The Vegas Voice: "My Family's Nightmare"

My father’s guardianship nightmare began in 2009, a result of not being able to find dad after mom died; someone took advantage of him being in shock and grief after the sudden loss of his wife of 63 years. Mom had been ill-advised to become guardian of my father’s “person” due to his physical disabilities; my father was never incompetent. I called Guardianship Commissioner Norheim’s office for help. I knew nothing of the Family Court’s bad reputation at the time. Norheim’s office gave me Jared E. Shafer’s phone number. Shafer said I needed an attorney to help my father and sent me to Elyse Tyrell, who assured me that if Shafer were to be made temporary guardian he would get my father away from the person hiding him and in no time I could take my father back to California. Tyrell did not tell me she was Shafer’s attorney.

As soon as Shafer became guardian, Tyrell, who I had a legal agreement with, told me she did not work for me, she worked for “Jared” and to go find another attorney! This “temporary” guardianship turned into a permanent one and any objections I had were consistently dismissed by Norheim. Shafer and his attorneys made false statements about me to the court which Norheim accepted.

Thus began a long expensive battle to free my father of Shafer’s guardianship over person and estate. Shafer and his attorneys told the court that their extensive legal fees billed to my father were my fault for challenging his guardianship!

Several state statutes were violated during my father’s guardianship, in particular NRS Chapter 160, which restricts guardians to having no more than five wards and limits how much they can bill if they have even one veteran as a ward. Our attorneys pointed out these violations but Norheim approved all of Shafer’s actions.

Shafer did not provide an attorney for my father and prevented dad from attending his own hearings. When we finally brought dad to court Shafer and his attorney laughed at him and Norheim was reluctant to let him speak. My father stated in court that he wanted to go back to California but his testimony was ignored.

After that hearing my father asked my husband and I to take him back to California because he was fearful and wanted to be with us. Shafer immediately had the judge issue a bench warrant on me for contempt of court but he told everyone it was for kidnapping. He spent thousands of dad’s money trying to have the warrant transferred to California without success.

No family member should fall for the threats and false statements made by any guardian. The guardians are experts at intimidating families from taking action. I believe we were the first to save a parent from Shafer. Despite the losses we are happy we did what was necessary, resulting in my father spending his last years as a free man. His final years were happy; he enjoyed his family, his VFW Post and his friends. He never went anywhere without his WW2 Veteran cap and loved all the attention and “thank you for your service” comments.

Source:
The Vegas Voice:  

See Also:
NASGA:  Lupe Olvera, CA/NV Victim

Editorial: Not Enough Protection for Elders

June 14 is World Elder Abuse Awareness Day. Financial exploitation of elders is becoming the primary form of elder abuse, often involving family members or even close elderly friends who prey on seniors to gain control of assets. The elder need not have dementia to be victimized. These predators take advantage of physical disabilities — vision, hearing, mobility — to gain an elder’s trust and isolate the elder, to control communication, transportation, medical care and to access mail and credit cards, bank accounts and investments.

Legal mechanisms like power of attorney (POA), guardianship/conservatorship or healthcare proxy (HCP) can be obtained through misrepresentation, coercion, isolation and intimidation of an elder. The abuser then can use the victim’s assets to fight those trying to stop the exploitation.

Another form of abuse is “granny snatching”; an elder is taken out of state under false pretenses (a vacation?) to a perpetrator’s turf, isolated from the elder’s friends, family and familiar medical care. Once there, new legal and financial oversight (guardian, conservator, POA) is obtained. The elder rarely returns.

Full Editorial and Source:
Not Enough Protection for Elders

Elderly Man Can Sue Conservator, Attorney for Nursing Home Stay

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled this week that a court-appointed attorney and a conservator involved in an elderly man’s improper conservatorship were not entitled to absolute federal quasi-judicial immunity.

The plaintiff in the case, Daniel Gross, sued after spending 10 months in the locked ward of a Connecticut nursing home while under involuntary conservatorship.

Gross, an octogenarian New York resident, sought treatment in a Waterbury, Connecticut hospital in 2005. While there, a hospital employee filed an application for appointment of a conservator in Waterbury Probate Court. No one knows why.

The probate court appointed Jonathan Newman to represent Gross in the involuntary conservatorship action. Despite the fact that the hearing did not conform to the proper notice procedure, that Gross was not a Connecticut resident, and that Gross appeared to be alert and intelligent at the time of hearing, Newman concluded that there was no legal basis to deny the application
.
The probate court named Kathleen Donovan as Gross' conservator. Soon thereafter, Donovan placed Gross in a "locked ward" in Grove Manor Nursing Home, where he stayed until the Connecticut Superior Court granted his habeas petition. (The Superior Court described Gross' conservatorship as a "terrible miscarriage of justice.")

Gross sued Donovan and Newman for civil rights violations. The district court dismissed his claims, reasoning that all three enjoyed quasi-judicial immunity.

Full Article and Source:
Elderly Man Can Sue Conservator, Attorney for Nursing Home Stay

See Also:
The Daniel Gross Case Decision: Standing Up for the Elderly and Infirm
 

The Issue: Can Court-Appointed Conservators Be Sued?

Daniel Gross, 85, was suffering from a leg infection when he visited his daughter in Waterbury, Conn, in 2002 and had to be taken to a local emergency room. After Gross spent nine days in the hospital, a hospital social worker asked the Connecticut probate court to appoint a conservator for him.

The judge agreed, and from there, things spun out of control. Gross was sent to a nursing home and kept there for more than 10 months, unable to freely visit with his family. At one point he was attacked by his roommate, a convicted felon.

An attorney won his release, but before Gross died in 2007, he sued his lawyer, the conservator, and the nursing home. According to legal briefs, his attorney failed to challenge the conservatorship despite Gross' request, and his conservator failed to oversee Gross' financial affairs.

The federal District Court threw out the lawsuit in the spring of 2008, saying that Gross' conservator and his lawyer could not be held liable for their actions because they were appointed by a probate court. The case then went to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, which concluded in October 2009 that the case should be resolved in state court. In April, the Connecticut Supreme Court sided with Gross. The high court did carve out an exception - that immunity could be granted to a conservator if a probate court approves his or her actions. But it also ruled that the conservator can be sued for harm or loss to the person under conservatorship.

The case is expected to be referred to the trial court where it began. A jury will then decide whether to hold Gross' court-appointed lawyer, the conservator and the nursing facility liable.

Full Article and Source:
AARP Bulletin: The Issue: Can Court-Appointed Conservators Be Sued?

