Peter
Falk spent 35 years playing Columbo, television's sharpest detective.
The man who never missed a clue, never forgot a detail, never lost a
case.
But in 2008, when his daughter Catherine knocked on his door, les enfants de la télé Peter looked at her and asked: "Who are you?"
Alzheimer's had taken his memory. But what flowers
happened next was even more devastating—his wife Shera refused to let
Catherine visit. For three years, Catherine fought in court for the
right to see her dying father. She lost.
Peter Falk died on June 23, 2011. Catherine found out on TMZ.
But Catherine didn't give up. She turned her tragedy into sporting life 10k route
a mission, lobbying state legislatures across America. Today, over 10
states have passed "Peter Falk Laws"—giving adult children the legal
right to visit incapacitated parents.
This
is the story of Columbo's final case: a daughter's fight for goodbye,
and how one family's tragedy changed guardianship laws for thousands.
Melissa Joan Hart in 'Bad Guardian'. Credit: Netflix
NEED TO KNOW
In 2024, Melissa Joan Hart and La La Anthony starred in the Lifetime thriller The Bad Guardian
The
film followed Leigh, played by Hart, as she fought to free her elderly
father from a court-appointed guardian, Janet (Anthony)
Though the story is fiction, The Bad Guardian's creator said it was inspired by real-life accounts of guardianship abuse that "really happens"
The Bad Guardianchronicles
the nightmare of one woman's fight to free her father from his greedy
court-appointed guardian — a tale that's all too real for many people.
In the 2024 Lifetime thriller, Melissa Joan Hart
stars as Leigh, a woman whose father (Eric Pierpoint) is appointed a
court-ordered guardian after he falls while she's out of town.
Though the aide, Janet (La La Anthony),
appears to be helpful at first, "things quickly take a terrible turn"
and she "doesn’t waste any time placing him in a nursing home,
auctioning off his house, all worldly possessions, and using the excuse
that the proceeds are needed for his care," per the official synopsis.
Though guardianships and conservatorships have come under scrutiny in recent years due to high-profile cases involving Wendy Williams and Britney Spears, executive producer Elizabeth Stephen has said The Bad Guardian
isn’t based on a single story. Instead, the film draws from numerous
real-life accounts of alleged abuse within a system meant to protect
vulnerable people.
So, is The Bad Guardian based on a
true story? Here’s everything to know about the real-life accounts that
inspired the movie — and how its stars say it compares to the
conservatorship battles that have dominated headlines.
Is The Bad Guardian based on a true story?
Eric Pierpoint in 'Bad Guardian'. Credit: Netflix
No, The Bad Guardian isn't
based on one specific true story. However, the film's executive
producer drew inspiration from real-life accounts of abusive
guardianships that she learned about through news coverage and by
speaking with people from organizations fighting to protect vulnerable
seniors from abuse.
“Every single turn of events is true," Stephens told Tampa Bay 28
in May 2024. "It's all real ... this is the stuff that really happens
... they get into the system, and then, as you know, it's almost
impossible to get out.”
She continued, "It's just shocking.
Anybody that I watched the film with, they all talk back to the screen,
and they look at me and say, 'No, this couldn't happen. No.' "
The movie's director, Claudia Myers, echoed a similar sentiment to Storius Magazine
in June 2024, noting that "everything that happens in the film is
something that victims of guardianship abuse have experienced."
What is guardianship abuse?
La La Anthony, Melissa Joan Hart, and Luis Bordonada in 'Bad Guardian'. Credit: Netflix
The U.S. Department of Justice
defines guardianship abuse as neglect or the financial, physical,
emotional or psychological mistreatment of an older person or a person
with a disability. Guardians who take advantage of people in their care
can include family members, professional guardians, agencies and even
non-profits.
Diane Dimond, a journalist and author of We’re Here to Help – When Guardianship Goes Wrong,
wrote in a press release shared with PEOPLE in March 2024 that "some 2
million Americans" are under a guardian or conservatorship — and that
98% of people placed into this kind of care "never get out."
She added that there are "zero federal laws to regulate the guardianship/conservatorship system."
Is The Bad Guardian inspired by Wendy Williams and Britney Spears?
Wendy Williams on August 29, 2017 in Atlanta, Georgia ; Britney Spears on July 22, 2019 in Hollywood, California. Credit: Paras Griffin/Getty ; Steve Granitz/WireImage
No, The Bad Guardian is
not inspired by Williams' or Spears' cases. In fact, Hart even said
that the movie is the "opposite" of the "Hit Me, Baby One More Time"
singer's widely publicized legal battle.
“I was aware of the Britney Spears situation but that seemed very different,” Hart explained in a May 2024 interview with TV Insider.
“That was her own father coming in and putting her in a
conservatorship, and then her trying to break out of that and the whole
Free Britney thing."
She continued, "It was almost like the
opposite of this story in a sense. That’s the only kind of understanding
I had of a guardianship before the movie.”
What has Melissa Joan Hart said about TheBad Guardian?
Melissa Joan Hart attends the premiere of the live-action "How To Train Your Dragon" on June 7, 2025 in Los Angeles, California. Credit: MICHAEL TRAN/AFP via Getty
In her TV Insider interview, Hart said that The Bad Guardian story
"seemed unbelievable" to her until she learned more about the "$2.9
billion business" of guardianships. She added that it's especially
devastating for families like her character's, who don't have the money
to “fight the big fight against the corruption that happens in a lot of
these cases."
