benefit programs, including Medicaid. At all relevant times herein, Exner knew or should have known that public assistance would be required to cover the monthly cost of services provided by Plaintiff for the care, comfort, and maintenance of her wards, including lodging and meals. Exner was obligated to perform her duties within a reasonable time given the circumstances of each ward… Exner has failed to fulfill her statutory obligations to timely apply for and obtain benefits, among other actions, on behalf of her ward.”

Exner categorically denies these claims.

“Those allegations were part of frivolous lawsuits that have either been withdrawn or are in the process of being withdrawn, and are factually false,” Exner said in an email. “In every instance where I am appointed conservator, my sole priority is the welfare of the person to whom I have been appointed.”

Some of the claims made by the nursing homes have already been withdrawn. Each complaint was amended multiple times. All Centers removed Exner’s former employer, Gallo & Associates, LLC, as a defendant, modified language in the complaints, and made additional revisions to remove counts of neglect.

The Waterbury Center revised its initial complaint twice, in addition to removing Gallo & Associates as a defendant. It struck three counts of negligence and revised the alleged dollar amounts lost in one case. The nursing home initially calculated that a patient owed $112,000 in debt, but increased the estimated debt to $139,000.

The West Haven Center also made two revisions that each removed a single count of alleged neglect. The Southport Center also submitted two revisions that withdrew two counts of neglect. 

When withdrawing one count of neglect, the Southport center also withdrew an allegation that Exner transferred $100,000 from a resident’s bank account to her employer, and that she charged improper rates. 

Garg filed a separate lawsuit for each nursing home before combining the three into one lawsuit.

Online judicial records show that Garg filed for three extensions to provide evidence of these claims, and Exner applied for one extension of time to plead. Garg attempted to get a default decision against Exner for “failure to plead,” but that was rejected. 

Garg did not respond to questions.

“I have no comment on those cases,” Garg said.

But there are other records in the Norwalk probate files that indicate persistent problems with Exner.

In 2023, the Business Office Manager at the Southport Center for Nursing and Rehabilitation, Marcia Henry, emailed the probate court, asking Exner to be removed as the conservator of a resident mentioned in the lawsuit, although the allegation of neglect was later withdrawn. The email stated, “I have attempted to reach out to Attorney Exner on numerous occasions via calls to her office in which I would speak to [a] representative who would transfer to her voicemail with no return call. I have sent numerous emails with no response. (The resident Medicaid application) has been down since 07/19/2013 due to lack of supportive documents such as bank statements and [updated] gross pension benefits needed from the conservator. This is a serious matter now that the resident has no medical insurance coverage and owes the facility money.”

When asked about this email, Exner said, “[He] remains a client for whom I am serving as conservator, and we remain in regular contact. I was not familiar with those claims, but I can tell you based on my knowledge of the case that they are baseless.”

Exner has also had other issues with nursing homes. 

Another facility, the Mary Wade Home in New Haven, is suing Exner and the daughter of a deceased former resident, whose conservatorship Exner managed. The Mary Wade Home is accusing Exner of failing to get Medicaid for the conserved person and claimed that he owed them over $80,000 by the time he died. The Mary Wade Home filed the lawsuit to try to get some money from his estate, according to court filings.

The petition for discovery states that Exner was applying for Medicaid on behalf of the conservatee when he was admitted to the home, but that application was later denied. The complaint states that staff at the Mary Wade Home tried to collect payment for the year that he lived there, but no payments were sent. 

Exner say these claims are “incorrect.”

“His Medicaid application was not denied,” she wrote in an email. “As with all of my clients in which I am appointed conservator, my sole goal is to maintain their dignity, keep them safe and try and help them make their lives more livable. That was the case here as well.”

The Ludlow Center for Health and Rehabilitation also sued Exner, accusing her of failing to apply for Medicaid on behalf of a resident and, consequently, not paying the nursing home for their services. The home won a default judgment because she failed to plead. 

Garg has represented at least one other nursing home in a case against a different conservator, the Connecticut Judicial Branch’s online portal shows. In the lawsuit, the Plaintiff won a default judgment because the conservators failed to plead.

Damon Kirschbaum, the lawyer who filed for Exner to be disbarred, has had multiple run-ins with Exner. This includes one lawsuit where he represented a woman who was removed from a case that Exner took over. The former conservator, Rachel Menti, was initially designed by the conserved person himself. But she was removed when his family made numerous allegations of misconduct against her, and she was caught lying about her relationship with him to the staff at a hospital. Menti, who had no familial relationship to the man, told staff at a hospital that she was his daughter. 

Conclusion

None of the nursing homes who have sued Exner for negligence evicted the residents they claim owe them money. 

According to the most up-to-date court documents, the Southport nursing home calculates its current losses at around $36,454.85. The nursing homes in West Haven and Waterbury calculate their losses at around $20,000 and $139,000, respectively. 

The nursing homes’ court filings each accuse Exner of trying to remove residents from their care in response to their complaints.

Each of the three active lawsuits against Exner simultaneously claims that “harm and losses are anticipated to continue accruing” if the residents remain in their care, and that Exner is “retaliating” against them by moving residents out of the facilities “in an effort to cause additional harm.” Inside Investigator was not able to confirm the current addresses of the four residents listed in the lawsuit. 

Last year, Exner tried to persuade the Connecticut General Assembly to give conservators qualified immunity “for actions taken in good faith and in accordance with court orders,” according to a testimony she submitted. 

A Trial Management Conference for the three lawsuits filed by Garg is scheduled for the morning of November 10, 2026. If a settlement is not reached, the case will move to a jury trial. A jury selection date has already been set for November 19, 2026.

One of the lawsuits filed by Kirschbaum, in which his client is accusing Exner of mismanaging his mother’s estate when she was his conservator and selling her house to her business partner, has a hearing scheduled for the morning of Monday, March 23.

“This is an ongoing case and therefore I am unable to comment,” Exner said in an email. 

Full Article & Source:
Accused of Neglect: Connecticut conservator faces disbarment and lawsuits