Why Wendy Williams Reportedly Fired Attorney Amid #FreeWendy Battle

By Jane LaCroix

Wendy Williams is shaking up her legal team as she continues her fight for freedom from her guardianship.

The former talk show host, 60, has reportedly fired her court-appointed attorney, Linda Redlisky, amid her ongoing battle to have her guardianship trial heard by a jury, as reported by TMZ on Wednesday, January 29. Sources close to the situation told the outlet that Williams decided to part ways with Redlisky after the attorney failed to file necessary paperwork to move forward with the trial.

This dramatic legal shift comes just weeks after Williams' family stated they were searching for a more reputable attorney to represent her in the complex case. Previously, Williams claimed she had never even met her court-appointed guardianship attorney, Robert Kaplan, who had argued that she needed lifelong care due to her diagnosis of frontotemporal dementia and aphasia.

The media personality, who currently resides in a New York City assisted-living facility, likened her living situation to a luxury "prison." "I'm in this place where the people are in their 90s and their 80s and their 70s. There's something wrong with these people here on this floor," she shared during a call to The Breakfast Club on Thursday, January 16. She also called the treatment "emotional abuse" and that the "system is broken."

Amid Williams' ongoing legal and financial struggles, a GoFundMe campaign was launched to support her in her fight for independence. Part of the broader "#FreeWendy" movement, the funds raised are intended to help the former Wendy Williams Show star secure the legal representation needed to challenge her guardianship and regain control over her assets and has raised over $30,000 so far. This comes after William's claimed on The Breakfast Club that she has little money to her name at the moment due to her guardian, Sabrina Morrisey, having control over her finances. "I have $15. I have $15. What does that do? ... My money is in prison," Williams said.

Full Article & Source:
Why Wendy Williams Reportedly Fired Attorney Amid #FreeWendy Battle

See Also:
Britney Spears Steps in to Help Wendy Williams Get Out of 'Abusive' Conservatorship

Wendy Williams Guardianship Controversy Spurs N.Y. Lawmaker to Push Visitation Law

Wendy Williams

Wendy Williams Guardianship Controversy Spurs N.Y. Lawmaker to Push Visitation Law

Wendy Williams' guardianship woes are commanding the attention of at least one New York lawmaker ... who's making a big push so her family can easily visit her.

Anthony Palumbo, a N.Y. state senator, tells TMZ ... today, he is re-introducing a piece of legislation that would change guardianship laws regarding family visitation in the state.

According to Palumbo, "Karilyn's Law" would allow families to visit loved ones by filing a motion with the court ... the guardian would then have 10 days to show the court if the person intending to visit is displaying inappropriate conduct -- and if not, they can visit.

He says the law is designed to ensure family members have a legal path to visit a loved one under a guardianship, which he thinks is lacking under the existing framework.

Palumbo has been following Wendy's case for years, and says her being locked up in an apartment is tragic. He goes on to say that even if her memory is failing, she should still be allowed to be with her family instead of forcibly separated from them.

Despite the unfortunate circumstances, Palumbo hopes the newfound attention surrounding Wendy's case will spur lawmakers into action. He first proposed Karilyn's Law in 2022, but it didn't get passed.

Since he first proposed the piece of legislation, he says his office has received dozens of calls and emails from concerned citizens about Wendy's guardianship. The way Palumbo sees it, unfortunately, it can take a celebrity and a tragedy to get people's attention.

Full Article & Source:
Wendy Williams Guardianship Controversy Spurs N.Y. Lawmaker to Push Visitation Law

See Also:
Wendy Williams

'This is civil death.' Advocates disappointed as guardianship bills now in limbo

It was a disappointing day in Lansing for advocates of guardianship reform. A Senate committee did not vote on several bills that would change Michigan’s guardianship laws. The 7 Investigators have been exposing serious problems in the current guardianship system since 2017.

 

By: Heather Catallo

LANSING, Mich. (WXYZ) — It was a disappointing day in Lansing for advocates of guardianship reform. A Senate committee did not vote on several bills that would change Michigan’s guardianship laws.

The 7 Investigators have been exposing serious problems in the current guardianship system since 2017.

These guardianship reform bills have been on the table in one form or another since 2021.