The Daniel Gross Case Decision: Standing Up for the Elderly and Infirm

Old age is sometimes described as a “second childhood,” but lawyers for the elderly got a loud and clear warning their clients are not children in the eyes of the law.

That’s the message the Connecticut Supreme Court sent in Daniel Gross v. M. Jodi Rell, a decision emphasizing that attorneys in probate proceedings must heed the wishes of their elderly or infirm clients and not substitute their own judgment about what’s in the client’s best interests.

Lawyers for the elderly who act on their own, the Supreme Court warned, do not enjoy absolute immunity and can be held personally liable for their actions.

In this case, the Supreme Court recognized that placing a person in a conservatorship — as a ward of the Probate Court — “is one of the most serious infringements on personal liberty and autonomy authorized by law.” In this situation, the individual’s life is mightily affected by people in two roles.

One is the probate court-appointed attorney, who represents the person at competency and other types of hearings. The second is a court-appointed conservator — often, but not necessarily, a lawyer — who under court supervision oversees the elderly or infirm person’s economic and physical well-being. In this case, the justices stated clearly, for the first time, how much legal insulation from civil lawsuit liability people in the two roles deserve.

“People have a lot clearer lines than they had a month ago. It’s pretty clear that nobody can say, any more, that a court-appointed lawyer in a conservancy proceeding is the same as a guardian ad litem in family court,” said attorney Sally R. Zanger, who argued for the plaintiffs.

A guardian ad litem’s role is to advocate for the best interests of the child in divorce and custody proceedings, and not necessarily heed the child’s stated preference. But in Gross, said Zanger, the justices “say very clearly, ‘adults are not children.’”

She continued: “It’s a very thoughtful decision, [and] they’re trying to make it really clear that there’s no situation where the lawyer can throw the client under the bus in a conservatorship proceeding. They have to represent what the client is asking for. Deciding the ‘best interests’ is not their problem,” it’s the judge’s problem.

The Supreme Court decided that conservators are immune from civil liability only when their conduct is authorized or approved by the Probate Court. The high court also held that appointed attorneys lack any special immunity. And, in such proceedings, nursing homes have no immunity at all.

The court was filling in unwritten gaps in Connecticut case law at the request of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The underlying case dates to 2005, when Long Island resident Daniel Gross was visiting his daughter, Carolyn Dee King, in Waterbury.

Gross, a retired furnace technician, thought he was just briefly passing through Connecticut. He didn’t know he was about to become the poster boy for the legal rights of Connecticut’s elderly. When a leg infection landed him in a Waterbury hospital, a nurse asked for Probate Court help in having Gross moved to a nursing home. Probate Judge Thomas Brunnock appointed Waterbury lawyer Jonathan Newman to visit Gross in late August 2005.

Locked Ward

Attorney Newman reported that Gross seemed alert and intelligent, and opposed having a conservator. But Newman said he saw no reason to oppose the hospital’s recommendation that Gross become a ward of probate. On Sept. 1, 2005, Brunnock appointed Naugatuck lawyer Kathleen Donovan to be the conservator of Gross’ person and affairs. A week or two later, according to court pleadings, Donovan placed Gross in the locked ward of Grove Manor Nursing Home in Waterbury, where his roommate was a once-infamous robber who allegedly assaulted him.

At one point, Gross was authorized to take a one-day visit to his hometown in New York. During the trip, Gross was hospitalized briefly, and attorney Donovan went to Long Island with an ambulance and returned him to Grove Manor against his and his doctor’s wishes, the court records state.

Gross requested a habeus hearing, which was held before Waterbury Superior Court Judge Trial Referee Joseph T. Gormley Jr. Gormley would later write that the case “completely blows my mind” because Gross was so poorly represented. He set Gross free, ruling that because Gross was a non-resident, the Connecticut probate system had no jurisdiction.

Gross sued then-Governor M. Jodi Rell, the lawyers and the nursing home under federal civil rights law, and under state law for negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, breach of fiduciary duty, false arrest, assault and false imprisonment.

U.S. District Judge Vanessa Bryant dismissed most of the claims after making unusually broad findings of quasi-judicial immunity – a doctrine that protects from civil liability people like prosecutors and others who are integral to the judicial process. Bryant then found the remaining claims didn’t add up to the $75,000 federal court jurisdictional minimum and dismissed the case.

The matter was appealed to the Second Circuit, which found Connecticut’s laws lack sufficient guidance on the issue of quasi-judicial immunity for conservators, court-appointed lawyers for the elderly and the nursing home defendant. It asked the state’s top court to explain.

Gross’s daughter, King, continued the case after her father’s death in 2007. She was represented by Zanger and Thomas Behrendt, of the Connecticut Legal Rights Project in Middletown. Behrendt called the recent Supreme Court ruling “a great decision. It really hammers on the fact that lawyers are accountable, [and] sends a really clear message about the dignity and respect to which our elder clients are entitled.”

Full Article and Source:
Standing Up for the Elderly and Infirm

A Victory for Daniel Gross!

The state Supreme Court stood up Friday for a simple right that matters deeply for all, but especially to the old, sick and disabled.

The job of a lawyer appointed by probate court is to fight for the client, whether he is healthy or a stubborn 86-year-old man.

In a unanimous ruling in the long-running civil rights case of Daniel Gross, the justices ruled that court-appointed lawyers do not have immunity from lawsuits if they abuse their clients. The court also ruled, in a divided opinion, that conservators appointed by probate have limited immunity. The justices also ruled that a nursing home does not have immunity from lawsuits in probate cases.

The ruling has far-reaching implications for our troubled probate court system. It means that a court-appointed lawyer, and to a lesser extent the conservator — who is appointed by probate when a person can no longer live independently — cannot ignore the wishes of a client. The message to probate court is clear: Lawyers and conservators must be held accountable.

For probate courts, this has huge implications because many of the unsettling and outrageous cases I have been writing about for the past six years stem from abuse by conservators and court-appointed lawyers and judges who don't pay enough attention.

Although Gross died in 2007, his civil rights case lived on. The lasting lesson is that the old or disabled — even if they are unwell and cranky — have the same rights as the rest of us.

"It means that if you get a court-appointed lawyer, that lawyer cannot have any doubt that the lawyer's job is to listen to you,'' said Sally Zanger, the Connecticut Legal Rights Project lawyer who represented Carolyn Dee King, Gross' daughter. "It's what the lawyer is supposed to be doing."

