Editorial: Who guards the guardians?

BY ALBUQUERQUE JOURNAL EDITORIAL BOARD

Sunday, July 5th, 2020 at 12:02am

Much has changed for the better since the Journal published an investigative series in November and December of 2017 titled “Who Guards the Guardians.”

Those stories by reporter Diane Dimond detailed complaints about a secretive system. Critics, most often family members of incapacitated people, complained about having little recourse to abuses that ranged from overspending and mishandling of assets to virtual carte blanche authority by court-appointed guardians and conservators to ignore and override the wishes of families when it came to concerns for their loved ones.

Despite heated denials by many within the system that anything was wrong, Journal Investigative Reporter Colleen Heild continued to probe complaints of abuse and misconduct. Meanwhile, the state Supreme Court took notice and along with other reforms established a process that has led to more transparency and created an avenue in which family members and others can petition the courts to address their grievances.

Justices Charles Daniels, who passed away in 2019 after retiring from the court, and Judith Nakamura were instrumental in advancing reforms. So were retired District Judge Wendy York of Albuqueque, who headed a Supreme Court-appointed commission to study the issue, and District Judge Shannon Bacon of Albuquerque, who is now a Supreme Court justice.

So it was fitting that Bacon announced last week that the New Mexico State Auditor’s Office will now have a permanent watchdog function over the nearly 6,000 cases in which state district courts have appointed guardians and conservators to manage the affairs of those deemed incapacitated.

The announcement followed a one-year pilot project undertaken by State Auditor Brian Colón, whose auditors found 194 “risk factors” in annual reports filed among more than 300 conservator cases sampled. The factors included lack of supporting documentation, conflicting information, and the fact that assets of the protected person being were understated or unaccounted for. Auditors also found instances of checks written directly to conservators. Or conservators charging large fees for services or reimbursements of expenses. The auditors sent more than 40 letters to judges in the cases laying out the concerns.

This kind of outside oversight is unprecedented.

With a green light from the judiciary, Colón’s office will now have oversight and involvement in what had traditionally been a closed system that sometimes excluded even family members of the incapacitated person. Colón appeared with Bacon on a Zoom video conference to make the announcement.

“We have an opportunity to step up oversight …” Colón said. “We’ve got to fill in the cracks (in the system) so we know those most vulnerable don’t fall through.”

Bacon said the courts and Legislature have already added more transparency to the system and enhanced reporting requirements. Now, she said, the courts plan to implement measures “to give auditors open access to guardianship and conservatorship cases.” Bacon said the auditors have been granted special access to online reports that typically aren’t public.

On the issue of reporting, though, Colón’s auditors recommended guardians and conservators provide supporting documentation instead of simply listing the amounts of assets and expenditures on standardized forms filed with the district courts.

The Supreme Court can make that happen by adopting a rule requiring it.

The auditor’s report also recommended “increased focus on review of financial affairs of protected persons with substantial assets.” That makes sense.

The state auditor also said the recent criminal sentences of two of four defendants in the now-defunct Ayudando Guardians Inc. underscored the need for more oversight in New Mexico. The company’s top officials stole millions of dollars from clients to finance a lavish lifestyle in a nearly decade-long scheme.

In contrast with a closed system that appeared to stonewall complaints, Bacon and Colón urged people with concerns to fill out a grievance form found on the state Supreme Court website. The forms are to be submitted to the district court where the case is filed. Colón said a copy also can be sent to his office.

In another major step forward, Bacon said the judiciary wants Colón’s office to be able to do random audits and go to banking institutions to review records, if needed. The details are still to be worked out with the courts.

“This ongoing process and partnership,” Bacon said, “is how we increase the sunshine and avoid the abuses of the past.”

The judiciary, lawmakers and the auditor all deserve credit for the work they’ve done. Now is the time to push ahead on the rest of the reform items to prevent the exploitation of incapacitated New Mexicans and give a voice to their loved ones.

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: Who guards the guardians?

"Who's Guarding the Guardians"

The nation's guardianship system is a failure. It puts people in the hands of others with little or no evidence of necessity, but to create a for profit industry for court-appointed lawyers.

Source:
"Who's Guarding the Guardians"

Who guards the guardians? Estate planning questioned in hearing

SANTA FE – It’s been a nagging question during the months of debate over reforming New Mexico’s guardianship system:

How to ensure that estate plans and trust directives are honored if you or your loved one become incapacitated and are placed under a court-ordered guardianship?

That question from state Sen. Nancy Rodriguez, D-Santa Fe, came during the rollout of some 18 proposed guardianship reforms to the health and human services committee of the state Legislature on Friday. The proposals are the product of six months of study by a state Supreme Court appointed commission.

For Rodriguez, the issue of planning for the care of an incapacitated loved one hit close to home.

“Conservators and guardians seem to have quite a bit of authority, in fact, all the authority to take over someone’s finances, their accounts that were going to belong to that person,” she said. “Does that mean a conservator or a guardian also has the authority if a trust is in place for that individual, that (the conservator has) access to the trust? That, too?”

Guardianship commission chairwoman Wendy York responded that under New Mexico’s current system that could happen.

“One of the issues that we heard repeatedly from members of the public was that very issue,” York added. “When a person had an estate plan in place or a trust in place that a conservator could determine that that money should go in a different direction for care of that person.”

Rodriguez explained her worries as the mother of a special needs daughter.

“My daughter now lives in heaven. She had an illness a few years ago. One of the things that crossed my mind all the time was, ‘Oh, my gosh, I hope God keeps me here long enough. I don’t want her to be alone, because she couldn’t take care of herself.’

“I was prepared then to do a trust, specifically for her, thinking back then there would be no way that anyone would have a chance … to possibly make any changes to that trust. I wanted the most secure way to know that our daughter would have enough money for medical needs or whatever it may be.”

“What happens to parents who put a trust in place? To me there should be a document that’s solid stone, that doesn’t get changed,” Rodriguez said.

York, a retired state district judge from Albuquerque, said judges in guardianship cases are confronted with so many different scenarios,”it’s difficult to say there should never be a situation in which a trust would not need to be invaded for the protected person.”

But under a commission proposal, she added, judges in New Mexico would have to make specific findings of fact if they deviate from a protected person’s advance directive, trust, will or estate plan.

“So that the judge goes through the exercise of saying, ‘OK, why am I doing this when the protected person has put another plan in place?” York said.

State Sen. Jerry Ortiz y Pino, D-Albuquerque, a guardianship commission member, added, “What this does is, it reinforces the notion that the trust takes precedence, unless …. And we don’t have that in law now. Right now the conservator has a great deal of latitude in convincing the court into overturning the trust.”