On Thursday, the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee ended her committee hearing without taking a vote on the proposed changes. With the Legislature about to take several weeks off for summer break, the fate of these bills is unclear.

The 7 Investigators have shown you for years how loopholes in Michigan’s guardianship laws have hurt local families.

“This is not a system designed to help — this is prison,” Niki Disner said about her experience being under guardianship in Oakland County.

“Kept them hostage, took them from their families, locked them behind a 6-and-a-half-foot privacy fence and just drained their estate, researched how to sell off their property,” Gretchen Sommer said after a judge appointed a professional guardian for her aunt and uncle instead of a family member.

Attorney General Dana Nessel’s Elder Abuse Task Force has worked for five years to create legislation to increase protections for vulnerable adults. If you’re declared legally incapacitated, you lose the right to make your own medical and financial decisions, and that’s not all.

“Where you live, who you visit, whether you live or die under a do-not-resuscitate order… every consequential decision that we make as adults is eliminated. This is civil death. You are completely robbed of your liberty,” said Michigan Elder Justice Initiative attorney Nicole Shannon.

In front of the Michigan Senate Committee on Civil Rights, Judiciary, and Public Safety Thursday afternoon, elder law advocates and family members of people put under guardianship testified in support of the bills.

“The system is not working for the people at its center. I’m asking you to find the courage today, in this room, with this vote that has been missing for the last 30 years on guardianship reform and to pass House Bill 4909 and 4912 out of committee today. We cannot wait,” Shannon said.

“We want guardians who aren’t appointed 800 wards at a time… And we want guardians appointed only to the people who truly need them,” said Michelle Roberts, executive director of Disability Rights Michigan.

The bills would provide several protections including making sure probate judges put their reasons on the court record if they choose a professional guardian over a family member. They would also require more detailed reports from those assigned (Guardians ad Litem) to evaluate whether someone needs a guardian.

“The vulnerable adults of Michigan need for you to understand how the unintended consequences of the legislation as written today combined with the continued lack of proper funding to serve indigent clients will negatively affect the quality of the services that they receive,” said Diana Matay from the MGA.

The MGA is the same group that was kicked off the Elder Abuse Task Force in 2023 after the 7 Investigators revealed their lobbyist was caught on tape mocking the AG’s efforts to add more oversight in the law by calling her task force a “task farce.”

“This is just one more example of how the system is failing,” said Chandra Drayton, whose mother Ernestine died while under the care of a professional guardian.

In a written statement, Committee Chair Senator Stephanie Chang said:

"I am supportive of the guardianship reform bill package and have been working closely for many months with the bill sponsor and several key stakeholders on the details of the bills. We have had robust committee hearings on the bills and plan to have more in order to hear from all parties and those wishing to speak. The stories from individuals impacted by the flaws in the guardianship system have compelled us to action and I am committed to seeing this bill package through to the finish line."

The 7 Investigators asked Chang if she will hold a vote before summer recess. This was the response received late Thursday:

“The bills are a top priority for me and committee members and we look forward to continuing in the committee process as soon as we can. The legislature is likely to be on summer recess after the budget process is complete, so we will see what we are able to do. Again, it's a priority and we are continuing to take in feedback from groups and hear from impacted families.”

Full Article & Source:
'This is civil death.' Advocates disappointed as guardianship bills now in limbo

Senate Judiciary Committee advances bill strengthening guardianship laws

By: Marley Parish

Pennsylvania lawmakers voted to strengthen the state’s guardianship laws, hoping to prevent exploitation when someone is legally appointed to make decisions on another’s behalf.

The Republican-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously voted in favor of legislation — authored by Sens. Lisa Baker, R-Luzerne, and Art Haywood, D-Philadelphia — creating more checks and balances in the system, which has more than 19,000 active guardianships across the commonwealth.

“Guardianship can be an essential and effective means for safeguarding the interests of people who suffer some incapacity, impairing their ability to make responsible decisions for themselves,” Baker, who chairs the committee, said Tuesday. “Some weaknesses in the system have become apparent, and some sad cases of financial exploitation make reform of the system imperative. This bill will ensure greater accountability in our state’s guardianship system.”