"Someone can move in and take over a family member
and take over everything from their medical decisions to their bank
accounts to their home, their property, everything," the actress
continued. "I really like the idea of shedding light on this and maybe
helping people find some information to find a way out of it.”
Though
Hart believes that "there's a place for guardianships," she maintained
that "anywhere there’s a lot of money, there’s power and greed and
corruption."
On February 5, 2023, police with no warrant and no court order and no judicial authority kidnapped with force 84-year-old Dr. Ena Farley. She was not mentally incompetent and had not been declared so. She was the sole owner of her house.
Guardianship abuse is a silent crisis
unfolding across the country, affecting some of the most high-net worth
and vulnerable members of society—our elderly and disabled. The tragic
case of Dr. Ena Farley in New York highlights the urgent need for
legislative reform to prevent the exploitation and mistreatment of those
under court-appointed guardianship. Her story is a painful reminder of
why guardianship reform laws like Karilyn’s Law (S2649) must be enacted
to protect individuals from the devastating consequences of unchecked
guardianship power.
According to Jonathan Farley, on February
5, 2023, 84-year-old Dr. Ena Farley was forcibly removed from her home,
in Monroe County, New York, by police officers—despite no warrant, court
order, or judicial authority permitting such an action. At the time,
Dr. Farley had not been declared mentally incapacitated, nor had she
been placed under an involuntary guardianship when she was physically
restrained before being taken away against her will.
Her son, Jonathan Farley, a
Harvard-educated mathematics professor who has been featured on local
and national television networks for his initiative in creating
mathematics programs for gifted students, witnessed this shocking event.
Jonathan explains, that Dr. Farley was then placed in a care facility
in Irondequoit, New York, where she was isolated from many of her family
members and friends, denied access to legal representation, and
medicated against her will. Jonathan reveals that a temporary guardian
was not even appointed until five weeks after her abduction.
Jonathan Farley asserts the evidence
suggests that Dr. Farley’s forced removal was orchestrated by her other
son, allegedly in a scheme to sell her home unlawfully. The intended
buyer was falsely presented as a home health aide but had close ties to
Dr. Farley’s other son who was later named her legal guardian. These
actions align with a disturbing pattern often seen in guardianship abuse
cases—where vulnerable individuals are isolated, medicated, and
stripped of their assets.
Sadly, Dr. Farley passed away in August
2024, just one year after her traumatic removal. According to Jonathan
Farley, months before her death, $190,000 mysteriously vanished from her
bank accounts, leaving them nearly empty. Jonathan believes that the
financial exploitation, combined with her forced isolation and
medication, ultimately contributed to her demise.
Jonathan has since spent six figures in
legal fees trying to seek justice for his mother, but the damage has
already been done. He believes that if Karilyn’s Law had been in place
in the New York State Legislature, he would have been able to get into
court within 10 days and possibly prevent the tragic sequence of events
that led to his mother’s death.
Karilyn’s Law aims to prevent the exact
type of abuse that befell Dr. Farley. By ensuring timely legal
intervention and safeguarding the rights of individuals placed under
guardianship, the law would provide essential protections against
wrongful isolation and financial exploitation.
Guardianship abuse is a growing crisis that
demands national attention. The case of Dr. Ena Farley is not an
isolated incident—it is part of a broader pattern of systemic failures
that allow for elder exploitation. The time for reform is now. We must
act to protect our elderly from becoming victims of a legal system that,
without safeguards, can be manipulated to serve the interests of the
powerful over the vulnerable.
For those interested in supporting the
cause, sharing Dr. Farley’s story, or advocating for the passage of
Karilyn’s Law, now is the time to take action to ensure that no more
lives are lost to the corruption and negligence of unchecked
guardianship authority.
Yep. Another famous one-name celeb is about to immerse herself in the often smarmy and predatory world of conservatorship. Move over Britney, this time its Cher who has turned to the courts to help her save her son, Elijah Blue, from the drugs and destructive behavior which have defined his life. On January 5 Cher is expected to file a petition temporary conservatorship of Elijah in a California court. I’m here to tell you temporary in this type of court almost always turns into a permanent situation. Once a judge establishes any kind of conservatorship (called guardianship in most states) it is next to impossible to escape the arrangement.
Cher may be relegating her son to forever live under court control. I just hope she was fully informed about the pitfalls of conservatorship. After many years investigating this routinely exploitative system I sure hope Cher realizes what a morass she may be signing up for! Does she realize that this ill-regulated and largely unsupervised system is populated by financial predators just waiting in the wings for juicy, lucrative cases like this? Simply say the words, “Cher’s son” and dollar signs pop into their eyes.
How they happen, how you can prevent them and how to persuade a judge to terminate one
By Edd and Cynthia Staton
In 2019, a judge ruled that a
73-year-old man with a history of mental illness and limited physical
capability was incapacitated and in need of a guardian. His sister (the
siblings' names are being withheld to protect their privacy) sought to
fill that role, but the presiding judge thought otherwise.
10% of U.S. adults over 60 experience a form of elder abuse each year, according to a 2022 U.S. Department of Justice study. | Credit: Photo by Yunus Tuğ
She
disagreed with decisions of the court-appointed guardian, and with her
lawyer found deficiencies in the annual accounting of her brother's
finances. Because guardians have the authority to restrict communication
with wards, as the people they care for are known, she has been unable
to speak with her brother since February 2021.
