It would be impossible for a special commission — appointed by the New Mexico Supreme Court to review and recommend changes in the state guardianship system — to ignore shocking recent allegations of outright theft by guardians and conservators.
These are the same guardians and conservators who are appointed by judges to protect some of our most vulnerable residents — the elderly and disabled.
When federal investigators describe a commercial guardian company like Ayudando Guardians Inc. as “permeated by crime,” it would seem even the most ardent defenders of the system would have to take notice. Remember, Ayudando was appointed in hundreds of cases and represented the professional guardians at one commission hearing.
Such cases highlight obvious areas in need of reform. The courts have no forensic auditing capability, there are no meaningful financial reporting requirements, no requirement in state law for guardians and conservators to post bond and no place for families to complain.
But the commission and court also need to look at other, more subtle, problems in a system that lacks meaningful oversight even though it is susceptible to corruption.
Consider these scenarios, based on real-life examples from the Journal’s ongoing investigation:
1. You are struggling with how to care for a parent whose mental faculties have deteriorated. You temporarily put Mom in a care facility, then decide to bring her home. But caregivers and attorneys who make a living in this system urge you to petition for a guardianship. It will be so much less stress, they say. The professionals can handle it so much better, they say. You can go back to being son or daughter. They might even privately urge Mom to tell you that’s what she wants. The pressure is subtle and they don’t mention, of course, that this is their source of income.
2. You concur and petition for a guardianship. A judge declares Mom or Dad incapacitated and appoints a guardian and/or conservator. But a year or so later you aren’t happy with the care Mom’s getting and you think the charges racked up by the professionals — and taken from Mom’s assets — are excessive. Conservators and guardians have virtually no check on their spending other than possible after-the-fact review by the judge. You object. But they dismiss your complaints. You have nothing to say about this any more.
3. You can’t even discuss these issues with Mom. It “upsets” her, says the guardian. In fact, so much so they can cut you off from Mom. Totally. Without judicial approval. Visits, if allowed, will be “monitored” for content.
4. You go back to your attorney for help. Ooops. He/she can’t help you because he/she represents the guardian and/or conservator in other cases. This is, after all, an industry dominated by insiders.
5. The guardian and/or conservator fight your efforts for removal and even cut off your visitation. They, after all, are empowered by the court. And they pay their lawyers who are fighting to keep you away from Mom out of — you guessed it — Mom’s estate. And they don’t need advance court approval for this.
6. You’ve found a new lawyer and started over. But it’s an uphill battle. You will be portrayed as the shrill and “emotional” family member by industry insiders and their lawyers, who are smooth and polished before the judges they know well and who defend them publicly.
7. You dig into your own pocketbook and the guardian and/or conservator finally relent. OK. You can see Mom and maybe they will even agree to step aside and allow appointment of another firm. But part of the price to end the legal war is a “side” agreement in which you promise never to criticize the company or even acknowledge the existence of such an agreement.
8. You’ve had running disputes with the conservator but really want the estate settled now that Mom’s gone. You’re asked to sign a document releasing the conservator from all liability and, likely, a promise you won’t criticize. But you want a real accounting? You may have to post a significant bond — even though guardians and conservators typically in New Mexico haven’t been required to do that when they take over your loved one’s estate and finances.
The initial reaction by some District Court judges in Albuquerque to family complaints — Judge Shannon Bacon being a notable exception — was one of denial. Nothing to see here. Move along.
But that’s not possible now with law enforcement accusations of millions of dollars stolen from protected wards by court-appointed guardians such as Ayudando.
Yes, there are some obvious reforms. And as noted in today’s Page 1 story by investigative reporter Colleen Heild, Bernalillo County district judges have begun taking important steps.
But to fix the structural problems that have allowed this abuse of people and their assets, the commission and the Supreme Court will need to dig a little deeper into the decay that has allowed these problems to flourish.
This editorial first appeared in the Albuquerque Journal. It was written by members of the editorial board and is unsigned as it represents the opinion of the newspaper rather than the writers.
Full Article & Source:
Editorial: Commission needs to dig deep into guardianship travesty
Showing posts with label New Mexico Supreme Court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label New Mexico Supreme Court. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 8, 2017
Wednesday, May 24, 2017
Commission: guardianship dockets to be posted online
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — A commission appointed by the New Mexico Supreme Court to study the state’s system of adult guardianships voted Friday to make certain that docket sheets are posted on a public website.
Dockets, which provide basic information about guardianship cases, filed in state court are scheduled to appear on the court’s official website starting May 23 under on ongoing court effort to streamline online case files.