The bill requires the courts to automatically appoint counsel to those going through the guardianship process who don’t already have an attorney and to consider less restrictive options before enacting guardianship. The bill also proposed training, screening, and certification for professional guardians.

Cases such as Britney Spears’s conservatorship have demonstrated how the court-appointed representative’s control strips someone’s ability to make decisions for themselves. Even the Netflix thriller “I Care A Lot” highlighted how the guardianship system can take advantage of older adults.

The legislation was drafted after Haywood’s neighbor, Mark Frisby, was taken advantage of by a guardian and was forced to sell his home in Montgomery County.

Full Article & Source:
Senate Judiciary Committee advances bill strengthening guardianship laws

Senators Urge Examination of Guardianship Laws

by MyChesCo

© Sasirin Pamai's Images / Canva

U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging Chairman Bob Casey (D-PA) and Ranking Member Mike Braun (R-IN) sent a letter this week to the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) regarding guardianship laws across the Nation. There are an estimated 1.3 million older adults and people with disabilities in guardianships, which are legal relationships created when a court determines that a person is incapable of making important decisions on their own. Considering the lack of data on guardianships across the U.S., Senators Casey and Braun requested GAO examine and report on guardianship laws throughout the country, the use of guardianships, and efforts to reform the guardianship system.

Recent Senate Special Committee on Aging testimony and media reports suggest that guardian abuse and fraud can have devastating effects. Such abuse can deprive older adults, people with disabilities, and others of their rights, their financial security, and even contact with their families.

“Although many guardians live up to their obligations, testimony and media stories illustrate the dark side of guardianships. Some adults are wrongly placed into guardianships, which can be unnecessarily restrictive and violate their rights.  The status of people under guardianships may be ‘poorly monitored in sufficient, meaningful, and diligent ways,’ resulting in ‘exploitation, abuse, and neglect,’” wrote the Senators.

The majority of people in guardianships are seniors and people with disabilities. Many need permission to see a doctor, take or refuse medication, live in in their own homes, spend their own money, and even vote. They also face increased risk of abuse, neglect, and exploitation by unscrupulous guardians. Efforts to reform guardianship systems and options for states to promote less restrictive alternatives are varied across the country.

Read the letter here.

Full Article & Source:
Senators Urge Examination of Guardianship Laws

Alabama’s guardianship laws could undergo first major revisions since the 1980s

(Andrea Piacquadio/Pexels, YHN)

AARP is making it clear they are in support of the passage of the Uniform Guardianship, Conservatorship and Other Protective Arrangements Act (UGCOPAA) in Alabama.

Candi Williams, AARP Alabama state director states, “Unfortunately, Alabama’s current guardianship laws are outdated, relying on a one size fits all, cookie-cutter approach that often robs seniors and people with disabilities of their rights, independence, and dignity.”

There have been many stories and experiences brought to light about seniors being taken advantage of, restricted unfairly and even abused under the care of their current guardianship. It is becoming far too common and updates must be made to protect aging loved ones.

Williams also writes, “Recent news headlines about guardianship arrangements gone wrong have brought more public attention to this mostly hidden topic.”

The UGCOPAA would address the needed reforms, including:

• Prohibiting a court from issuing a full guardianship order when a less restrictive alternative is available and appropriate for the individual, such as a supported decision-making arrangement or technological assistance;
• Requiring that each person under guardianship have an individualized plan that considers the person’s preferences and values;
• Clarifying the legal duties of the guardian, including that the guardian must make the best decision for the individual under their care that they reasonably believe the person would make on their own unless doing so would cause harm;
• Clarifying that the guardian must promote self-determination to the extent possible and encourage the individual’s participation in decisions;
• Combatting abuse and exploitation by, among other things, forbidding a guardian to restrict communication or visits from family and friends unless the court orders otherwise.

While guardianship is still important in certain cases, the passage of the UGCOPAA would allow families, caregivers and seniors their rights to live independently at home – where they want to be.