Amazingly, that's been the problem in the probate cases I've been telling you about since 2006. Gross' was the first and most heartbreaking case I stumbled upon, when a Legal Aid lawyer told me an unbelievable tale of an old man from Long Island being held against his will in a Waterbury nursing home.

Elderly but still independent, Gross became ill while visiting his daughter in Waterbury. He was hospitalized, and while his children fought over his care and who should control his finances, Waterbury Probate Judge Thomas Brunnock approved his involuntary conservatorship.

Gross wanted to go home to Long Island. He wasn't told of the hearing where he was ordered conserved. His court-appointed lawyer, Jonathan Newman, failed to object to the conservatorship, even though Gross just wanted to leave Connecticut. His conservator, Kathleen Donovan, had him placed in a locked, restricted ward at Grove Manor Nursing Home in Waterbury. His roommate was violent.

Later, when Gross was on a day visit to his Long Island home, he was hospitalized. Donovan brought him back to Connecticut in an ambulance against the wishes of Gross' New York doctor.

In June 2006, Superior Court Judge Joseph Gormley, at a dramatic writ of habeas corpus hearing, ordered Gross freed, declaring that "a terrible miscarriage of justice" had taken place and that the man had been "deprived of his liberty."

King, Gross' daughter, filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against Brunnock, Donovan, Newman and the nursing home. Brunnock, as a judge, could not be sued, but the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals sent the question of immunity for the others back to the state Supreme Court for a ruling. King's lawsuit against Donovan, Newman and the nursing will now go back to federal court.

Newman's lawyer — who argued to the Supreme Court that his client's role was like that of a lawyer for a child — did not respond to my call. A lawyer for Donovan, Richard A. Roberts, said the ruling might mean that conservators and court-appointed lawyers will be forced to go to a judge for every decision they make.

But Fairfield Probate Judge Daniel Caruso, president of the association of probate judges, said that his colleagues will welcome the ruling.

"When the Supreme Court articulates and provides brighter lines as to what is and is not within the bounds of immunity, it helps everyone," he said.

Public-interest lawyers hailed the decision because it provides new accountability to a court system that critics say still lacks oversight.

"Our legal system has safeguards. Even when you are appointed by the court you are accountable for what you do,'' Tom Behrendt of the Connecticut Legal Rights Project told me.

When I reached King, she reminded me of her father's humiliation before a court that was supposed to protect him.

"He was robbed of his humanity at the end of his life," King said. "He was used as a pawn. They just ignored him."

We can't change that, but the elderly man's lasting legacy is a powerful one. If you are old or disabled, probate court is a less-frightening place thanks to Daniel Gross.

Source: (Note: this article is shown in its entirety with special thanks to reporter, Rick Green of the Hartford Courant)
State Supreme Court Holds Lawyers, Conservators Accountable In Probate Cases

Supreme Court Hears Case Of Man Committed Against His Will

Man's Daughter Can't Sue Probate Court, But Why Can't She Sue His Lawyer, Conservator?

I wanted to shout out, sitting in the dignified, ornate chambers of the state Supreme Court Monday morning, as a string of lawyers debated what should be a basic right.

If somebody you have hired absolutely ruins your life — shouldn't you be able to sue them?

And yet, the Supreme Court is being asked to grant immunity to lawyers and conservators appointed by the probate court, no matter what devastation they create.

The court Monday began considering this fundamental question because of the abuse that Daniel Gross, an elderly New York man, suffered during 2005 and 2006 at the hands of a Waterbury probate court after he became sick while visiting his daughter.

The long-running Gross case has become a battleground for probate court, Connecticut's separate judicial system that handles wills, estates, adoptions, name changes — but also very delicate and controversial questions such as whether an elderly or sick person can live independently.

After he was hospitalized and his children fought over his care, Gross was conserved by probate court in Waterbury, which meant all his rights were taken away. A lawyer, Jonathan Newman, was appointed to advocate for him. A conservator, Kathleen Donovan, was appointed to represent him.

Newman failed to object to the conservatorship, despite knowing Gross' opposition. Donovan made sure Gross was placed in a locked ward of a local nursing home for 10 months.

Donovan and Newman (supported by the state's probate judges, by the way) are looking for special treatment for the lawyers and conservators who make a living off the courts. We all know that if a physician seriously injures a patient, that person can sue. Yet in this case, the Supreme Court is being asked to protect the people who are appointed to work for the elderly and frail — even if they royally screw up.

A lawyer for Gross, Sally Zanger, reminded the justices that "people lose their freedom" when a conservator is appointed. "We really need to be concerned about frail and elderly people who are conserved,'' Zanger said.

Richard Roberts, a lawyer for Donovan, argued that a conservator "is but an agent of the court,'' merely carrying out the court's wishes. "You shouldn't have to look over your shoulder when you are making these judgment calls."

These judgment calls left Gross, a man who lived independently in his own home on Long Island, locked in a Waterbury nursing home for nearly a year.

These judgment calls meant that even when Gross fled home to New York at one point, his conservator pulled him out of a Long Island hospital and brought him back to Connecticut.

These judgment calls can destroy someone's life.

Full Article and Source:
Supreme Court Hears Case Of Man Committed Against His Will

Probate Case To Test Lawyer Immunity Limits

The disturbing case of New York resident Daniel Gross, whose visit to Connecticut ended in a 10-month stay in a locked Waterbury nursing home ward, is coming before the state Supreme Court to determine just how much immunity from suit his lawyers deserve.

Connecticut case law is so unclear on this immunity question that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit sent the matter to the state Supreme Court with a request to fill in the blanks of what legal protections conservators and lawyers for wards of the probate courts can legally expect.

In 2006, on a writ of habeas corpus, Gross was freed from Grove Manor nursing home by Superior Court Judge Joseph Gormley, who called the case a gross miscarriage of justice. The elderly man had been visiting one of his daughters in Waterbury when a leg infection landed him in the nursing home.

When his children couldn’t agree on his care, a hospital employee asked the probate court to review Gross. It sent Waterbury lawyer Jonathan Newman, who visited Gross and found him alert and even “profound” in his communication. He had a home on Long Island with a reverse mortgage, and expressed a desire to return and live independently.

In his report to Waterbury probate Judge Thomas Brunnock, Newman wrote that he “cannot find any legal basis on which to object to the appointment of a conservator for Daniel Gross’ person and estate.”

By statute, Gross was entitled to seven days notice of the hearing to appoint a conservator, and if he couldn’t get to the hearing, the judge was supposed to go to him. Instead, according to the court record, Brunnock on Aug. 25 wrote an order that Gross was to be notified on Aug. 24 of an upcoming Sept. 1 hearing - a legal act the Second Circuit described as “facially impossible.”