It was during this period that, after 13 years of highly publicized drama, the conservatorship of the pop singer Britney Spears
came to an end. Explosive testimony by Spears in that case pulled back
the curtain on abusive guardianships, eliciting outcries from
politicians earnestly promising to "do something." To date little
progress has been made.
Elder Abuse Is Soaring
With an aging world population, instances of elder abuse are increasing at an alarming rate. A study by the U.S. Department of Justice reveals that 10% of adults over 60
in the United States experience some form of abuse each year.
Shockingly, the research further suggests that only one of every 24
cases is reported.
A particularly disturbing aspect of this trend is guardianship abuse.
David Clark,
a lawyer in Okemos, Michigan, said this form of abuse is "not limited
to financial exploitation, but can also include physical, emotional,
and/or sexual abuse and neglect."
"It's
terrifying because more than half a million cases of abusive
guardianships of the elderly are reported in the U.S. every year, but
millions of cases go unreported," he adds.
The
scope of the problem is difficult to quantify because there is no
federal regulation over these cases. Responsibility for tracking toxic
guardianships rests with the states,
where rules vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and courts are so
under-resourced that only a handful even collect guardianship data.
Whatever records there are remain at the local level.
How Guardianships Become Toxic
Generally,
guardianship refers to protecting a person and conservatorship to
protecting the person's finances, but no formal legal definition
differentiates the terms. Here "guardianship" will be used for all of
these court-appointed arrangements.
Guardianship
is a well-intentioned legal entity designed to shield from harm those
who are truly incapable of making and communicating informed choices.
Most of the time guardians do the right thing, properly managing the
daily life of debilitated wards and protecting their property and
assets.
Tragedy arises when
vulnerable individuals are taken advantage of by those who should be
protecting them. From interviews with attorneys specializing in these
types of cases, there are two typical patterns of abuse.
Good Initial Intentions Go Wrong
A
guardianship may begin as appropriate but, over time, guardians may
lose the ability to properly care for the ward. "It could be a result of
substance abuse, mental illness — or, in cases in which the elderly
person and the guardian are closer in age — even cognitive decline in
the guardian himself," says Ryan D. Byers, a lawyer in Jacksonville, Illinois.
"This scenario is often hard to detect," he adds, "because when it began, there was nothing problematic about the guardianship."
A
second circumstance occurs when "a family member has good intentions to
help their aging relative, but doesn't realize the work, time and
emotion that will be needed to carry out the guardianship," says Travis Christiansen, a lawyer in St. George, Utah. "Thus, as time goes on, the relationship becomes abusive."
Predators Purposely Take Advantage
The
most common and appalling situation is "when a person (family or not)
deliberately seeks out vulnerable adults in order to take advantage of
them financially through guardianship," says Christiansen.
Byers
agrees that many times guardianship abuse has a financial component.
"Family members who do not have the desire to support themselves see an
opportunity to enter into an elderly person's life and have a stable
roof over their heads," he says.
Byers
further points out that if the abuser is a child, grandchild or other
family member who truly was dependent on the elderly person at an
earlier stage in life, the ward may be unwilling to sever the
relationship because of this psychological bond.
How to Prevent an Abusive Guardianship
The
Catch-22 of guardianship is that once it is in place, the ward no
longer has a voice in his or her own affairs. The guardian has control
over everything — how the ward's money is spent, where the ward lives,
even who can contact the ward. Therefore, terminating an abusive
guardianship can be extremely difficult and costly.
The key is early detection. Red flags include:
Signs of physical harm begin to appear.
The guardian suddenly moves into the ward's home.
Property starts to go missing.
Unusual financial transactions occur.
"Approaching
the elderly person directly is something that should be done only with
great caution," Byers advises, "as it can escalate abuse if the abuser
learns that he is suspected."
Every state has an Adult Protective Services agency and Area Agency on Aging. Contacting these offices can initiate an investigation in which professionals may look into allegations of abuse.
Particularly
if you are a family member, with the guidance of these agencies or an
attorney who specializes in these types of cases, it could be possible
to petition the courts for guardianship yourself. Or to seek a
restraining order that removes the abuser from the life of the elderly
person.
How to Avoid Trouble
Being
proactive in advance of a possible guardianship scenario is the best
solution to preventing future abuse. Legal steps include creating:
—Durable power of attorney.
Allows you, not a judge, to specify who you want to act as your agent.
As a further safeguard, you should require that your finances be
examined periodically by a third party of your choosing.
—Revocable (living) trust. With
this document you give someone else the power to make financial
decisions on your behalf in the event you become unable to do so. An
added benefit of this type of trust is your estate avoids going through
the state probate system.
—Advanced medical directive.
Also called a living will, it provides instructions when you are unable
to make decisions for yourself regarding your preferences for medical
care should you be terminally ill, seriously injured, in a coma, in the
late stages of dementia or near the end of life.
—Designation of pre-need guardianship. Allows
you to select your caretaker in advance if you ever becoming
incapacitated. Check to see if this legal instrument is valid in your
state.
Looking Ahead
While
guardianship law is state law, attention and funding from Congress are
essential for systemic change. Thus far, leadership at the national
level has been lacking.
Senator Bob Casey, a Democrat from Pennsylvania and chairman of the Special Committee on Aging, has introduced legislation that would establish a national Guardianship Bill of Rights. The Senate has yet to assign it to a committee for review.
Netflix
and the Bexar County attorney who were sued for defamation over an
episodic called Dirty Money featuring the court-appointed guardianship
of an elderly Texas multimillionaire have lost their first appeal.