Rodriguez echoed others on the committee who voiced support for the reforms, which so far don’t have a projected price tag.

“If it was up to me, I would get every one of these (recommendations) into statute,” Rodriguez said, “because we cannot see this happening anymore. Not to one person, at all, anywhere. I think we need to prioritize our funds at the state level. Do what’s right here.”

The legislative hearing, in which no vote was taken, touched upon the lessons learned from the downfall of a leading New Mexico guardianship firm, Ayudando Guardians, whose two top executives are facing federal charges of embezzling more than $4 million of clients’ money. Its clientele included military veterans and special needs or developmentally disabled people. Another Albuquerque firm, Desert State Life Management, is alleged to have diverted millions of dollars set aside in trusts for special needs and elderly clients, but no criminal charges have been filed.

Even with “meager” funding next fiscal year, the state’s budget priorities need to be adjusted, Rodriguez said. “This is something that we cannot let continue to happen.”

State Rep. Christine Trujillo, D-Albuquerque, said the Legislature needs to act now.

“There’s no other option for us except to move forward. If we continue to allow this without any oversight and accountability … then we just continue to perpetuate the problem. It should be our political will to make sure this gets done.”

State Rep. Joanne Ferrary, D-Las Cruces, said district judges she has spoken with stressed the importance of conducting audits. “Without admitting anything, I think they (the judges) were aware of the problems,” Ferrary said.

Guardianship companies file annual reports with the courts. But the commission is proposing the legislature fund investigators or auditors who would review such reports and alert the judge in the case about “red flags.”

Ortiz y Pino, a longtime advocate of reform, said the state hasn’t provided adequate resources for oversight of guardianship cases.

Legislative action is needed because the system is “no longer trusted” in New Mexico, he said.

“It operates under a shadow of suspicion … that we may not be doing the best for our loved ones,” Ortiz y Pino said. “We need to restore a level of confidence in the guardianship/conservatorship system in the state. To do that, we need more adequate financing.”

Full Article & Source:
Who guards the guardians? Estate planning questioned in hearing

Who guards the guardians? State auditor says agency fails to oversee firms

State Auditor Tim Keller’s office on Thursday issued an “emergency risk” advisory for the state Office of Guardianship based on an initial review that showed the agency has failed to properly oversee more than 20 private companies that are paid by the state to provide guardian services for vulnerable, indigent New Mexicans.

The Guardianship Office, which has about 900 clients, is responsible for monitoring and enforcing state contracts with private firms appointed by the courts to make the legal and other decisions for people deemed incapacitated through disability.

Keller’s office launched an audit of contract guardianship firms at the request of state District Judge Shannon Bacon of Albuquerque after one of the Office of Guardianship’s contractors, Ayudando Guardians, and two company executives were indicted in July on federal charges related to the alleged embezzlement of up to $4 million in client funds.

“The OSA’s (Office of State Auditor) initial fact-finding revealed a widespread failure of the Office of Guardianship to oversee contract guardians,” Keller said in a letter Thursday to officials with the state Developmental Disabilities Planning Council, which oversees the Guardianship Office.

“In short, although the courts and our citizens rely on the Office of Guardianship to protect against fraud and abuse by contract guardians, the Office has few systems in place or resources to discharge that duty,” the letter said.

For example, the office monitored only two of 21 guardianship contracts last fiscal year, the letter said. The office didn’t address complaints about contract guardians and didn’t have formal approved policies for contract guardians for the last fiscal year.

Required periodic reporting by contract guardians was irregular, and the office failed to follow up with those companies that hadn’t reported.

“Without these basic systems in place, the Office could not have been monitoring the accuracy of billing or identifying early signs of the types of fraud and abuse that led to the Ayudando indictments,” the letter said.

Since the indictment, the U.S. Marshals Service has closed the Albuquerque-based Ayudando Guardians. Ayudando was paid more than $650,000 a year under its state contract but also had private-pay clients and disbursed federal veterans’ and Social Security benefits to other clients.

The letter said that the Developmental Disabilities Planning Council “suggests that a severe lack of resources and capabilities are contributing to the problems at the Office of Guardianship. Monitoring efforts have been hampered by a lack of adequate staffing, expertise and travel budget.”

John Block III, executive director of the disabilities council, didn’t return a Journal request for an interview Thursday.

But in August, Block told the Journal the Office of Guardianship had two compliance officers to monitor the cases of about 900 clients. To be eligible, clients cannot earn more than 200 percent of the federal poverty level.

An estimated 100 people were on a waiting list for guardianship services, Block said.

With a $6.4 million annual budget, Block told the Journal, “We do the best we can to stretch the funding as much as we can.”

Aside from the Guardianship Office, the only other oversight of the 900 state guardianship clients is through the courts, which require a confidential annual report from each guardian.

The state’s guardian and conservator system has been under study by a state Supreme Court commission that is set to unveil its initial recommendations for reform at a meeting today.

During a May commission meeting, then-Ayudando Chief Financial Officer Sharon Moore testified that her agency is subject to regular audits by the Office of Guardianship.

But Block later told the Journal the audits aren’t financial, but are technical reviews to ensure proper documentation of client information.

Moore and Ayudando President Susan Harris are accused of siphoning client funds to finance a lavish lifestyle for themselves and their families. They have pleaded not guilty.

Keller’s letter to Block, which was forwarded to the state Attorney General, legislative leaders and the state Department of Finance and Administration, was obtained by the Journal.

The letter recommended that the Guardianship Office “immediately be subject to more thorough oversight and management. This may necessitate bringing in staff on loan from other agencies or a contracted firm to assist with the Office of Guardianship’s day-to-day work and to address the backlog of unresolved complaints and irregular reporting.”

It may also require additional funding on an emergency basis or through a budget transfer, Keller wrote.

He also recommended that, in advance of the legislative session that starts in January, the Legislature and Gov. Susana Martinez consider “possible enhancement, revision or restructuring” of the office and its responsibilities, including evaluating whether the planning council is the appropriate agency to oversee the Guardianship Office. Up until 2003, the Guardianship Office was overseen by the Attorney General’s Office.

Full Article & Source:
Who guards the guardians? State auditor says agency fails to oversee firms

Who guards the guardians?: Judge vows to fight for clients who lost trust funds

The civil case of Ayudando Guardians Inc. v. Desert State Life Management involves two companies accused of siphoning client accounts for personal gain.