Naugatuck solo Kathleen Donovan became Gross’s conservator for nearly a year, ultimately billing $27,000 for her services while he was in the locked ward. In Gross’s original complaint, he alleged his roommate was a confessed robber who threatened and assaulted him. Once, when Gross returned on a day pass to Long Island, he was hospitalized there, and Donovan arrived with an ambulance to return him to Connecticut, against the New York doctors’ advice.

On July 12, 2006, when the habeas writ came to Waterbury Superior Court Judge Joseph Gormley, he was critical of probate Judge Brunnock’s failure to discern that he might lack jurisdiction over the New York resident, and said Newman mis-served and underserved his client. The judge commented, “This case has disturbed me from day one. I kept looking for evidence to support what was done, but I find none.”

Gross, deeply relieved, was freed from the locked ward and the attentions of Newman and Donovan, returned home and died about a year later. His executrix, one of his daughters, filed a federal civil rights case against Gov. M. Jodi Rell, the state elder care ombudsman, the nursing home, the probate judge and the court-appointed lawyers.

Cases against the state employees were dismissed by U.S. District Judge Vanessa Bryant on sovereign immunity grounds, and the probate judge invoked judicial immunity. The cases against Newman and Donovan were dismissed on the grounds of quasi-judicial immunity.

On appeal to the Second Circuit, Bryant’s dismissals were affirmed for all parties, except for the outstanding question of quasi-judicial immunity for the conservator, the lawyer for the ward, and the nursing home. In expanded oral arguments Oct 24, plaintiff’s counsel, Sally R. Zanger of the Connecticut Legal Rights Project in Middletown is scheduled for 35 minutes. Donovan’s lawyer, Richard “Rick” Roberts of Cheshire’s Nuzzo & Roberts, is to have 16 minutes. Newman’s lawyer, Louis Blumenfeld, of Hartford’s Cooney, Scully & Dowling, gets 12 minutes, and Wiggin & Dana advocate Jeffrey Babbin, for Grove Manor nursing home, has seven minutes of argument.

According to the defense, a careful examination of the facts makes Newman’s and Donovan’s work more understandable and the type of actions that should be protected by quasi-judicial immunity.

The statute for creating conservatorships speaks of “residents or domiciliaries” of the probate court’s jurisdiction. Newman’s lawyers note that Gross had been domiciled at his daughter’s, and in Connecticut hospitals, for two months before he was made a ward of the state.

In their brief for Newman, Blumenfeld and Lorinda S. Coon agree Connecticut’s case law is all over the map on quasi-judicial immunity. The cases “essentially define a spectrum where, at one end, a government or court-appointed attorney acts impartially in furtherance of an objective goal [as an arm of the court] and, at the other end, an attorney acts entirely as an advocate for a client” like any private lawyer not entitled to court immunity.

Newman’s brief said lawyers in his role should have leeway. “[W]hen time is of the essence to make a medical decision or take steps to protect assets, is the attorney really duty-bound to delay a hearing due to some technical, easily correctable procedural flaw? Imagine the harm that could be done while the attorney blindly obeys the instructions of his client, forbidden to recognize that the client’s instructions are the product of dementia, paranoia or depression.” Both logic and the Rules of Professional conduct obliged Newman to impose a higher degree of objectivity about his client’s best interest, as in the case of a minor child, his lawyers argue.

Immunity Test

The Supreme Court was asked to nail down the nature of Connecticut’s quasi-judicial immunity for conservators, and lawyers for probate wards, in light of existing state and federal formulas. The federal test was set out in the 1985 U.S. Supreme Court case of Clevinger v. Saxner. It’s purpose is to determine how much the action in question needs the protection of court-like immunity from lawsuits.

Lawyers for Newman and Donovan contend that absolute or at least quasi-judicial immunity is necessary to aid the probate courts in supervision and care of wards and conservatees, and the acrimonious nature of the work requires a barrier against lawsuits.

In a long and clearly written 2009 opinion, a three-judge Second Circuit panel explained how powerful the protection of judicial immunity is. Under established U.S. Supreme Court precedents, judges are protected from lawsuits even when their conduct arises from legal mistakes, malice or overstepping the bounds of their jurisdiction.

It is only when a judge operates with a complete absence of any jurisdiction that the immunity does not apply. Thus, if a criminal judge convicts someone of a crime that does not exist, there is immunity. If a probate judge, with no criminal jurisdiction does so, there would be no immunity.

Lawyers unconnected to the case are following the progress of Gross with interest. For example, Eliot Gersten, of the Hartford offices of Pullman & Comley, represents Sam Manzo, a farmhand who was disinherited through the shenanigans of a now-retired probate judge and court-appointed lawyers for the aging Southington farm owner, Josephine Smorron. The defendants in that litigation are raising claims of quasi-judicial immunity, even though a probate court authorized Manzo to sue.

Gersten said the Gross case will be significant, however it is decided. “I think the case may make conservators remember they are a trustee, and I think they can be reminded they can’t neglect the ward, and that there are serious consequences for the ward if the conservator acts inappropriately. So the conservator should be held accountable for it.”

The defendants in Gross are saying, “if you allow us to be sued, no one’s going to want to take on the conservatorship role,” Gersten continued. “The problem with that argument, of course, is that it overlooks the fact that only irresponsible people are going to refuse to take on the conservator role. This case is not about those people who do their job responsibly and follow the rules, and do what a conservator’s supposed to do.”•

Source:
Probate Case To Test Lawyer Immunity Limits

See Also:
CT State Supreme Court To Consider The Quasi-Judicial Immunity Of Conservators And Probate Lawyers

CT State Supreme Court To Consider The Quasi-Judicial Immunity Of Conservators And Probate Lawyers

Daniel Gross, an old man infamously abused at the hands of probate court before he died in 2007, might yet force far-reaching reform in a system that once robbed him of his freedom.

Next week, the state Supreme Court will take up a key question from Gross' federal civil rights lawsuit and consider whether the people appointed to look after him — the lawyers and conservators who are supposed to represent the best interests of the elderly and infirm in probate court — are immune from lawsuits.

Whether lawyers and conservators deserve what is known as "quasi-judicial immunity" is a volatile question. Reformers say this case represents the ultimate recourse for folks abused by the probate courts. Probate judges — and attorneys for Gross' lawyer and conservator — say that denying immunity would bring the courts to "a screeching halt" because it would be impossible to find individuals willing to serve as conservators or lawyers in difficult cases for fear they could be sued.