The
Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio issued their opinion on Aug. 31
in favor of Tonya Barina who sued attorney Phil Ross, his paralegal Jo
Anne Rivera and Netflix alleging they participated in a conspiracy that
destroyed her name and reputation pertaining to Bexar County probate
court proceedings of 83-year-old Charles Thrash.
“Media
outlets that accurately report allegations made by a third party about
matters of public concern can assert the truth as a defense,” wrote
Appellate Judge Patricia Alvarez in the opinion. “However, media outlets
must be careful not to accuse, malign or take the extra step of
implying an accusation that forfeits the substantial truth defense.”
The Guardians Inc. episode about Thrash aired on March 11, 2020, but has since been removed from Netflix menu offerings.
“Because
the media appellants [Netflix] have not established that they are
entitled to dismissal through any affirmative defense, we conclude that
the trial court did not err in denying their [Texas Citizens
Participation Act] TCPA motion to dismiss accordingly,” Alvarez stated.
“We affirm.”
Appellate justices Beth Watkins and Irene Rios concurred.
As previously reported in Southeast Texas Record,
Thrash was worth some $3 million after owning an automotive shop on
West Avenue in San Antonio for 50 years and had been in the news for
marrying his divorcee girlfriend, Laura A Martinez, without his
court-appointed guardian’s permission.
"There is no actual
evidence of Barina committing wrongdoing,” Alvarez further stated.
“Therefore, if the gist of the show unfairly defames her, the immediate
appellants cannot avail themselves of the Fair Comment privilege to
obtain dismissal of appellee’s defamation suit.”
In the
defamation lawsuit against Netflix and Ross filed in Bexar County's
285th Judicial District, Barina also named Martinez and her adult
children from a previous marriage: Brittany A. Martinez, Jose H.
Martinez, and Michelle C. Martinez as defendants along with director
Alex Gibney and Gibney’s Jigsaw Productions.
Gibney is one of America's most successful and prolific documentary filmmakers, according to the New York Times.
“In
the episode, Ross, Laura, and Brittany present Thrash’s plight
impugning his guardian,” Alvarez wrote. “Ross sits behind his desk and
states confidently that Thrash has been exploited through his
guardianship. His statement is featured and never challenged throughout
the course of the documentary.”
Barina’s original complaint stated
that nearly a year before the episode aired in May 2019, Attorney Ross
and Laura Martinez were sanctioned by the Bexar County Probate Court in
the sum of $222,974 for allegedly conspiring to fleece the Thrash
estate.
Ross is reportedly subject to disciplinary proceedings.
“The
trial court had found Ross, Laura, and Brittany not to be credible and
the media appellants had been made aware of this finding,” Alvarez
concluded.
Now that the appellate court has ruled on their appeal,
Netflix is free to file a Petition for Review with the Texas Supreme
Court.
Netflix
Inc. failed to obtain a lawsuit dismissal on appeal in Texas concerning
a defamation suit that arose from a documentary on guardianship abuse
of an infirmed millionaire.
The plaintiff also sued renowned documentarian Alex Gibney, his company New York-based Jigsaw Productions, San Antonio probate attorney Philip Ross and others associated with a Dirty Money episode titled “Guardian Inc.”
In
2017, guardianship proceedings began for Charles Thrash, a successful
businessman who at 79 was suffering from Alzheimer’s disease. In 2018,
Thrash’s great-niece, Tonya Barina, became guardian of his estate.
Thrash’s girlfriend, Laura Martinez, and her adult daughter contested guardianship with the help of their attorney, Ross.
Gibney
and his associates, as part of their “Dirty Money” series for Netflix,
prepared a documentary on the Thrash case. After it aired March 11,
2020, Barina became the target of hundreds of threats. She sued for
defamation, and a Bexar County court denied the defendants’ motion for
summary judgment.
Justice Patricia O’Connell Alvarez delivered the opinion on
the defendants’ appeal. A three-judge panel concluded the episode
maligns Barina as a guardian by leading viewers to believe she took
advantage of a elderly but capable millionaire, wrongly sold his assets,
and used his estate for personal gain.
“The official proceedings for Thrash’s guardianship do not support these conclusions,” Alvarez stated.
Netflix,
the production companies and their associated defendants raised three
defenses. They claimed statements in “Guardians Inc.” are protected as
fair comment; that any comment related to probate court proceedings are
protected under official proceedings privilege; and that they cannot be
held liable for third party allegations—a reference to statements made
by the Martinezes and their attorney.
In
her analysis, Alvarez reasoned that the gist of the documentary
portrayed Barina as an exploitative guardian. She noted how the thesis
was guardianship abuse as a crime and an epidemic, that statements made
by Barina’s accusers were portrayed in a more favorable light versus
statements by Barina, and evidence supporting her and disadvantageous to
her accusers was omitted.
For
example, Laura Martinez arranged a sham marriage to Thrash after he was
mentally incompetent and then Ross signed papers on Thrash’s behalf to
have Martinez’s adult children adopted by Thrash, the opinion states.
Also,
the trial court ordered that Ross and his clients reimburse Barina’s
attorney fees that were related to sanctions they incurred from lying to
the court about the sham marriage, in violation of a court order.
Referring to the fair comment defense, Alvarez said this ignores the crux of Barina’s claim.
“There
is no actual evidence of Barina committing wrongdoing. Therefore, if
the gist of the show unfairly defames her, the Media Appellants cannot
avail themselves of the fair comment privilege,” the opinion states.
