Conservatorships should be a last resort

By Zoe Brennan-Krohn

Imagine that someone else could make every single decision about your life for you. Maybe that person is a parent, maybe they’re a stranger, maybe they’re someone you don’t like very much, and they can decide what you eat, who you see and spend time with, where you live, what medications you take, what job you do, and how you spend your money. This is the reality of being in a conservatorship or guardianship for untold thousands of people in the United States.

Sometimes people seek conservatorships in an effort to protect a loved one with a disability. However, conservatorships carry real risks and can cause real harm. Because of this, conservatorships should be as a last resort, imposed sparingly, lifted promptly, and overseen diligently.

Unfortunately, this is not the reality in the United States today. Too often, conservatorships are granted as a “first resort” when a person with disabilities reaches adulthood or encounters difficulties, or experiences age-related disabilities. Instead of so many conservatorships, we should have systems in place for people with disabilities — like people without disabilities — to live their lives with support and without losing their rights.

Conservatorships are a systemic disability rights issue because of the ease with which disabled people can be stripped of their rights under conservatorships, and the extraordinary difficulties they face getting those rights back.

In a conservatorship or guardianship, a judge takes away the civil liberties from one person and gives someone else the power to make these choices instead. It is the court weighing into the person’s life and saying you, as a person with a disability, are no longer free to make decisions about yourself and livelihood — such as where you live and how you support yourself — and we are putting someone else in charge of making those decisions.

There are many less intrusive, less dangerous ways for people to access the support they need without being placed under a conservatorship. Conservatorships should be the last resort, when all other support options have been tried. Sadly, this is too rarely the case.

Recently, there has been increased public attention around conservatorships because of Britney Spears’ case. We don’t know the details of Britney Spears’ conservatorship, which has been in place since 2008, but while Spears’ conservatorship has gotten attention because of her fame, her conservatorship appears, in many ways, very typical of the experiences of untold people across the country.

We see people nationwide who get into conservatorships and cannot get out of them. Spears is just one of the estimated 1.5 million people with disabilities nationwide who have lost their rights to make choices about their money, their medical choices, whether they can access the internet, among other day-to-day life choices, and who have almost no chance of getting those rights back.

People end up under conservatorships or guardianships based on a wide range of disabilities, including psychiatric disabilities, developmental or intellectual disabilities, age-related disabilities like dementia, and other types of disabilities. But there are many less invasive, more protective systems for people with disabilities to get support in their lives without giving up their rights or putting their fate in the hands of strangers. These alternatives to conservatorship include powers of attorney, advanced medical directives, releases to share medical and educational information, and supported decision-making.

All of these alternatives allow people with disabilities to get support in directing their own lives, just like people without disabilities do. We all ask friends for advice, we research issues, we talk through pros and cons. People with disabilities should have the same opportunity to use these systems, with assistance and support, and without a sacrifice of their civil rights and liberties.

The ease with which people get trapped in conservatorships is particularly troubling because of the risks and harms of conservatorships. People under conservatorships are at risk of financial, physical and emotional abuse, neglect and exploitation. And even when there isn’t abuse, conservatorships limit a person’s ability to advocate for themselves, to learn from their decisions and mistakes, and to grow and develop. There is a harm in being told that your opinions, your likes and dislikes, don’t matter. It actually makes it harder to protect yourself from abuse or neglect. So in any conservatorship, we would want to know that the real risks (and benefits) of both conservatorship and its alternatives have been seriously weighed.

All people with disabilities have a right to lead self-directed lives and retain their civil rights, and to access support, education and guidance in doing so. We must fight against the unnecessary and dangerous removal of disabled people’s civil rights, and ensure conservatorships are imposed only as a last resort.

Full Article & Source:

Conservatorships should be a last resort

Ridgefield mother claims abuse in court-appointed guardianship

Collette DiVitto & Rosemary Alfredo

RIDGEFIELD -- Following an acrimonious divorce, Rosemary Alfredo and her ex-husband couldn't agree whether their then-23-year-old daughter, Collette, who has Down syndrome, should move with her to Boston.

Alfredo felt her daughter, who holds a job and graduated from a special college for students with intellectual disabilities, could live independently there, with help from more comprehensive Massachusetts social services.

Her father disagreed, arguing Collette should be placed in a group home in Ridgefield.

So the couple went to Probate Court, where Judge Joseph Egan appointed a guardian ad litem, Danbury attorney Sharon Dornfeld, to represent Collette's interests and make recommendations to the judge about the move.

Alfredo at first welcomed the appointment.

"I thought it was better than dealing with my ex-husband," she said.

In May, Alfredo found a place in Boston, hoping to move there permanently with Collette. In July, the court allowed Collette to stay there temporarily, with a final decision pending an assessment by state-appointed experts.

But on Oct. 10, the judge gave Alfredo 10 days to return Collette to Connecticut to live with her father, Daniel DiVitto, in Ridgefield.

"The court is trying to take my daughter away against her will and put her somewhere where she doesn't want to be," Alfredo said.

Dornfeld refused to comment on the case, as did Elizabeth Sharpe, a Greenwich attorney appointed as Collette's limited guardian. Egan also declined to comment.

Alfredo has decided to disobey the court order. And she is fighting the guardians, who she believes are no longer acting in her daughter's best interests. She has racked up more than $50,000 in legal bills in a system she says is violating her daughter's civil liberties.

Collette is thriving in her new environment, her mother said. She works as a teacher's aide in an elementary school, goes to Zumba classes, takes self-defense lessons and has many friends.

Alfredo said Collette does not want to return to Connecticut, and she believes her daughter's wishes should be respected.

Besides, she said, the court already has access to three psychological evaluations that prove Collette's competency.

In one of those evaluations, she is described as "an articulate and sociable young woman who demonstrates a broad range of skills and resourcefulness which far exceed what one might expect on the basis of her tested IQ."

Alfredo said Collette even asked Egan in an earlier court appearance to replace Sharpe because she doesn't like her, but the judge refused.

"This is not about a mother's fight for her child," Alfredo said. "This has to do with a young girl with Down syndrome whose civil rights are being violated. She has the right to live the life that she wants and nobody is letting her do that."

Barbara Jackins, an attorney with the Special Needs Law Group of Massachusetts who is familiar with the case and with Collette, characterized Sharpe's approach to the case as "overly legalistic."

"This seems like a runaway guardianship case," Jackins said. "It's just bewildering how anyone would make (Collette) move back to Connecticut, away from a package of services in Massachusetts, and go live with her father, who she doesn't get along with."

Alfredo said she is willing to take whatever risks come from defying the court order, because she feels it's what Collette wants.

"My daughter won't go," Alfredo said. "And I'm not going to physically force her."

Full Article & Source:
Ridgefield mother claims abuse in court-appointed guardianship