It's hard to imagine a court system where those who abuse, neglect and exploit aren't held accountable. Granting lawyers and conservators immunity would do just that.

For years, I've watched rogue conservators and ill-informed probate judges abuse the rights of citizens. These might be isolated instances, but the cases keep coming in a court system that lacks proper oversight and that ought to be part of Superior Court.

The way to force reform in probate is to make sure there's accountability, not immunity. Our probate courts remain a separate world in which judges are elected and too often a good-old-boy network permeates appointment and supervision of conservators and lawyers.

No case illustrates this better than what happened when the elderly Gross ended up in Judge Thomas Brunnock's Waterbury probate court during the summer of 2005.

Gross had come from his Long Island home to visit his daughter in Waterbury. He became sick and was hospitalized as his children fought over his care — and over who should control his finances. After the hospital asked probate court to step in, Judge Brunnock ordered Gross involuntarily conserved, taking away all of his rights.

Brunnock didn't bother to give the old man a chance to speak up: Gross wasn't even at the hearing at which he was ordered conserved. His court-appointed lawyer, Jonathan Newman, failed to object to the conservatorship, despite knowing Gross' opposition. His conservator, Kathleen Donovan, placed him in a locked, restricted ward at Grove Manor Nursing Home in Waterbury.

Few moments in journalism stand out more for me than the day in July 2006 when I watched Superior Court Judge Joseph Gormley acknowledge "a terrible miscarriage of justice" and order 86-year-old Daniel Gross freed from his imprisonment in a Waterbury nursing home. Were it not for the work of Legal Aid attorneys and John Peters, a volunteer lawyer from West Hartford, Gross might never have emerged from probate hell.

As he shuffled out of the courthouse, Gross told me that he was "overwhelmed with happiness." I saw what freedom, dignity and civil rights mean for an old man abused by a probate court that was supposed to protect him.

Full Article and Source:
An Elderly Man's Lawsuit Could Bring Probate Reform

Note: Daniel Gross' daughter, Dee King, is a NASGA member.

In the Matter of Glasser

IN RE MATTER OF GLASSER
IN THE MATTER OF LILLIAN GLASSER, a vulnerable adult.
IN THE MATTER OF LILLIAN GLASSER, an incapacitated person.
Nos. A-0500-08T3, A-0505-08T3, A-0509-08T3
Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

Argued March 21, 2011.
Decided July 21, 2011.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

These three appeals, which we have consolidated for purposes of this opinion, arise from disputes between Mark Glasser (Mark) and his sister, Suzanne Glasser Mathews (Suzanne), over the guardianship and finances of their mother, Lillian Glasser (Lillian).1 The underlying guardianship dispute spawned litigation in Texas and New Jersey. The New Jersey action entailed collateral disputes over the choice of a guardian of Lillian's person, Lillian's December 2002 will, and the right or obligation of assorted parties to either receive or pay counsel fees.

In broad outline, after a thirty-four day trial, Judge Alexander P. Waugh, Jr., then sitting as the Probate judge, determined that Suzanne exercised undue influence over Lillian in a variety of ways, including the preparation of a December 2002 will. He also found that Suzanne violated her fiduciary duty in exercising Lillian's power of attorney (POA). The judge found that while Mark primarily had his mother's best interests at heart, he also acted in ways that were disruptive to her medical care and otherwise counter-productive to her interests. The judge determined that Lillian was incapacitated, but that none of her family members should act as the guardian of her person. Instead, he appointed an attorney who, in the judge's view, could act independently and could adequately protect Lillian's interests in the face of competing, aggressive demands from her children and friends.

All parties agreed that a neutral financial institution should act as guardian of her property. Based on his view of the law and the equities, the judge determined that Suzanne should reimburse Lillian's estate for monies Suzanne took from the estate and spent on her own counsel fees in the New Jersey litigation, and for counsel fees Suzanne spent in creating a family limited partnership in Texas, which Suzanne controlled and into which she improperly transferred almost all of Lillian's assets; he denied Suzanne's application for counsel fees and costs for the Texas litigation and ordered her to reimburse her mother's estate for those expenses as well; he awarded some counsel fees to Mark for the litigation in Texas; and he awarded no counsel fees to Suzanne's children for their effort to involve themselves in the New Jersey litigation. He also removed Suzanne as Lillian's health care representative, except for participation in end-of-life decisions.

Notably, no party to this appeal challenges the judge's finding that Lillian is incapacitated and requires the appointment of a guardian of her person and a guardian of her property. The appeals largely concern money — i.e., disputes over counsel fees and Lillian's will — and the judge's choice of Lillian's guardian of the person and health care representative.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jeffrey M. Pollock argued the cause for appellant/cross-respondent Suzanne Glasser Mathews in A-0500-08 and as respondent in A-0505-08 and A-0509-08 (Fox Rothschild, L.L.P., attorneys; Mr. Pollock, of counsel and on the briefs; Abbey True Harris, on the briefs).
Thomas S. Harty argued the cause for respondent/cross-appellant Eric Smith in A-0500-08 and as respondent in A-0509-08 (Cozen O'Connor, attorneys; Mr. Harty, on the brief).
Jonathan I. Epstein argued the cause for respondent/cross-appellant Joseph J. Catanese in A-0500-08 and as respondent in A-0509-08 (Drinker Biddle & Reath, L.L.P., attorneys; Mr. Epstein and Kristine M. Dress, on the briefs).
Paul F. Cullum, III, argued the cause for respondents Alexandra Mathews, Benjamin Mathews and Roselyn Mathews in A-0500-08 and A-0505-08 and as appellants in A-0509-08 (LeClairRyan, attorneys; Mr. Cullum, on the brief).
Lawrence M. Rosa, Board Counsel, argued the cause for respondent Middlesex County Board of Social Services, Adult Protective Services Unit, in A-0500-08 (Mr. Rosa, on the statement in lieu of brief).
David B. Rubin argued the cause for appellant Mark Glasser in A-0505-08 and as respondent in A-0500-08 and A-0509-08.
Andrew J. DeMaio, argued the cause for respondent Morgan Stanley Trust, N.A. in A-0500-08, A-0505-08, and A-0509-08 (Neff Aguilar, L.L.C., attorneys; Mr. DeMaio, on the brief).
Before Judges Lisa, Reisner and Sabatino.