As
to the official proceedings defense, Alvarez wrote, “An accurate
portrayal of Thrash’s case in the probate court would not lead a
reasonable viewer to conclude that she should be accused of
exploitation.”
On
the third party allegations defense, Alvarez emphasized how “Guardians
Inc.” places Ross and the Martinezes in charge of Thrash’s story. The
third party rule requires a media outlet not take the additional step of
adopting or endorsing the allegations.
The
episode edits their accounts together with statements that suggest
their accusations of exploitation have been confirmed, Alvarez noted.
“‘Guardians,
Inc.’ takes that one step further, and this adoption of the allegations
disqualifies the Media Appellants from relying on the third party
allegation rule as a defense,” Alvarez states.
Carl J. Kolb of Austin and Glenn Deadman of San Antonio represent Barina.
Rachel
F. Strom and Katherine M. Bolger of Davis Wright Tremaine in New York
and Laura Lee Prather of Haynes and Boone in Austin represent Netflix
and the other defendants.
Netflix Inc.
and others lost their bid to escape a defamation lawsuit over a “Dirty
Money” episode, when a Texas appeals court said Wednesday the show
misrepresented the facts of a businessman’s guardianship when presenting
it as abusive.
“Dirty Money” is an investigative series that
bills itself as exposing greed and corruption. Tonya Barina is the
great-niece and guardian of Charles Thrash, a millionaire who made his
money from an automotive repair business. Barina sued Netflix claiming
the gist of the episode “Guardians, Inc.,” which aired in March 2020,
defamed her.
The 79-year-old Thrash was presented in the episode
as being capable of taking care of himself, with the help of his
girlfriend, Laura Martinez. However, court records indicate Thrash
suffers from Alzheimer’s disease that leaves him “totally incapacitated”
and unable to enter into a contract or marry, the Texas Fourth Court of
Appeals said.
During the episode Martinez, who is erroneously
referred as his common law wife, and others speak for Thrash, the
appeals court said. However, the defendants were aware that these
speakers were found not to be credible by the trial court in Thrash’s
guardianship case, it added.
The episode uses its score and
dramatic animations to indicate that guardianship abuse is an epidemic
that must be exposed, the court said. Barina’s interview is presented
differently than others by zooming in on her hands and feet to show her
fidgeting, and cutting away to highlighted documents or statistics to
suggest inconsistency.
An ordinary viewer would reasonably
conclude that Barina is meant to be portrayed as an exploitative
guardian who sold Thrash’s assets as his family and friends tried to
stop her, Justice Patricia O’Connell Alvarez wrote.
Nexflix
contended that they can’t be held liable simply for reporting the
accusations made by Philip Ross, Martinez’s lawyer. But the third-party
allegation rule requires a media outlet not take the additional step of
adopting or endorsing the allegations, the court said.
The trial court therefore didn’t err in denying Netflix’s motion to dismiss, the San Antonio appellate court said.
Justices Irene Rios and Beth Watkins joined the opinion.
Haynes
& Boone LLP represented Netflix, Jigsaw Productions LLC, Muddy
Water Productions LLC, Martinez, Ross, and the other defendants. Glenn
Deadman of San Antonio and Carl J. Kolb of Austin represented Barina.
A crowd protesting artist Peter Max's forced guardianship.
The Population Reference Bureau estimates that within the next eight years, more than seventy-six million
U.S. residents will be over the age of sixty-five. Many will remain
healthy, active, and engaged for the duration of their lives. Others,
however, will need assistance.
This is also true for the more than sixty-one million Americans who live with a disability, nearly eight million
of whom are estimated to need help with personal care. That’s where
guardianship—or if real estate is involved, conservatorship—comes into
play.
In its most perfect form, a guardian is appointed by a court to help an
elderly or disabled person who has been deemed “incapacitated”—defined
as being unable to manage self-care or the tasks of daily living. The
goal is to protect them from abuse, neglect, and exploitation. But as
the well-publicized guardianship cases of Peter Falk, Britney Spears, and Wendy Williams
have revealed, guardianship can include gross judicial overreach and
lead to overly restrictive control by one person over another. (Click to continue reading)
There are glaring problems within the Florida guardianship system, and we must fix them.
by Ken Burke
Britney Spears supporters celebrate outside a hearing
concerning the pop singer's conservatorship at the Stanley Mosk
Courthouse, Friday, Nov. 12, 2021, in Los Angeles. A Los Angeles judge
ended the conservatorship that has controlled Spears' life and money for
nearly 14 years. (AP Photo/Chris Pizzello) [ CHRIS PIZZELLO | AP ]
Ignited by the movement to free Britney Spears from her
conservatorship, the issues and challenges within guardianship systems
across the nation became uncharacteristically mainstream this past year.
A week seldom passes without a new article highlighting the personal
adversity of victims — both individuals under guardianship and their
family members — who have suffered or are enduring hardships within the
system.
Ken Burke [ Provided ]
As
Clerks of Court in Florida, we have a role in processing and auditing
guardianships. The courts maintain oversight of guardianship proceedings
to ensure the overall health, safety and well-being of individuals
under guardianship, and clerks monitor these proceedings on behalf of
the courts. As an administrative function, Clerks of Court also audit
annual reporting on individuals under guardianship, which include any
property submitted to the courts, and advise on the audit findings.