Full Article & Source:

Alabama’s guardianship laws could undergo first major revisions since the 1980s

Britney Spears’ case has shown why guardianship laws need to change

Assigning someone the legal power to make decisions for a vulnerable adult should always be a last resort

 

A #FreeBritney protest outside Spears’ conservatorship hearing in Los Angeles last month. Photograph: Étienne Laurent/EPA

by Nina A Kohn

Around the world, fans of pop star Britney Spears celebrated her father’s announcement last week that he would resign as her conservator. This development is welcome news for Spears and her supporters, dubbed the #FreeBritney movement. But it will not end Spears’ conservatorship, which has prevented her from making decisions about her own life since it was established shortly after she had a mental breakdown in 2008. Nor will it prevent others from finding themselves in similar situations. That will require changing the underlying legal systems that created Spears’ predicament.

While many have only recently learned of conservatorship thanks to the #FreeBritney movement, this legal process is neither new nor unique to the US. It is a common court proceeding in which the court appoints someone to make decisions for individuals the court has found cannot make decisions for themselves. California – where Spears lives – calls this proceeding conservatorship and calls the appointee a conservator. More commonly, it is called guardianship and the appointee is called a guardian. While Spears has drawn attention to guardianship, the process typically entangles those far less privileged. Changes in the pop star’s situation , as welcome as they may be, won’t themselves trigger the reform of a legal mechanism mainly experienced by people society has historically treated as expendable.

Since medieval times, English law has recognised the government’s power as parens patraie (or “parent of the people”) to manage the property and bodies of citizens with cognitive disabilities. The first guardianship statutes were adopted in England in the 1600s during the reign of Charles II. And countries around the world have parallel systems that enable courts to appoint others to make decisions for people determined unable to do so for themselves. In England and Wales, for example, the court of protection can appoint a deputy in such situations; in Scotland, sheriff courts can appoint a guardian.

Guardianship can provide valuable protection and assistance to those unable to care for themselves. Suppose an individual has a chronic illness but, due to advanced dementia, cannot understand the nature or consequences of that illness even with substantial help. If the person never executed a power of attorney appointing someone to make decisions for them, the best option may be for a court to appoint another person to make those decisions.

But – as the Spears case painfully illustrates – guardianship also has very real costs. Individuals subject to guardianship lose the right to make some or nearly all decisions for themselves. Guardianships can also undermine fundamental human rights –indeed, broad guardianships may run afoul of the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities.

The result is that guardianship can be stigmatising and traumatising for the very people it is designed to protect. Spears, for example, provided heart-wrenching testimony about the trauma of being prohibited from making basic choices about her life and body – including whether to remove an IUD preventing her from having further children.

Given the costs it poses, it is widely agreed that guardianship should only be used as a very last resort. And when guardians are appointed, they should be granted only those powers truly necessary to meet individuals’ identified needs. If a court finds a person lacks the ability to make major financial decisions, it does not mean the person should not be allowed to manage their own personal affairs or control smaller amounts of money.

Unfortunately, guardianship is often treated as a go-to intervention for individuals with cognitive disabilities or serious mental health problems, not a last resort. Research suggests guardianships in the US are routinely granted with minimal independent evaluation of the individual’s needs and abilities, and without full exploration of less restrictive alternatives. Indeed, they are so routinely granted over young adults with intellectual disabilities in the US that they are treated almost as a rite of passage. In addition, guardians are routinely granted very broad powers. Best evidence indicates that the vast majority of guardianships in the US are plenary – that is, they strip those subject to them of all rights that can be removed under state law.

Making matters worse, once granted, guardianships can be very hard to end. Individuals subject to guardianship often lack the awareness, resources and legal assistance needed to successfully challenge the appointment. This problem appears to be particularly acute in California, where courts have unconstitutionally denied individuals subject to conservatorship – including Spears – the right to choose an attorney to represent them in challenging their conservatorship.

For decades, advocates for older adults and individuals with disabilities have called for reforming guardianship laws around the world. In recent years, there has also been an explosion of interest in encouraging alternatives to guardianship – especially supported decision-making, a process by which individuals who might otherwise be unable to make their own decisions do so with help from people they trust.

In the US, the Uniform Law Commission created model legislation that, if adopted by states, could help prevent others from finding themselves in Spears’ predicament. The legislation would, for example, make it harder to impose guardianships and easier to terminate them, require courts to be more proactive in removing guardians and terminating guardianship, prohibit courts from denying individuals like Spears access to counsel of their own choosing, and limit the ability of unscrupulous guardians to drain assets by charging unreasonable fees.