Source:
In RE Matter of Glasser

CT Woman Charged for Violating Court Order by Taking Mother to Florida

A Stratford woman was formally charged with first-degree custodial interference for taking her 81-year-old mother from Milford to Florida in violation of a probate court order, police said.

Jeryl Gray, 56, was arraigned Friday in Milford Superior Court and held on $75,000 bond. She had been picked up on a Milford police-issued warrant in Florida on July 20. Her mother, Dolores, who was missing for more than three weeks, was found safe with her daughter. Milford police had issued a Silver Alert for Dolores.

Dolores Gray was taken into protective custody by Florida officials and transported back to Connecticut by her family.

[Jeryl] Gray has been involved in a lengthy dispute with her two brothers over the care and custody of her mother, who suffers from dementia, police said.

In December, the Milford/Orange Probate Court issued an order that Dolores Gray not be taken from the state of Connecticut and granted conservatorship to Dolores' son, who lives in Milford.

Police said that after a court-authorized visitation on July 3, Gray took her mother to West Palm Beach, Fla.

In a May hearing, Dolores Gray told the judge she is "tired of all the family stuff," and would like to stay in contact with all three of her children, as well as her only grandchild, who lives in Milford.

"This wouldn't be happening if their father was alive," Dolores Gray said, according to a Probate Court transcript. "I'm retired and I'd like to go back and forth between Milford and Florida, but I'm fed up with all this fighting going on."

Full Article and Source:
Stratford Woman Formally Charged for Violating Court Order by Taking Mother to Florida

'Granny Snatching'

I became involved in elder law when my mother, then aged 91, moved from her apartment near Albany, New York, to my home in Connecticut on December 22, 2008. She had lived alone for nearly a decade after my father died, most of that time capable of handling herself and her affairs, but she was hospitalized in December 2008 suffering from dehydration and potassium deficiency.

As a result my siblings attempted to force her into a nursing home against her will –personnel from the nursing home were in the hospital preparing to move her out when I was notified.

I intervened, offering my home as an alternative, which was fine with everyone until my mother realized that my sister had kept her checkbook, which didn’t go over well with Mom.

With proper nutrition and some much needed sleep Mom rebounded quickly after her hospitalization and spent the week after Christmas 2008 in a series of fruitless attempts to convince my sister to relinquish the checkbook. My sister refused so ultimately Mom rescinded the limited power of attorney she had given my sister, and moved her finances to new accounts in Connecticut.

After which my sister, brother and some of their offspring joined in a lawsuit against Mom, the aim of which was to force her to return to New York, to be placed in an Alzheimer’s ward, even though she was not suffering from that disease, and to give my sister guardianship over my mother’s body, property, social life, and her money; all of it.

Full Article and Source:
Granny Snatching T-Day Tomorrow; New Laws for CT Elderly?

********************************************************************

It's safe to believe in the American Dream … isn't it? We live in a country where we take quality education, careers, nice homes, and the wherewithal to raise a family for granted.

We are well fed. We're warm. We keep up with the latest fashions. Our legal system provides swift justice and righteousness prevails. We solve problems, not create them! Right?

We anticipate a safe and secure retirement where we hold hands with our life's partner during leisurely strolls on golden sands - waving palms overhead and perfectly sized waves breaking on the shore beneath a glowing sunset. Each evening we are submerged in the warmth of a life lived long and well, and the promise that tomorrow will be just like today.

And then … KA-POW! A giant wrecking ball tears in from stage right, smashing the palm trees, digging huge furrows in the perfect sand, and dumping the gently setting sun into a black sea of hissing steam. Darkness falls upon us and our world is turned upside down as family members appear from nowhere, seizing us, dragging us toward an unanticipated and unwanted future, penniless, powerless, confined in the clutches of "elder care."

Source:
RonaldWinterBooks.com

Mental Health Association of Connecticut Weighs In on Gross v. Rell

At the recommendation of its Public Policy Committee, on May 12, 2010, the MHAC board of directors unanimously passed a resolution to sign on as a friend of the court in the case of Gross v. Rell.

In a striking miscarriage of justice, Daniel Gross, an 86 year old New York man, hospitalized with cellulitis while visiting his daughter in Waterbury, was appointed a conservator by the probate court, without his permission, or even his presence in the courtroom. Mr. Gross was locked in a nursing home for ten months by this court-appointed conservator while his family bickered over who should have control over his assets.

This case is important for all persons with disabilities, especially psychiatric disabilities, because the duty owed by the attorney to the person represented, including those being subjected to a competency hearing, is the same as it would be to any other client. It appears not all officers of the court are quite on board with this concept yet.

Under Connecticut practice, lawyers should abide by their clients’ decisions concerning the objectives of representation, yet right now lawyers, court-appointed conservators, and even nursing homes have immunity from this practice. The purpose of this lawsuit is to hold the people with such great power and authority over other people’s lives accountable for their actions and put an end to that immunity. Court appointed conservators and/or attorneys will have to represent their clients with disabilities with the same amount of enthusiasm and responsibility as their clients without disabilities.

The conservatorship was eventually overturned and Mr. Gross went home to live in New York, but the slipshod, under-regulated probate court system is still exactly as it was when Mr. Gross was unwillingly dragged into it. This must not continue.

Source:
Rock the Boat

See Also:
Read Gross v. Rell, No. 08-2626

Holly Peffer Argues Her Own Case For Her Mother's Return

The matter at hand stems from a battle over who should be guardian of Rita Denmark.

Holly Peffer presented exhibits and arguments, at a hearing in the McKean County Court House small court room Friday [10/8/10], and pleaded for a ruling that would get her mother, Rita Denmark, out of a Florida nursing home and back to Bradford to live, in effect ending her brother’s guardianship over their mother.

Attorney Ronald Langella, appearing for his client Etta Getty (who did not attend), lodged a continuing objection to most of what Peffer was presenting to the extent it relied on facts not presented before White’s eqarlier ruling, and later declared that the judge lacks the authority to confer with a Florida judge concerning a procedural puzzle at the heart of the case. Getty is a Florida guardian appointed by a Florida court.

For his part, Senior Visiting Judge H. William White listened closely, patiently allowed for the difficulties faced by a party proceeding pro se (serving as her own attorney). His interest in the case and the legal issues it raises was evident throughout the hearing.

The judge said he would examine the items being presented for consideration, and would take into consideration those that he properly could, so as to decide “whether I was wrong.”

At one point White mused about some the murky points considering how a court in Florida had come to accept jurisdiction and why it had handled things as it did. He suggested that it would be practical for the judges to communicate, “me picking up the phone and conferring with the Florida judge.”