With their owners absent for an initial hearing in the lawsuit Wednesday, a state district judge heard from those who are picking up the pieces after the shocking collapse this summer of the two New Mexico nonprofit companies that for more than a decade specialized in serving developmentally disabled, elderly and otherwise vulnerable clients.

In the audience were lawyers from the U.S. Attorney’s Office, which is prosecuting Ayudando Guardians and its two principals on criminal charges of embezzling at least $4 million in client funds; and Liane Kerr, whose former husband Paul Donisthorpe has been accused by state and federal authorities of embezzling $4 million from his clients’ accounts at Desert State. He hasn’t been criminally charged.

At issue Wednesday was how to proceed with the lawsuit filed by Ayudando Guardians on June 6 seeking damages from Desert State on behalf of seven clients. Those clients entrusted their funds for Desert State to manage, the lawsuit states.

That case was filed a month before Ayudando’s two principals, Susan Harris and Sharon Moore, and the company itself, were indicted July 11 by a federal grand jury for embezzling more than $4 million from their clients. The U.S. Marshals office has been running Ayudando since then, with the prospect of a shutdown of the company imminent. Harris and Moore have pleaded not guilty.

Donisthorpe didn’t attend Wednesday’s hearing. He hasn’t responded to requests for comment and is reportedly brain damaged from a botched suicide attempt.

His wife of 31 years, Kerr, filed for divorce in March after state financial examiners began to look into Desert State’s books. She appeared in court with her attorney Wednesday, but didn’t comment. In court records, Kerr has denied any involvement in the alleged embezzlement scheme or the trust company business.

Both companies are being dismantled by government agencies in light of the fraud and embezzlement allegations.

Judge Alan Malott on Wednesday denied a motion to dismiss Ayudando’s claims against Desert State, vowing to make sure the seven Ayudando clients who may have lost trust funds at Desert State “don’t fall through the cracks” because their guardian is under federal indictment.

“There may be nothing left, but I’m going to try to get as close to the penny as I can get,”said Malott.

Desert State in early August was placed into the receivership of the state Financial Institutions Division.

An estimated 70 people who were clients of Desert State have lost some or all of their trust money, state officials say. Malott, during the hearing, said state district judges are in “crisis management” mode trying to find replacement guardians for Ayudando’s clients.

State FID attorney Kevin Graham told Malott that families and individuals, some with “limited” ability to understand “what’s going on in the case,” have contacted the state to find lawyers to help recover their missing trust funds.

Meanwhile, the state Public Accountancy Board last week revoked Donisthorpe’s CPA license.

Full Article & Source:
Who guards the guardians?: Judge vows to fight for clients who lost trust funds

Judge in guardianship case denies claims he is biased

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — Albuquerque state District Judge Alan Malott this week shot down a recusal attempt by a woman seeking a new judge in her 4-year-old lawsuit against her mother’s former corporate guardian and conservator.

Judge Alan Malott

Malott ruled that attorneys for Leonie Rosenstiel presented no evidence to show that he couldn’t act impartially in the case and should recuse himself.

Rosenstiel is suing the firm Decades LLC on behalf of her mother, Annette Rosenstiel, who was deemed mentally incapacitated and placed under a court-approved guardianship and conservatorship beginning in 2003.

Rosenstiel’s attorneys contended the judge’s participation earlier this year on two discussion panels about guardianship issues would cause a reasonable person to believe he was biased and unable to fairly and appropriately rule on Rosenstiel’s lawsuit

Rosenstiel, whose mother died in 2012, alleges that the company mismanaged her now-deceased mother’s finances and property, failed to protect her interests, and negligently and improperly handled her mother’s affairs. The case is set for trial in October.

Rosenstiel’s attorneys had questioned, in part, the propriety of Malott’s appearance April 5 on a panel that included members of the guardianship industry. The panel included Greg MacKenzie, an attorney who has represented Decades in Rosenstiel’s case. The luncheon discussion was sponsored by the Albuquerque Lawyers Club.

The panel topic was titled “The Truth Underlying the Reporting on Guardianships/Conservatorships in New Mexico,” and Rosenstiel’s attorneys contended that the explicit purpose of the discussion was to address articles in the Albuquerque Journal about matters “that included Defendants’ (Decades LLC) performance as a guardian or conservator.”

The recusal motion also cited Malott’s March 22 appearance at a public Town Hall on guardianship issues sponsored by the Journal and KANW-FM. Malott was the court’s representative on the panel.

Decades, in its response, stated that Rosenstiel’s lawsuit was never discussed during the Albuquerque Lawyers Club presentation and MacKenzie didn’t organize the event. Rosenstiel’s motion is “filled with suggestion and innuendo, yet fails to present sufficient evidence that would require Judge Malott’s disqualification,” stated Decades’ response.

Malott in his ruling also stated that there was no evidence presented by Rosenstiel’s attorneys to support the conclusions that he was biased.

He pointed to “counsel’s self-serving conjectures that merely participating in these unrestricted and multi-partisan public events establishes improper ‘ex parte’ communications and requires recusal.

“Holding otherwise would discourage a judge from participating in both law-related educational activities and extra-judicial community activities,” he wrote. “It would also discourage the development of a better public understanding of the way courts function and the court’s role in our society.”

Malott added that the parties and their attorneys are “reminded the appropriate place for the trial is in the Bernalillo County Courthouse, not the ‘Court of Public Opinion.’ ”

Full Article & Source:
Judge in guardianship case denies claims he is biased

See Also:
Plaintiff in guardianship case wants the judge to step aside

New Mexico Conservator Darryl Millet Disputes Claims in Darnell Case

The conservator in a controversial court case involving the matriarch of a well-known Albuquerque family is defending his actions, challenging complaints made by family members and others in a Journal series late last year on adult guardianships involving private professionals.

Darryl Millet

Among his claims, attorney Darryl W. Millet, of Albuquerque Advocates, says the estate of Blair Darnell wasn’t worth anywhere close to $5 million when he was put in charge of finances – as family members allege, and as reported by guardianship industry professionals to the judge in the case. Those filings were filed under seal but obtained by the Journal.

The Darnell guardian/conservator case was prominently featured in the Journal series by journalist Diane Dimond, who reported family complaints that the estate dissipated from about $5 million to about $750,000.

In addition to challenging the initial value, Millet also cited “expensive” costs to the estate of $14,000-$16,000 a month to provide professional care for Blair Darnell during her six-year guardianship. Some family members attribute the high costs to the court’s appointment of for-profit professionals rather than allowing them to care for Blair Darnell, who remained in her own home.