While most guardians work in good faith, there are far too
many cases of guardians abusing their power. The most notorious example
of abuse is the case of a former guardian in Central Florida named
Rebecca Fierle.
Fierle oversaw hundreds of individuals
who were entrusted by the court to her care. In 2019, she was arrested
and charged with abuse and neglect related to the death of an individual
under her guardianship for whom she had signed a Do Not Resuscitate
order for without the court’s consent. It was later discovered she had
collected $4 million in fees not approved by the court system and is
accused of extravagantly overcharged clients for her guardianship
services.
Rebecca Fierle[ Marion County jail ]
There
are glaring problems within the Florida guardianship system that cause
this unnecessary pain, and these challenges within the system need to be
addressed. Last year, Clerks of Court and various stakeholder agencies
and organizations with a direct interest or involvement with Florida’s
guardianship system joined together to form the Guardianship Improvement
Task Force to put forward recommendations for the Florida Legislature
and Florida courts to consider as ways to improve the system. I served
as the group’s chairperson.
Members drew upon their professional and personal life experiences to
enrich the work of the task force, which facilitated meaningful
discussion by membership and inspired passionate contributions from the
public at each meeting. With the objective of providing effective
feedback for the Legislature’s use prior to the 2022 session, the task
force held to a quick timeline for completion. In less than four months,
over the course of two in-person meetings and seven virtual meetings,
we identified and discussed dozens of topics of concern involving
Florida’s guardianship system.
Without question, the most significant issue this task force
discussed and agreed upon was a means to improve what data is available
to document problems within the guardianship system in Florida. Even
basic information such as the number of people under guardianship, the
number of guardians, how many cases each guardian has, how much money
and property are under the control of guardians, and who the individuals
are under guardianship, is not readily available.
I
personally know of one egregious case where a guardian was removed from
their eight guardianships in Pinellas County for misconduct, yet they
were appointed to a guardianship examining committee in another circuit
in the state. This happened because the judge had no way of knowing they
were removed from their former role in Pinellas. Establishing a secure,
transparent statewide database will help us uncover the flaws within
the system, allow us to make better decisions, provide additional
accountability, increase transparency, and lead to better protections
for people within the guardianship system.
The recommendation for a statewide data collection system is captured in House Bill 1349 by Rep. Linda Chaney and Senate Bill 1710
by Sen. Jennifer Bradley. While we hope the other recommendations
outlined in our report will lead to tangible future changes to the
guardianship system, this legislation will have an immediate and
substantial positive impact.
While there are many
important issues for the Legislature to consider this session, few are
more critical than improving protections for our most vulnerable
populations. With the introduction of this bill, legislators can take
the first steps in fixing Florida’s broken guardianship system. If you
care about protecting individuals under guardianship and want to see
Florida build a better system, I urge you to call, write or email your
state senator and representative.
There’s a famous quote
attributed to Mahatma Gandhi: “A society is judged not by how it takes
care of its most gifted individuals, but those who are the most
vulnerable.” The Guardianship Improvement Task Force has done a
tremendous amount of legwork to get us here today, and we’ve provided a
worthy roadmap for corrective action to take better care of children,
seniors, and individuals with special needs. Please support this
legislation because we know it will make a difference.
Ken Burke is the Pinellas County Clerk of Circuit Court and Comptroller. He led Guardianship Improvement Task Force.
Karilyn Montanti (photo
courtesy of Christine Montanti)
Karilyn Montanti’s
assertions of isolation and elder abuse, is one example of the reports
of numerous other individuals placed into involuntary guardianship
NEW YORK, NEW YORK, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, December 16, 2021 /EINPresswire.com/
-- Guardianship abuse victim Karilyn Montanti addressed the media
recently; last month she spoke out publicly about her ordeal and shared
intimate details of her guardianship experience, which she asserted to
consist of abuse, captivity and isolation. Ms. Montanti, a 77-year-old
woman and current resident of Royal Palm Beach, Florida, was recently
released from her assisted living facility in Broward County and
relocated to Royal Palm Beach after the Court completely dismissed the
guardianship proceeding.
Karilyn Montanti’s assertions of isolation and elder
abuse, is one example of the reports of numerous other individuals
placed into involuntary guardianship who make similar complaints of what
is taking place in the Broward County’s Elder Care System. These
complaints by others, who claim they are victims of guardianship abuse,
have been covered by news media in both New York and Florida, and many
other states around the country. The media reported on the pattern of
corruption and negligence of Karilyn Montanti’s asserted by her against
her health care surrogate, court appointed attorney, and court appointed
geriatric care manager in a television report on NBC New York which
aired on August 7th, 2021.
During her ordeal, Karilyn’s was never permitted to
address the court to voice her repeated pleas. Neither the court or
Karilyn’s court appointed attorney acquiesced to her request to address
the court directly, and in fact, as set forth in court documents, went
to great lengths to build a record as to why she should not be permitted
to be heard in court. Because of these repeated prior refusals to be
heard, Ms. Montanti was eager to finally have the opportunity to address
the judge in court on Thursday, December 16th 2021 for a hearing
seeking to disqualify her newly retained attorney, Ron Denman. Karilyn
was hopeful that her testimony about how she personally selected her new
counsel and about how happy she is with her new representation, will
finally free her from the court process, and allow her to tell her story
about her experience with what she considers to be guardianship abuse
and unwarranted isolation.