Peffer’s pleadings have argued that fraud was committed in order to get the matter out of McKean County and under the jurisdiction of a Florida Court; that because there had been a guardianship action commenced in McKean County, the Florida Court should not have agreed to hear a petition for guardianship in Florida. Besides, Peffer said, the Florida court assumed or was told Mrs. Denmark was domiciled there, when instead she had been taken there in a ploy to derail the McKean County guardianship petition.

Peffer also had harsh words for Bradford attorney Mark Hollenbeck, claiming he had been engaged to represent her mother’s interests but had worked against those interests.

Judge White stated that it is a very serious thing to suggest that an attorney has failed to carry out his duty toward his client, because “the courts, our system, we depend on being able to know that attorneys represent their clients faithfully.”

Full Article and Source:
Martha Knight, ERA Correspondent: Peffer Argues Own Case for Mother's Return

Peffer Case Summary

In the summer of 2007 Rita Denmark, a widow living with one of her Bradford daughters, was a fit 76-year-old who walked miles every day. She had cross-country skied in the winter. Her memory was not what it used to be, so she had given another local daughter, Holly Peffer, durable power of attorney responsibility, and Peffer managed her finances and bills in consultation with her mom.

An Office of Aging social worker recommended that a guardianship be arranged. The Orphan’s Court of the McKean County court system would be the court to grant that.

Accordingly Peffer set about getting guardianship in place by filing the appropriate petition in Orphan’s Court.

Even as the procedure was getting underway, two other adult children stepped in. The other Bradford daughter with whom she had been living took Mrs. Denmark to Florida to visit her son.

Early in that visit Mrs. Denmark was taken to see an attorney who had been lined up by the son she was visiting. She signed an affidavit which indicated that she had moved to Florida.

In more recent actions in McKean County Orphan’s Court, Peffer has maintained that Mrs. Denmark was tricked into her part in the proceedings, and had no intention of moving to Florida—only meaning to visit a son she had had little recent contact with. Peffer is convinced her mother was tricked into saying she was a Florida resident.

She considers the guardianship proceedings in Florida to have been based on a fraud on the court there, and the representations in McKean County Orphan’s Court to have been fraudulent as well, all intended to support the contention that the Florida court had jurisdiction in the matter.

Peffer says jurisdiction should have remained in McKean County, and the decision of the Florida court should be declared a nullity or should be overturned somehow.

As for Mrs. Denmark, she has been appointed a “professional guardian” who has worked with the two Florida attorneys. They placed Mrs. Denmark in an assisted living facility (or possibly a nursing home). Also, the attorneys and guardian got court approval of a no contact/no visitation order which keeps Peffer from having access to her mother.

“My mother is being criminally confined behind the locked and secured doors of a Florida elder care facility,” Peffer wrote to U.S. Attorney David J. Hickton, based in Pittsburgh, in September. “She is being held against her will and she wishes to return home to Pennsylvania. There is substantial, clear and convincing evidence that my mother is a lifelong domiciliary and resident of Pennsylvania.”

The Florida guardian, Jetta Getty, assisted by others, came to Bradford and took custody of Mrs. Denmark’s valuables, antiques, car and jewels. Previously they had obtained Peffer’s assistance in packing up some of the items, and transferring over $240,000 in Mrs. Denmark’s funds from Hamlin Bank to a Florida bank.

Peffer says she cooperated with Getty because Getty told her this would be the most efficient way to get things in order so that Mrs. Denmark could some home.

Was there fraud upon either or both courts? How could that be determined? Peffer, representing herself, maintained that there was fraud, and offered case law to support such a conclusion.

Peffer’s hopes for her mother’s return are pinned to the judge’s decision. But there are others interested in the outcome as well: activists who are seeking changes in how guardianship of adults is handled, across the United States.

Full Article and Source:
Martha Knight, ERA Correspondent: Guardianship of Adults Can be Tricky and Contentious, Local Family Fights

NASGA Members Support Holly Peffer at Hearing

Among those who attended last Friday’s hearing in McKean County Orphan’s Court, and paid close attention to what Senior Visiting Judge H. William White said and did, were several members of the National Association to Stop Guardian Abuse (NASGA).

Although they did not participate in the hearing, they did sit in the small court room where it was held, and handed out large pin-back buttons to anyone who wanted one. During a break in proceedings they huddled with the litigant who was present, Holly Peffer, who is seeking to have a Florida guardianship over her mother, Rita Denmark, dissolved, and the elderly widow returned to Bradford where she had lived nearly all her life.

On their website and in their literature, NASGA describes sequences of events and procedures used to gain total control over the wards placed in the care of guardians, and includes unethical attorneys and corrupt judges among the players in a system gone awry, as they see things.

Full Article and Source:
Guardianship Abuse Group Following Rita Denmark Case

If You Ask Me...

Guardian. Someone who protects.

Children need permission from a parent or guardian, to take part in field trips or other activities. Health care providers need the authorization of a parent or guardian in order to treat a patient who is a minor.

Those are situations that come to mind when we think of guardians. But there are guardians of adults, too. And sometimes there are children who are guardians of parents.

I don’t mean that minors can be guardians of parents, only that “adult children” can encounter situations in which their elderly or inform parents are in need of that kind of help. It’s a role reversal that is becoming more common than it used to be, what with life spans being greater.

“We need a guardianship bill!” was a mantra I heard at gatherings of the New York State Association for Retarded Children, Inc., decades ago. When first I heard that statement I didn’t know what it was about. But soon someone explained it to me.

NYSARC included numerous people who were highly qualified to explain guardianship and other legal issues. The one who laid it out for me was Augustus M. Jacobs, a courtly gentleman indeed. His specific court was the New York State Supreme Court, First District (Manhattan). He was one of the founders, in 1949, of the first organization of its kind, the Association for the Help of Retarded Children. I have his AHRC lapel pin.

The guardianships NYSARC was talking about were those in which persons with mental retardation would reach the age of majority but would not be able to handle all the responsibilities that come with adulthood. Their parents wanted to be able to continue to protect and guide them—to act as their guardians.

Most such parents expected that they would predecease their offspring. Some conditions causing mental retardation also included other health challenges which tended to shorten life spans, but even so, parents realized there probably would come a time when they would not be around, or able, to carry out their guardianship functions.