Millet wouldn’t comment last year about specifics of the case in which he served as conservator/trustee for Blair Darnell, who died in November 2015 at the age of 85. He cited New Mexico law that seals most records involving court-appointed conservators and guardians from public view.

But Millet wrote an eight-page letter to the Journal, dated April 9, 2017, in which he said he was now able to offer previously confidential information for two reasons:

First, he said members of the Darnell family and the Journal “have destroyed any privacy” a sequestration order in the case might have provided to the late Blair Darnell. And, he wrote, he could now speak because the rules of professional conduct governing lawyers allow attorneys “to reveal confidential information to the extent necessary to refute allegations against themselves.”

Full Article and Source:
Darnell Conservator Disputes Claims

See Also:
Who Guards the Guardians?

Families Say They Were Shut Out

Families Feel Steamrolled as Estates Disappear

Fixing a Well-Meaning but Flawed System

Plaintiff in guardianship case wants the judge to step aside

Judge Alan Malott

The daughter of a deceased Albuquerque author suing a commercial guardian and conservator firm is questioning the impartiality of the judge in the case, citing in part his appearance in April with representatives of the guardianship industry at an Albuquerque Lawyers Club panel discussion.

Attorneys for Leonie Rosenstiel are asking District Judge Alan Malott to recuse himself from presiding over her lawsuit against Decades LLC in part because of his participation on a panel whose explicit purpose “was to address newspaper articles about matters that included the Defendants’ (Decades LLC) performance as a guardian or conservator,” according to a motion filed May 15.

The panel discussion was titled “The Truth Underlying the Reporting on Guardianships/Conservatorships in New Mexico.”

The panel’s membership included Gregory MacKenzie, one of the lawyers who has been representing Decades in the pending lawsuit filed by Rosenstiel in 2013. Rosenstiel’s lawsuit contends that Decades and its CEO, Nancy Oriola, were negligent in handling her mother’s assets and in administering her guardianship and conservatorship.

Decades served as Annette Rosenstiel’s court-appointed guardian and conservator from 2003 until her death at the age of 100 – according to court records – in 2012. She had previously been deemed mentally incapacitated by a judge and in need of a guardian and conservator.

The Journal published a series late last fall titled “Who Guards the Guardians?” but didn’t mention Rosenstiel’s mother’s case by name.

Decades and MacKenzie were mentioned in the series because they were involved in another controversial guardian/conservator case.

Malott has set a June 26 hearing on the matter and “all parties will have an opportunity to be heard,” said court executive officer James Noel on Friday. “Subsequently, the Court will make its ruling.”

The Code of Judicial Conduct encourages judges in New Mexico to “engage in appropriate extrajudicial activities” to the “extent that time permits, and judicial independence and impartiality are not compromised.”

The recusal motion filed on May 15 contends that Malott’s “participation in the April 5 panel would cause a reasonable person to question the Judge’s impartiality” and that rules governing judges require him to step aside if that’s the case.

Malott appeared at the lunch meeting panel discussion of the Albuquerque Lawyers Club, a group of attorneys that has informal discussions about legal matters. Other panelists were MacKenzie; Mary Galvez, a professional guardian who is also frequently appointed by judges as a court visitor to advise whether guardianships are needed; and an elder law attorney, Ellen Leitzer.

Panelists, including Malott, were critical of the Journal series.

Leitzer and Galvez have both worked with MacKenzie and Decades’ CEO Oriola “to lobby on behalf of the elements of the commercial guardianship industry in, among other matters, vigorously resisting even modest efforts to improve transparency in guardianship proceedings,” Rosenstiel’s motion contends.

The membership of that panel “was slanted in favor of the commercial guardianship industry,” Rosenstiel’s motion states. Malott’s “mere participation” with attorney MacKenzie “conveys the impression that the Defendants are in a position to influence the Judge.”

The motion also cites statements Malott made as a panelist during a public town hall on guardianships held March 22 and sponsored by the Albuquerque Journal and KANW-FM. Malott appeared as the court’s representative.

That panel’s membership was more diverse than the attorneys’ club panel, Rosenstiel’s motion states, but Malott told the audience that although state law requires all records in guardian/conservator cases to be kept secret, he personally believed only medical and financial information should be sequestered. That “directly relates to confidentiality issues pending before the Court in this (Rosenstiel’s civil case against Decades),” the recusal motion states.

The motion also notes that an attorney for Decades sent Malott a letter about the case in 2014 without notifying Rosenstiel or her attorney. The judge later noted in an order that the defendants sought no special consideration from him and none was given, stated that all communications with him should be filed motions or related to scheduling matters.

Sealed documents

Malott hasn’t yet ruled on the Albuquerque Journal’s motion to open the 20-some sealed filings in Rosenstiel’s lawsuit against Decades – a request echoed by Rosenstiel and her attorneys. Malott recently permitted public inspection of portions of Decades’ response to the Journal motion for unsealing, which was filed in late March. He redacted other portions.

Decades contends that the records in the case should be kept confidential to protect the privacy of Annette Rosenstiel, even after her death. Rosenstiel, who published various articles and books, was married to a New York financial heavyweight, Raymond S. Rosenstiel.

Decades added that they welcomed a public trial on Rosenstiel’s lawsuit, but could not get one if the Journal is allowed to report on the court filings prior to trial.

The Journal and Leonie Rosenstiel argue that the case is a straightforward malpractice civil lawsuit and is improperly sealed. The only privacy interest being protected, they say, is Decades’.

Full Article & Source:
Plaintiff in guardianship case wants the judge to step aside See Also: Journal Seeks to Open Guardian Mismanagement Lawsuit

Dimond wins award for Journal series

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — “Who Guards the Guardians,” an Albuquerque Journal series by reporter Diane Dimond, has been selected for the 2017 Clark Mollenhoff Award for Excellence in Investigative Reporting.

Diane Dimond

Diane Dimond The award by the nonprofit Fund for American Studies and the Institute on Political Journalism is named for the late Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter whose investigations into organized crime led to crackdowns on labor racketeering and Teamsters union corruption.

This year’s award will be presented to Dimond on June 29 at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.

“I am pleased to inform you that your entry, “Who Guards the Guardians?” was the winning article chosen from 95 entries from newspapers and magazines across the country,” Joe Starrs, director of the Institute on Political Journalism, wrote in a letter to Dimond announcing the prize.

The award includes a $2,500 cash prize and expenses paid for the Washington, D.C., appearance.