The New Mexico Adult Guardianship Study Commission on Friday voted to have its chairwoman, former District Judge Wendy York, write a letter to the court asking that the records access changes be made a priority if the implementation doesn’t happen as scheduled.
Most records, reports and evidence are confidential under state law in cases where a petition is filed with the court seeking guardianship for an allegedly incapacitated person.
But certain records are supposed to be public under state law, including the docket sheet, the person’s name and the duration of the guardianship, according to state law.
York said some court clerks have withheld that information. Posting the information online will help ensure that people throughout the state can learn basic information about a guardianship petition, including the name of the presiding judge.
Full Article & Source:
Commission: guardianship dockets to be posted online
Dockets, which provide basic information about guardianship cases, filed in state court are scheduled to appear on the court’s official website starting May 23 under on ongoing court effort to streamline online case files.
The New Mexico Adult Guardianship Study Commission on Friday voted to have its chairwoman, former District Judge Wendy York, write a letter to the court asking that the records access changes be made a priority if the implementation doesn’t happen as scheduled.
Most records, reports and evidence are confidential under state law in cases where a petition is filed with the court seeking guardianship for an allegedly incapacitated person.
But certain records are supposed to be public under state law, including the docket sheet, the person’s name and the duration of the guardianship, according to state law.
York said some court clerks have withheld that information. Posting the information online will help ensure that people throughout the state can learn basic information about a guardianship petition, including the name of the presiding judge.
Full Article & Source:
Commission: guardianship dockets to be posted online
Monday, April 3, 2017
Editorial: Court makes right move in guardian system review
It’s encouraging to see the New Mexico Supreme Court recognizes the need
to review the state’s troubled system designed to protect individuals
deemed by the courts to be “incapacitated” and placed under
court-appointed guardianship, conservatorship or both. Chief Justice
Charles Daniels says he and the other four justices plan to appoint a
commission to undertake a comprehensive study of the issue – including
public hearings – that will inform the court of its findings.
The court announcement comes after the Journal published a series of articles highlighting the problems faced by some families and loved ones when someone says an elderly family member can no longer fend for themselves and becomes a ward of the court.
The Journal investigation found New Mexico lags behind other states that have instituted reforms to improve transparency in the mostly confidential system, as well as make guardians and conservators more accountable to the courts, including requiring certification or licensing.
The Journal has interviewed many family members who have had a loved one placed under guardianship or conservatorship; they have shared unsettling stories of how the system divided relatives, squandered finances and sometimes prevented them from spending time with their “incapacitated” parent. Although the current system has served many families well, these testimonies leave no doubt that improvements are direly needed.
Daniels says if improvements are warranted, the court could seek legislation; recommend executive agencies enact greater safeguards, or change court rules. Former state Rep. Conrad James, R-Albuquerque, who tried to pass a bill in 2016 to permit visitation by family members of a loved one under guardianship, said at the recent Journal forum “baby steps” might be needed to get the reform ball moving.
What the state Supreme Court has done is a giant leap in the right direction.
This editorial first appeared in the Albuquerque Journal. It was written by members of the editorial board and is unsigned as it represents the opinion of the newspaper rather than the writers.
Full Article & Source:
Editorial: Court makes right move in guardian system review
The court announcement comes after the Journal published a series of articles highlighting the problems faced by some families and loved ones when someone says an elderly family member can no longer fend for themselves and becomes a ward of the court.
The Journal investigation found New Mexico lags behind other states that have instituted reforms to improve transparency in the mostly confidential system, as well as make guardians and conservators more accountable to the courts, including requiring certification or licensing.
The Journal has interviewed many family members who have had a loved one placed under guardianship or conservatorship; they have shared unsettling stories of how the system divided relatives, squandered finances and sometimes prevented them from spending time with their “incapacitated” parent. Although the current system has served many families well, these testimonies leave no doubt that improvements are direly needed.
Daniels says if improvements are warranted, the court could seek legislation; recommend executive agencies enact greater safeguards, or change court rules. Former state Rep. Conrad James, R-Albuquerque, who tried to pass a bill in 2016 to permit visitation by family members of a loved one under guardianship, said at the recent Journal forum “baby steps” might be needed to get the reform ball moving.
What the state Supreme Court has done is a giant leap in the right direction.
This editorial first appeared in the Albuquerque Journal. It was written by members of the editorial board and is unsigned as it represents the opinion of the newspaper rather than the writers.
Full Article & Source:
Editorial: Court makes right move in guardian system review
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)