Unfortunately, Karilyn Montanti, who was unable to
attend the scheduled hearing on Thursday, December 16th 2021 due to her
recent hospitalization, a devastating occurrence, was denied a
continuance of the hearing or her desperate desire to testify and have
her voice heard in court for the first time in her three-year ordeal.
Despite her attorney, Ronald Denman having sought an emergency
postponement of the hearing so that she could appear, the judge denied
the postponement and ordered that Denman could no longer represent her
further in her fight to regain her rights, so that can continue choose
her own residence and stay in Royal Palm Beach, and so that she can
continue to have unfettered access to her friends and family.
Due to the court’s ruling that disqualifies Mr. Denman
from protecting Karilyn’s interests, despite representing Karilyn’s
desire to the court, she now fears this ruling will assure her continued
incapacity, which came about after her prior court appointed attorney
presented an agreed order of incapacity to the court without her
knowledge, authorization, or consent. Karilyn is also fearful that the
disqualification of her attorney of choice will lead to a continued
denial of her access to the courts, and will once again be subject her
to the isolation, abuse and deprivation of her individual rights that
she maintains she suffered over the last several years in the Broward
County, Florida guardianship system.
Guardianship Abuse
Victim Karilyn Montanti speaks out and blows the lid on guardianship
abuse within the guardianship and court systems
Karilyn Montanti
(photo courtesy of
Christine Montanti
NEW YORK, NEW YORK, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, November 30, 2021 /EINPresswire.com/
-- Guardianship Abuse Victim Karilyn Montanti speaks out and blows the
lid on guardianship abuse within the guardianship and court systems as
she addresses the media for the first time publicly to help free her
from further exploitation and being held as a prisoner in guardianship
abuse captivity. Karilyn Montanti a 77-year-old woman and former
resident of California was essentially relocated to Florida against her
will by her oldest daughter and was thrown into a corrupt guardianship
system where she has been subject to abuse and exploitation.
Karilyn Montanti’s victimization is not just an
isolated and tragic event but is a national crisis that is happening to
many aging adults at the hands of morally and mentally unfit court
appointed guardians, health care surrogates and geriatric care managers.
These individuals have been entrusted with protecting the interests of
vulnerable adults but instead are engaging in abuse for the sole purpose
of financially exploiting them and misappropriating their funds, while
further incapacitating the elder.
Oftentimes, these court appointed individuals
overmedicate the elder to make them appear sicker than they are to gain
total control of their money, and, in many instances, the elder dies due
to the physical and mental abuse. This outrageous conduct is widespread
and, unbelievably, a common fate awaits the defenseless victims: they
are isolated, medicated and fortunes liquidated. Although not an elder,
the recent case of Britney Spears has brought national attention to the
problem of conservatorship abuse taking place in this country and which
is growing.
When a dispute arises among family members, some
courts will use “geriatric care managers” to protect the interests of
the elder. Remarkably, a number of these care managers have unwarranted
familiarity with judges that preside over these cases and are given a
great deal of discretion. Essentially, they then have the ability to
play God over the day-to-day decisions of the elder. They will align
themselves with the family members who are in control of the aging
adult’s money and will immediately take the side of the family member
who has control of the trust, so they can excessively bill the trust in
exchange for providing a favorable outcome in court.
What is heartbreaking about Karilyn’s story is she was
placed in a jail-like atmosphere and essentially cut off from
communication with the outside world. The abuse has taken place at two
assisted living facilities in Broward County where she was isolated
without any access to a telephone, a computer and was blocked from
seeing her family and only grandchild. She was not allowed to receive
calls, letters, packages, food delivery or permitted to go outside the
facility, not even on her balcony. Virtually, all of her property and
money has been taken away from her. Karilyn was even forced to spend
holidays and her birthday alone this year. Prisoners have more rights
than she does!
What is even more outrageous is over the past year and
a half Karilyn was overmedicated several times and suffered disabling
symptoms while under the care and supervision of a health care
surrogate, court appointed care manager and court appointed attorney.
In addition, she was being denied her right to see her treating doctor.
How could this happen when she has three individuals who are being paid
from her own money, allegedly for the sole purpose of protecting her
interests and ensuring her medical needs are being met? Karilyn’s
freedom and basic liberties have been stripped away leaving her isolated
causing severe emotional distress and suffering. Due to this
isolation, and blocking and denying her right to see doctors, she has
lost substantial weight (three clothing sizes) and looks as if she has
aged 20 years in four months.
Karilyn has been repeatedly denied the opportunity to
be heard before the court with respect to her own wishes and to have an
evidentiary hearing to determine her capacity. Her numerous requests to
appear in court have been denied by the court and the same attorney who
was appointed to protect her interests. Since she was deprived of the
right to be heard, she has decided to speak out publicly for the first
time to reveal intimate details of her guardianship-type captivity in
the hopes that she will find justice not only for herself but for many
other victims of guardianship abuse. Karilyn has recently filed a
Suggestion of Capacity Motion through her new attorney whom she
personally selected so she can have her rights restored.
As
often happens when I am researching one thing, I stumble across
something totally unrelated, but valuable. This happened recently when I
stumbled across Biderman’s Chart of Coercion. The chart lists eight
progressive steps of torture to break an individual down. What caught my
attention was that I was reading the exact method of operation used by
professional predatory guardians once they target a victim and take them
prisoner. And this is a hostage situation.
Because
this is a tribunal setting, set up specifically to avoid the law and any
Constitutional protections, the rules of evidence and the code of civil
procedure are not required. Basically a probate predators ball!