Often standby guardians were named. For mentally retarded adults, usually a parent or parents were named guardian/s, and often a sibling was appointed standby guardian. There could be other standby or contingency arrangements made, too. A local chapter of NYSARC would be one possible choice. The reasoning was that such an entity would have a longer “lifetime” than an individual. Chapters and NYSARC itself had guardianship committees; I served on several.

Then there are the guardian arrangements in which adult children assume responsibility for parents. Most of us know some of those guardians and their parents.

This isn’t the same as being “attorney-in-fact” or having the responsibility of power of attorney. That role is one in which the grantor voluntarily and knowingly gives the POA that authority, so that the POA can act for the grantor as needed, or maybe regularly. Typical duties and powers would be handling money and other assets, paying bills, selling property and making living arrangements.

Ordinarily the grantor can revoke or change power of attorney arrangements at will. Also, the grantor is still free to make decisions too, to pay bills and sign checks and buy things.

Guardianship arrangements may not always be voluntary on the part of the person being “guarded.” Sometimes that individual is too impaired in mental function to participate in the decision. Courts grant those non-voluntary guardianship arrangements based on a showing that the individual is incompetent. The court must find the proposed guardian to be suitable. Usually the person petitioning the court to appoint a guardian for someone is also proposing to be that guardian; but sometimes the petition asks the court to appoint another person or entity.

Would you be surprised if I told you some guardians of adults are untrustworthy? Probably not. There have been high profile cases in the news, where the rich and famous were victimized, usually by those close to them, through abuse of guardianship prerogatives.

There’s an organization devoted to helping those victimized by guardianship abuse, and to seeking legislation and court rulings that will help prevent such abuse. National Association to Stop Guardian Abuse has a website you can Google for.

Some of NASGA’s activists were in McKean County recently to monitor court proceedings related to the guardianship of Rita Denmark, a Bradford widow her daughter alleges to have been virtually abducted to Florida and wrongfully placed under guardianship there and then placed in a secure care facility and her assets made off with.

Sad. Worrisome. The court may rule on some aspects of that case later this week.

Source:
If You Ask Me...by Correspondent Martha "Marti" Knight

See Also:
Help Bring Rita Denmark Home

Daniel Gross: The Fight Continues

From the grave, Daniel Gross is still shaking up Connecticut's probate court system.

Gross, readers of my newspaper columns will recall, was the elderly Long Island man imprisoned in a Waterbury nursing home by a probate court judge for 10 months beginning in 2005, after falling ill while visiting his daughter.

After an outraged superior court judge freed Gross in 2006, he eventually returned to his New York home. He died in November of 2008, free.

The Gross case eventually led to changes that spurred the legislature's decision this year to radically downsize the courts from 117 to 54. Significantly, judges in the future will have to be lawyers who will have to undergo more training and work longer and more regular hours.

Now, a federal appeals court has taken up one of the remaining probate court outrages - conservators who overstep their authority and whether they are immune from lawsuits.

It's about time.

In Gross's case, a court-appointed conservator - who was supposed to be looking after his best interests - forcibly kept the elderly man in a nursing home. A court-appointed lawyer disregarded Gross's wishes to return home to Long Island.

Gross has been dead for two years, but a long-simmering lawsuit by his daughter has resulted in what could be a significant decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

The Second Circuit judges have asked Connecticut's top court to "explain the role and function" of both court appointed lawyers and conservators.

Probate judges tell me that these court-appointed "agents" must be immune from lawsuits or else they will never be able to find lawyers willing to take these jobs. I can understand that.

But I also remember a heartbroken old man who wanted to go home but was unable to leave a nursing home because a couple of lawyers thought they knew better.

Full Article and Source:
Daniel Gross v. Probate: The Fight Continues

Daniel Gross Case: Back in the News

In the case of a New York man who was wrongfully placed in a nursing home for 10 months against his will, the 2nd Circuit affirmed dismissal of the man's claims against the probate judge, the nursing home and state officials, but asked the Connecticut Supreme Court whether quasi-judicial immunity extends to court-appointed conservators and attorneys.

In 2005, octogenarian Daniel Gross had a conservatorship imposed on him and was kept in a nursing home until a Superior Court judge in Connecticut ordered him released, citing "a terrible miscarriage of justice."

Gross sued probate Judge Thomas P. Brunnock, court-appointed attorney Jonathan Newman, conservator Kathleen Donovan, Grove Manor Nursing Home, Gov. M. Jodi Rell and state ombudsman Maggie Ewald.

Gross said the defendants wrongfully kept him at Grove Manor, where he lived with a violent roommate who attacked him, and ignored his complaints about the mistreatment.

The defendants all asserted absolute or quasi-immunity, and U.S. District Judge Vanessa Bryant dismissed the complaint. She dismissed the claims against state officials for procedural reasons, but cited immunity for the rest.

"We affirm the dismissal of claims against the state officials, the tort claims against the nursing home, and the finding of absolute judicial immunity as to the judge," the New York-based appeals court ruled.

However, it found Connecticut law on quasi-immunity "unclear" and certified the following questions to the state Supreme Court:

"Under Connecticut law, does absolute quasi-judicial immunity extend to conservators appointed by the Connecticut Probate Courts?

"Under Connecticut law, does absolute quasi-judicial immunity extend to attorneys appointed to represent respondents in conservatorship proceedings or to attorneys appointed to represent conservatees?" and;

"What is the role of conservators, court-appointed attorneys for conservatees, and nursing homes in the Connecticut probate court system, in light of the six factors for determining quasi-judicial immunity outlined in Cleavinger v. Saxner, 474 U.S. 193, 201-02 (1985)?"

Full Article and Source:
Court Seeks Clarification in Conservatorship Case

National Silver Alert Act (S.557)

U.S. Senator Charles E. Schumer today announced that he is pushing legislation to create a nationwide network for locating missing adults and senior citizens with Alzheimer's, dementia, and other mental impairments. The Silver Alert Act would create a program, modeled after the AMBER Alert, which would provide federal coordination and assistance through the Department of Justice to local and state law enforcement to assist efforts to locate missing senior citizens across the country.

Schumer said today that a nationwide alert network is critical because missing adults can cross state and county lines.

Senator Schumer is sponsoring the National Silver Alert Act (S. 557), which will encourage and integrate systems throughout the United States to help identify and locate missing seniors with cognitive impairments. The bill will also authorize grants for these organizations. The bill has already passed the House of Representatives.

Full Article and Source:
Schumer Pushes for Nationwide Alert System to Locate Missing Adults With Alzheimer's Disease; Almost 22,000 Seniors in Rochester Finger Lakes are Affected