The Institute on Political Journalism also awards prizes for economic and collegiate reporting. Its website says the institute was created “to develop … objective journalists with high ethical standards and solid understanding of free-market economic principles.” 

Full Article & Source:
Dimond wins award for Journal series

Family laments mom’s fate under court guardianship

At the age of 91, Mary Louise Terry was getting by on food stamps and monthly Social Security checks, living under the care of her son in her home of 11 years on Belen’s main street.

But a $100,000 insurance windfall Terry inherited after that son died in May 2015 marked the beginning of the end of her stable family life.

Terry, who has dementia, is now under a guardianship approved by a Valencia County district court judge. She is in her fourth nursing home in six months despite the fact she has three sons and a daughter-in-law willing to care for her.

Terry – who had two other sons die within three months of each other in 2015 – was assaulted last month by another nursing home resident and has since been moved to a different long-term facility in Albuquerque.

This family photo taken in the early 1960s shows Mary Terry with five of her six sons, 
including David Stout, who is at the far right of the bottom row. David had been taking care 
of his mother at their Belen home until his death in May 2015.

Her Belen house is gone, sold by the guardian/conservator who by law can be paid out of an incapacitated person’s assets. The state of her finances is unclear. And family members in New Mexico say court-appointed professionals rejected their offer to take care of Terry in their own homes.

“Mother should have been allowed to live whatever years she has left the way she wanted to. Like all the rest of us want to,” daughter-in-law Lois Painter of Albuquerque said last week.

“None of us wants to live like she has been living … Shuffled from one place to another, beat up, etc. No one, right mind or not, would want this happening to them or their loved ones. What would you think if this happened to your family?”

Secret process 

Court records show that in December 2015, Terry’s daughter who lives in Texas filed a petition seeking appointment of a professional guardian/conservator to oversee her mother’s finances and health care – all under a secret legal process that’s supposed to be a “last resort” to protect an incapacitated person.

Now, most if not all the $100,000 insurance proceeds are gone, other family members say.

They say the guardian/conservator firm, which handles all of the Terry’s finances, took control of her $753-a-month Social Security checks, which had previously been automatically deposited.

The New Mexico family complains that the guardian never closed her bank account, so hundreds of dollars of still-unpaid overdraft charges have been assessed. Late payment fees and disconnect charges accrued when the utility bills at the Belen home hadn’t been paid by the professional guardian. Her homeowners’ insurance also lapsed, Painter told the Journal.

Last fall, the guardian notified the family that Terry, now 93, had to move from her Belen house to a $5,500-a-month assisted living home. Just two months later, the family was told Terry was being evicted because her money had run out. Terry has lived in three other homes since then, but family members aren’t sure how those bills are getting paid.

“There’s been no accounting of money to us at all. None. All that was told is, Mary doesn’t have any more money,” Painter said.

Guardians have authority over the personal health and welfare of the individual adult deemed incapacitated by a court.

But family members say that, in the past year, the assigned professional guardian “never shows up” when issues with Terry’s care arise and consistently asks Terry’s son to respond to emergencies.

Roxanna Gates, owner of the guardianship company, CNRAG, Inc., declined to respond to questions from the Journal, citing confidentiality surrounding guardianship matters.

Painter said last month that CNRAG sold Terry’s Belen house for about $82,000, which Painter said was $40,000 under the appraised value. How much of that money will go to the guardian or other bills isn’t information that is furnished to her New Mexico family – only to the court.    (Click to Continue)

Full Article & Source:
Family laments mom’s fate under court guardianship

Journal series sparks town hall on guardianship program

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — “Who Guards the Guardians?” – an Albuquerque Journal series by reporter Diane Dimond – has triggered an exceptional response, so much so that the Journal, KANW-FM and the Albuquerque Department of Senior Affairs are sponsoring a town hall-style discussion on the issue of the state’s court-monitored guardianship program for senior citizens.

The event will be held in the Journal auditorium from 7 to 9 p.m. March 22 and will be broadcast live on KANW, 89.1-FM.

A panel of family members, advocates, judges, lawmakers, industry representatives and others will join Dimond in making presentations. Sen. Gerald Ortiz y Pino, former Rep. Conrad James and Mayor Richard Berry will be among members of the panel. There also will be an opportunity for audience participation.

Journal senior editor Kent Walz and Tom Trowbridge of KANW will serve as moderators. Reprints of the series will be available to those in attendance.

“This series touched a nerve in the community,” Walz said. “We hope that this forum can lead to better understanding and positive changes in a system that critics say is in dire need of repair.”

“If honoring a family elder is the purpose of this guardianship system, something is terribly wrong,” said Jorja Armijo-Brasher, director of Albuquerque Senior Affairs. “We definitely need to hold ourselves to a higher standard.”

The venue can accommodate about 50 members of the public, so advance sign-ups are required. If you are interested in attending, please let us know by sending an email to newsroom@abqjournal.com.

If you have questions you would like to ask the panel, please send them to the same email address. Because it will not be possible to ask all questions submitted, they will be selected in an effort to cover various points of interest.

If you go
What: Town hall meeting on New Mexico’s guardianship program
When: 7-9 p.m. March 22
Tune in: Broadcast live on KANW 89.1-FMSponsors: Albuquerque Department of Senior Affairs, KANW, Albuquerque Journal

Source:
Journal series sparks town hall on guardianship program

Family’s guardianship experience shows a system out of control

Regarding Diane Dimond’s series [Who Guards the Guardians?], our sister started this guardianship stuff and, yes, it has spiraled out of control.

A very similar chain of events has started, with court proceedings the same as your articles and similar titles involved to handle all these affairs.

A guardian, who never seems to be available when needed, has spent $33,000 since June 2016.

Mom is now completely broke and was asked to leave the nursing home they put her in as there is no money to pay them. Her home was put up for sale, but has not sold at this point. So she was kicked out on Nov. 30.

The guardian now has lied to be able to admit her to a hospital so that she has a place to be. We had cleaned out her house, as directed by them, to get it ready to be sold and now it is devoid of any furnishings.

We have since found out they have depleted her bank accounts. The accounts are sitting there overdrawn and her utilities have been disconnected for nonpayment. Her homeowners insurance has been canceled for nonpayment.

We are completely powerless to do anything about it.

Mom fell at the assisted living nursing home where they had her. They didn’t even take her to a medical facility to be checked out until we demanded they do so.

After they discharged her, we called the guardian and, of course, he didn’t show up. We took her to my house to spend the night instead of taking her back to the nursing home. The guardian threatened to have me arrested.

I had to call police to make a report – in fear he could actually do so.