Vulnerable
adults along with those with handicaps and children are seized by the
state and declared a “ward” of the state. Essentially this designation
redefines the individual as property of the state, no longer
recognizable as a living, breathing human being, as legal capacity and
legal agency are immediately removed along with the right to use their
own name.
As probate
is only suppose to come into play upon presentation of the death
certificate, the “ward of the state” designation signifies a civil death
that the tribunal relies on to proceed, even though it is this same
tribunal who declared the living individual a ward.
As a ward, these civil deaths prevent them
from accessing state courts which are based in the law, as they no
longer are recognized as having any rights whatsoever. After all a
probate examiner essentially declared them dead in the law. This
designation (ward of the state) is used by the Supreme Court in its
refusal to hear any of these cases. Their refusal is based upon the idea
that these cases are the propertyand control of the state.
How to destroy a “ward of the state” with judicial approval
I had noted a long time back that the actions of the predators seemed to follow a distinct pattern in their application. After reviewing the chart below,
I now realize that they are using a tried and true method of
psychological torture, brainwashing and terror to overtake the victim.
The chart lists eight chronological general methods of torture that will
psychologically break an individual. It has also been applied to the
psychological abuse used by perpetrators of domestic violence. The
psychological and physical methods used by abusive guardians are
virtually identical to those of the chart. These methods are actually
used by our government and military on prisoners of war. This system
deprives the victim of all social support and makes the victim dependent
upon the abuser.
The chart includes the following coercion methods:
Isolation
Monopolization of perception
Induced debilitation and exhaustion
Threats
Occasional indulgences
Demonstrating “omnipotence” and “omniscience”
Degradation
Enforcing trivial demands
Even armed with this little bit of
information, do not expect any politician to intervene and actually try
to end this. Too much money gets dumped into their campaign funds from
BAR Associations, guardianship associations and others who have a vested
interest in allowing the system to run unimpeded. Money talks even if
it’s money stolen stolen from an estate at the expense of a captive
elderly individual.
Human bondage
A so called “guardian” is given title to
the person as if they were an object or thing, and to the estate of the
individual with little to no oversight. The abuse, neglect and trauma
are standard procedure in these cases. And the very first thing the
predator does, is to isolate the individual. Virtually every state has
statutes prohibiting isolation yet it is the first action taken. The
predators make spurious claims as to why isolation should happen, but
provide little to no evidence to support their claims.
The effect, especially on the elderly is
terror that results from the sudden and terrifying separation from
everyone and everything known to them. And politicians and so-called
“judges” turn a blind eye and yawn. They pen fluff and buff bills that
have no teeth in them and do not address any of the serious human rights
violations, violations of due process, or the obvious intent to access
assets for personal gain.
While our elected officials concoct one
useless bill after another supposedly to address the abuses in the
probate system, not one will even say the word isolation much less
address it head on. Not one of them will sight as criminal the abuses of
probate tribunals and their guardians whose lives are predicated upon a
parasitic existence at the expense of the vulnerable. Instead we get
one bill after another that creates more agencies, delivers more funding
to the very system we fight, and which will produce nothing other than
another obstacle to those trying to escape this system of government
sanctioned human trafficking.
And where were all your elected officials while this system of human trafficking operates in full view of the public?
Well! They were pretending it was an isolated incident. Not that? Oh!
Well they never heard of such a thing. That didn’t work? Ok…how about
this one: Let me look into this and I’ll get back to you. (Please don’t
sit by the phone and wait for that return call…it isn’t coming.) the
excuses elected people come up with are staggering in not only the
dishonesty, but also in it’s blatant disregard for human life.
Guardianship never had a noble purpose. It has always been about
capturing the vulnerable and taking whatever property or assets they
had. It was and is a system populated by otherwise socially unacceptable
people from the hearing examiners and guardians and on to the
politicians who protect and facilitate this system. This system of human
trafficking has always been corrupt and cannot be repaired. There is no
“fixing” the probate system. It must be abolished in total. In its
place, supported decision making is a viable and worthwhile effort and I
am sure we can devise a system that functions far better and equitably
than so-called “probate”.
These are just a few of the suggestions I received concerning what needs to occur:
Isolation must never be tolerated, allowed, or otherwise used to torture and torment a vulnerable individual.
The guardians and attorneys must be prohibited from using the intended victims own funds to attack them.
A cap in place on fees and other charges.
Petitions for guardianship must be heard in civil courts outside of probate tribunals and a trial by jury allowed
Verifiable evidence must be presented for any charges levied.
The hearing examiner must not dismiss personal attorneys or medical providers.
Guardians should be prosecuted and jailed for human rights abuses and numerous other violations of law and rights.
Probate examiners (mistakenly called “judge”in most cases) MUST NOT
discard standing POA’s, Trusts, Wills or other legal instruments in
order to allow the predator guardian full access to the estate.
No one associated with probate has immunity from prosecution for
rights violations, estate theft, elder abuse, elder isolation, absence
of due process, or other violations of law and rights. They must be
prosecuted as any other person.
There is much more that needs to be added. Please send along any
items you believe should be added to this list of demands to reign in
the corrupt probate system.
In the meantime, review Biderman’s list of techniques and compare it to your case. Let us know what you find.
a person’s authority under law to engage in a particular undertaking
or maintain a particular status such as the right to be recognized as a
specifically named living, breathing man or woman.
.png)
/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/tbt/TJ5WSJACPJD3XAYHO7RPN2SZXA.jpeg "Ken Burke")