We have called Adult Protective Services and the Attorney General’s Office, and it seems all these agencies cannot investigate any of these proceedings. No one will help our mom, who is over 90 years old. And we can’t, either.

She was living at home with her son and surviving just fine until all this. She could maintain her residence as it was paid in full. She gets $753 a month from Social Security. That was enough to pay her bills, including her home insurance and life insurance policy. They have also cashed that in.

How can these people do this and what can we do about it? Please let us know if there are any avenues to do something.

We cannot afford an attorney of our own to fight this. None we have talked to will even take a case like this.

What an atrocity this has become. The state of New Mexico should be ashamed for doing things like this to our seniors.

We have documents of what happened before court and interviews between prospective guardians and the attorney in charge of the process, who for various reasons would not let any of us be guardians due to “bickering,” as she put it.

So they could get this done, before the court hearing, our sister’s attorney even called the police department and tried to get us arrested for abuse. The police were told there were guns in the house and Mom was in danger. There was not and the police left.

The guardians are now waiting with Mom at the hospital to place her in yet another nursing home, paid for by the state because she doesn’t have any money.

My brother offered to get her things out of storage and take her home, but the guardian said it would only be for a couple of weeks until they find her a place in a nursing home, and the guardians don’t have money to pay utilities.

This is just a living nightmare. Who can protect our seniors? Help!

Full Article & Source:
Family’s guardianship experience shows a system out of control

See Also:
Who Guards the Guardians?

Editorial: Guardianship system needs accountability

Senator Jerry Ortiz y Pino

“We are faking it. We pretend like we have a guardian system and there’s nothing in place.”
– Sen. Jerry Ortiz y Pino, D-Albuquerque

A 2008 audit of ongoing guardianship cases found problems with “25 to 35 percent and maybe more … enough cases that we realized we should take it as an alarm.”
– Ted Baca, then-chief judge of the 2nd Judicial District Court

How can a group of strangers take control of an elderly individual and their estate; disregard retirement preparations, including wills, trusts and powers of attorney; drain bank accounts, and sell off belongings and property to pay themselves and colleagues; even bar family members who had been caregivers for years from seeing their loved one – all with the imprimatur of the court?

They can. And they have. In virtual secrecy and sometimes without the person about to be relegated to “ward” status and with no rights ever appearing before a judge. In other cases, the process is well underway before there is even a hearing where all family members have an opportunity to be heard.

All this happens in a well-intentioned and necessary guardianship “system” that has virtually no outside accountability – Judge Shannon Bacon of Albuquerque admits it essentially is an “honor system” because the underfunded courts lack money to review or audit cases as the state “doesn’t have three cents to rub together.”

It is wrong and it needs to change.

Reporter, author, columnist and television commentator Diane Dimond uncovered all this and more in her five-part investigative series on guardianship in New Mexico [Who Guards the Guardians?] published by the Albuquerque Journal (the entire series can be found at ABQJournal.com).

Dimond, an Albuquerque native, recounts the story of an estate valued at $5 million drained to $750,000; a 17-acre North Valley ranch sold at what would appear to be far below market value to someone who turned around and sold it to the state for twice the price; children shut out from caring for their mother by court-appointed for-profit professionals; familiar medical professionals replaced with strangers – and all without the judge who signed off on the arrangement ever interviewing 79-year-old Blair Darnell or holding a hearing to determine whether she was, in fact, “an adult incapacitated person.”

That label automatically revoked Blair’s civil rights – she could no longer travel alone, vote, enter contracts, decide who her doctors were, say who could visit her home or spend her own money. Instead, her court-appointed guardian and conservator called all the shots – including declaring that, if the family couldn’t get Blair’s beloved dog out to “relive(sic) herself, she must go.”
Unfortunately, problems in guardianship cases are not rare.

Former Chief Judge Ted Baca ordered a review during his tenure that found problems in a quarter to a third of cases checked by lawyers on a volunteer basis – including wards who had been abandoned by guardians or were living in dilapidated surroundings without enough nourishment.

More than one attorney told Dimond they advise families to steer clear of the system because there are no checks and balances, and excessive secrecy.

When the best thing you can say about a system is to avoid it, there’s a problem. And the attorneys and family members who spoke to Dimond did so in fear of reprisals and in violation of what retired District Judge Anne Kass of Albuquerque calls an inbred “code of silence.”

There’s the daughter of a deceased ward who asked for clarification of her mother’s $5,000 funeral expense because the $1,000 cremation fee was prepaid and services were held at her mother’s home.

There’s the daughter of a deceased ward who was forbidden to see her father during the final months of his life because she challenged the conservator’s proposed distribution of funds without an independent forensic audit.

There are the daughters of a ward who learned that, after 25 months in charge, the conservator had not paid taxes on their mother’s property in Texas and foreclosure was imminent.

Imagine being told out of the blue that you can’t see your elderly and frail mom or dad. Imagine being elderly and frail, and being told you can’t see your children. All because the guardian thinks there is too much “bickering.”

Imagine carefully planned financial decisions and legal instruments being thrown out so court-appointed for-profit folks can be paid to make all the decisions.

Professionals in the system are unapologetic. They say their responsibility is to the wards, not their families. They have been accused of being threatening and intimidating, and have been known to tell people to never again contact them.

And the majority of those entrenched professionals who live off New Mexico’s guardianship system – lawyers, guardians, conservators, providers who range from dog walkers to in-home caretakers – maintain the system is working just fine, thank you very much, in protecting the interests of the “incapacitated.”

Judges are on that same bandwagon.

In an op-ed in today’s Journal, 2nd Judicial District Court Chief Judge Nan Nash, and elder and disability attorneys Amanda Frazier and Judith Paquin defend the system and the secrecy. It is simply more of what Ortiz y Pino found in 2013 when he sponsored a measure to establish a task force to look into complaints: “What we ran into, frankly, was that anytime we got into guardianship issues, the attorneys who deal with probate in the state went ballistic – they did not want us to even open the door.”

Baca came up against the same resistance. For several years, the court tried to get the Legislature to fund a larger study with the goal a statewide office to oversee all guardian cases. Eight years later, it is still status quo. So while, as his audit found, the system works in many cases when an elderly adult is at risk, it simply does not work in others and needs reform.

Several steps to correcting this have nothing to do with money, and everything to do with transparency and accountability. Multiple families said their complaints to the bar association, state legislators, regulatory boards, the district attorney, the Albuquerque Police Department, the attorney general and the Governor’s Office amounted to nothing, likely in great part because it’s hard to fight decisions protected by court secrecy.

While the court claims it is guarding elderly individuals’ privacy, there is a world of difference between holding a court-appointed professional accountable for oversight decisions and spending, and safeguarding an individual’s medical information. Right now, the court blankets everything per vaguely written sections of the state’s Uniform Probate Code.

Kass says, “We need to have a really profound conversation between privacy and secrecy, and develop a better way of measuring it.”

It should also be the rule, not the exception that, unless it is physically impossible, the elderly person appear in court and be questioned by the judge before even being called incapacitated. The same goes for hearing from all concerned relatives – rather than simply taking the word of whoever filed an emergency petition to have the senior put under guardianship. There should be full hearings, as stated in state law, and relatives should be first in line to become guardians.

In general, relatives should also not be barred from seeing each other. Outgoing Rep. Conrad James, R-Albuquerque, tried to curb the practice of guardians banning family visits that might upset a ward, saying, “Isolating seniors from their family is the first step of abuse in these cases.” He plans to have a legislator carry a similar proposal in the session that starts next month.

And the requirement that family members sign a waiver of liability releasing “any and all liability for actions taken in (his/her) capacity as conservator and trustee” before they can receive their inheritance flies in the face of accountability. If conservators and guardians are indeed professionals, they should be able to stand by their decisions.

It is shocking that guardians and conservators are not licensed in New Mexico and, while some may have various certifications, those can be purchased online after a short exam. Requiring some training, certification and state licensing in financial planning, social work and elder care seems more than reasonable for allowing someone to take control of a life and an estate.

Dimond’s series is a wake-up call to New Mexico. Unless and until these changes are implemented, the best advice for those dealing with a parent with purported diminished capacity comes from Dr. Sam Sugar, founder of Americans Against Abusive Probate Guardianship. He tells family members to “never even consider guardianship or hiring an attorney.”

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: Guardianship system needs accountability

See Also:
Who Guards the Guardians?

New Mexico Guardianship Association committed to improving the system in New Mexico

Since the New Mexico Guardianship Association’s creation, we have been committed to improving guardianship in New Mexico.

The New Mexico Guardianship Association is dedicated to its mission to ensure the highest standards of ethics and practice to serve and protect the best interest of those to whom they provide service. In furtherance of its mission, NMGA has initiated programs to assist family and professional guardians, including the annual guardianship symposium, family guardian round table, sponsoring the guardianship lunch discussion group, writing and updating the Alternatives to Guardianship & Conservatorship, and Handbook for Guardians and Conservators, producing the guardianship and conservatorship training video that is employed widely by the district courts, supporting certification for professional guardians and conservators, and involvement in the guardianship task force. Also in furtherance of our mission, we advocate and contribute to the development of effective regulation and legislation for the benefit of those receiving services.

Our association’s long history of involvement and commitment to the improvement of guardianship in New Mexico makes clear that our support for certain proposals is not in reaction to your stories, which we believe to be slanted, biased and inaccurate. We always work on ideas to improve the guardianship and have a constant dialogue about ways to improve. With this in mind, we have been working on some provisions for years, not because of your inaccurate stories, but because it ensures good practices going forward.

We have, for example, supported licensure and certification for professional guardians and conservators. However, licensure would require a significant investment by the state in a new commission and layers of bureaucracy that New Mexico cannot afford.

The National Guardianship Association has a certification process that 11 states already use and which would not require any outlay of state funds. While many professional guardians are certified, we support having all professional guardians be certified to ensure ethical and practice standards are being met.

NMGA without question supports accountability and monitoring of guardians and conservators.

NMGA advocated for the funding of a pilot project designed to lay the groundwork for a monitoring program in the Second Judicial District Court. This project was struck by a line-item veto due to its cost.

Full Article & Source:
New Mexico Guardianship Association committed to improving the system in New Mexico

See Also:
Who guards the Guardians?

Articles on guardianship left out many critical facts

Darryl Millet,
credit:  Albuquerque Journal

by Darryl W. Millet, Attorney, Albuquerque Advocates PC
The Journal recently published a series of front-page articles on guardianship, using the story of Blair Darnell as the central focus.

The reporter who wrote the story was not able to obtain detailed information from the people with inside knowledge of the true facts of the Darnell case, due to the sequestration (privacy) rule that makes it impossible for those insiders to speak about the case. Instead, the reporter relied primarily on the biased reports of some family members for the critical details of the story of Blair Darnell’s last few years of life.

The reporter got the Blair Darnell story wrong in many significant ways. The family was given ample opportunity to participate in the court process and was represented by multiple attorneys who were able to get the family’s point of view heard by the judge. Many hours were devoted to court hearings over the six-plus years the Darnell case was active.

The Journal article also overstates the value of the Darnell estate, including the value of the farm property sold. The article doesn’t mention that the family interfered with the first prospective sale until the buyer withdrew his offer. The article doesn’t tell you that the next-door neighbor said he was no longer interested in buying the property once the first buyer walked away. Most importantly, the article doesn’t tell you that Blair Darnell was on the verge of running out of money to buy food or to pay for her 24/7 caregivers, and that the sale of the farm property was essential to keeping her fed and cared for.

The Journal article doesn’t explain that the fence around the acre containing Blair Darnell’s home was put there to make it safe for her to remain in her home and sit outside without wandering away, due to her advanced dementia, rather than having her moved to a secure nursing home and away from the farm that she loved so dearly. The article doesn’t tell you that Blair Darnell was able to peacefully die in her own home, with her family at her side, despite the sale of the property over a year earlier.

The deal struck by the conservator included a life estate, so that Blair Darnell could remain in her home until her death. That life estate significantly reduced the value of the property to the buyer, because it prevented him from beneficial use of the property for as long as Blair lived. The price he paid reflected that. Her family history suggested she might live well into her mid-90s, although sadly she died at 85 years of age.

The Journal article also fails to tell you that the sale of the Darnell farm was consistent with the appraisal of the property done just prior to the sale. The article implies that the property was sold by the conservator without the assistance of a real estate broker. However, there was a listing agent, a separate buyer’s agent, and a completely arms-length transaction by parties who did not know each other. The buyer spent hundreds of thousands of dollars improving the run-down property before he resold it, and the real estate market was much stronger by the time the property was resold.

The court has given me permission to provide this information to correct the record. It was my great honor to help Blair Darnell live out her final years contentedly at her farm. Fortunately, due to advanced Alzheimer’s disease, Blair was mostly oblivious to the family turmoil that occurred around her during her final years.

Full Article & Source:
Articles on guardianship left out many critical facts

See Also:
Who Guards the Guardians?

System protects the incapacitated, kin

by Judge Nan Nash, Chief Judge, Second Judicial District
Census projections estimate 20 percent of the population will be over the age of 65, with 19 million persons over 85, by 2030. Millions of families are currently struggling with elderly family members with diminished capacity. It’s critical that families receive accurate information regarding available resources as they make these difficult decisions involving loved ones. This difficult decision making is exacerbated by articles that distort the system by suggesting that guardianships and conservatorships will lead to abuse.

Incapacity does not develop suddenly but typically after a slow decline over a number of years. Often the incapacitated person does not recognize the incapacity. Families, faced with incredibly challenging and painful circumstances, do not always agree a loved one is incapacitated or about the level of care required. These subtleties make for challenging cases.

Once some level of incapacity is suspected or recognized, addressing the incapacity, while protecting the incapacitated person, requires action. Families must carefully consider care options, ranging from family member care, to in-home professional care, to assisted living facilities. Families sometimes need a legal avenue to accomplish this care plan.

Guardianships and conservatorships are two of the legal remedies available. About 150 to 200 guardianship and conservatorship cases are filed each year in the Second Judicial District Court, typically by a family member. Guardianships deal with the person; conservatorships with the person’s assets.

Guardianships and conservatorships provide a way for concerned family members and others to seek a court order declaring that a person is incapacitated and appointing another person, typically a family member, to protect that person and manage that person’s affairs.

Guardians and conservators are only appointed after a full hearing where the court determines capacity after hearing from medical, social work and legal professionals. The court considers the wishes of the incapacitated person and family members….

Guardians and conservators provide consistent beneficial results for families. They are responsible for assuring medical care, making living arrangements and managing the incapacitated person’s assets so that they have enough to see them through their life.

Like other court cases, some cases are problematic. Evaluating the system through an examination of one case is neither possible nor useful. These cases are complex, frequently fraught with family conflict, complications and misunderstanding. High family conflict inevitably results in expensive proceedings and sometimes the appointment of an outside professional.

The goal of the law is to protect the incapacitated person and to make sure that the person’s assets provide for their care. New Mexico law requires that the guardian and conservator report to the court within 90 days of appointment, and annually thereafter.

As part of the protection afforded under New Mexico law, the documents filed in these cases are not available for public viewing. The court file includes sensitive information and incapacitated persons are vulnerable to exploitation. Therefore it is important that certain information remains confidential to protect the dignity and privacy of the incapacitated person.

The court takes these cases, and our responsibility under the law seriously. In 2013, utilizing limited resources, the Second Judicial District Court created the Elder and Disability Initiative to effectively manage and protect persons with guardians and conservators. EDI attorneys help judges manage existing cases by reviewing files, conducting periodic home visits to ensure that individuals under protection are not being exploited and helping family guardians understand their duties. We are actively engaged in developing better methods to address and monitor these cases.

Guardianships and conservatorships are useful and necessary tools for families faced with incapacitated adults. Efforts to dissuade families from utilizing these legal remedies are misguided and irresponsible.

For a comprehensive explanation of the requirements for guardianships and conservatorships, including the rights and duties of guardians and conservators, review the New Mexico Uniform Probate Code, Sections 45-5-101, et.seq. NMSA 1978.

Full Article & Source:
System protects the incapacitated, kin

See Also:
Who Guards the Guardians?

Who guards the guardians: Series shows caregivers need our assistance

U.S. Rep. Michelle Lujan Grisham

Diane Dimond’s series on court-appointed guardians is horrifying for any of us who are concerned about protecting our loved ones’ rights and independence as they get older.

Her series has served as a reminder that we must strengthen our long-term care system and support the 40 million people in our country who are family caregivers for seniors and people with disabilities who need assistance to live as independently as possible in their homes and communities.

Family caregivers work hard every day balancing caregiving with their personal and professional lives. But they need more than our acknowledgment; they need our support.

Every year family caregivers provide $470 billion worth of unpaid care, surpassing our nation’s total Medicaid funding for both health care and long-term care services.

Families want to provide that care, but they also do it because it is necessary.

Many people who need care cannot afford to pay for services that would help them remain independent, but they have just enough money to be ineligible for Medicaid and the support services it would provide. So their families fill in the gaps where they can, keeping their family member out of a high-cost nursing home.

I share that experience as a caregiver to my mom. I know the value of what family caregivers do, how they manage their daily responsibilities with the medical, emotional, physical and financial needs of their loved one. I also know there aren’t enough of us; we have a critical, growing shortage of family and paid caregivers in our country.

In 2010, there were seven potential caregivers for every person older than 80. By 2030 — when one in five Americans will be 65 or older – that ratio is projected to drop by almost half, to four to one. In New Mexico, the fastest growing segment of our population is people older than 65.

We must make a national investment in long-term care. And we need to grow a workforce that will help meet the needs of our population.

I have introduced the National Care Corps Act, which is one tool to shore up the system and our caregivers.

The National Care Corps Act would place trained volunteers in communities to provide non-medical care that supports family caregivers and those receiving care.

Creating a national service program is one strategy for enabling people to live as independently as possible while also supporting the millions who provide care on their own. This legislation will also provide volunteers with benefits, including educational awards, so they can further their careers and spur growth in a health care workforce that is in dire need of expansion. Through Care Corps, we will promote volunteerism and supplement the hard work of paid caregivers.

I can imagine the relief I would feel if someone visited my mom every day, drove her to medical appointments, read to her and listened to her stories. That kind of relationship – independent from the people she pays to perform tasks and the daughter who cares for her – could be incredibly meaningful for all of us.

I can envision volunteers gaining insight into the lives of seniors and people whose lives have been shaped by disabilities. Care Corps would give people an opportunity to build intergenerational relationships, creating space for a level of understanding and connection that is rare today.

This volunteer-caregiving concept is gaining support across the country; a broad range of organizations focused on the needs of caregivers, seniors and individuals with disabilities have endorsed Care Corps. More than 50 congressional members are serving on a new bicameral, bipartisan caucus that I co-founded to raise awareness about the need to support caregivers, create an environment conducive to reaching bipartisan solutions and build a sense of urgency to act.

I am eager to work with my colleagues in the next Congress so we can support our caregivers who give of themselves to protect and care for their loved ones.

Full Article & Source:
Who guards the guardians: Series shows caregivers need our assistance

See Also:
Read Diane Dimond's Five-Part Series:  Who Guards the Guardfians?