But, although the US Special Committee on Aging and others have urged every state to adopt the model Act, only two – Washington and Maine – have. Instead, state legislatures have either ignored the problem or made piecemeal reforms.

What accounts for this tepid response to law reform efforts? Guardianship reform historically hasn’t been a “hot” political issue. Most people subject to guardianship are older adults or persons with substantial cognitive disabilities – groups too often treated as expendable. And reform efforts often face opposition from judges and attorneys who have grown comfortable with the status quo.

The good news is Britney Spears’ very public struggle with her conservatorship has the potential to spark the reform. Seeing a young, vibrant, working pop star who can clearly articulate her own wishes traumatised by the guardianship system may be the wake-up the world, and especially the US, needed. Perhaps now there will be the political will needed to ensure guardianship finally becomes the last resort it should always have been.

• Nina A Kohn is the David M Levy professor of law at Syracuse University and the Solomon Center distinguished scholar in elder law at Yale Law School.
  

Full Article & Source:

Britney Spears’ case has shown why guardianship laws need to change

The Judiciary Is Not Above The (Guardianship) Law

A Texas judge is now the subject of a guardianship proceeding.

Recognizing that a loved one needs a guardian can be a trying time. Taking steps to help the situation is painful and often destructive to the family unit. Not everyone agrees on next steps or who should take control. Sometimes, a medical diagnosis suggests cognitive impairment. Other times, one’s conduct indicates that she requires intervention. The standard for the appointment of a guardian or a conservator varies from state to state. Generally, one is appointed as a guardian when the individual’s functional limitations are so great that she is likely to suffer harm.


A personal guardian makes medical decisions. The guardian may decide treatment plans, choice of residence, and doctors. A financial guardian marshals assets, pays liabilities, budgets, applies for benefits, and can commences lawsuits in order to recoup monies which are owed to the individual. Often guardianships are born out of financial scams wherein individuals are taken advantage of and made to give or loan their money away.

Not every guardianship involves a grandmother with dementia or a bed-ridden senior citizen. For example, despite the fact that pop star Britney Spears has a conservatorship, she has continued to work, earn money, and raise her children. Often guardianships are tailored to allow the individual as much freedom as is safe in her particular instance. Guardianships and conservatorships apply to those with mental, emotional, and physical diagnoses when individuals exhibit behaviors that may cause harm to themselves. Sometimes people do not even have an official diagnosis.

As with Britney Spears, a guardianship proceeding may be commenced while someone is still working and participating in the community. Justice Laura Carter Higley is a 72-year-old judge in the First Court of Appeals in Houston, Texas. As she sits on the bench, her two adult sons have commenced a guardianship proceeding on her behalf in Harris County Probate Court 2. She was recently diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease and they have alleged her failing cognitive health.

Her sons argue that since November 2017, the justice has suffered from neurocognitive issues. Justice Higley, who first took the bench in 2002,  drives herself to work daily in Houston. She has been involved in cases since March 2019, although no one has appealed her decisions since her diagnosis.

As in many guardianships, there exists a fight for control as the judge has an $8 million estate. Her husband, Bob Higley, is the mayor of West University Place, Texas, and he resides there with his wife. The sons are concerned about financial exploitation. Mayor Higley serves as the justice’s agent under a financial and medical power of attorney since March 2019. The sons also question their father’s actions with regard to the judge’s personal safety.

Complaints and concerns about Justice Higley could be made to the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, although it will not reveal if any have been filed as a result of their rules on privacy. The sons allege that their father has encouraged Justice Higley not to resign from her position.  According to the Texas Constitution, a judge can be removed from office in the event a disability interferes with her duties, which is or is likely to become permanent.

In many state jurisdictions, there is mandatory retirement for judges at a certain age. Such a rule often prematurely removes productive judges from the bench. Some of these judges then seek employment in the private sector. Justice Judith Kaye, the first woman to serve as the New York chief justice of the Court of Appeals, retired at age 70, due to the New York mandatory retirement statute. She then joined Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom as of counsel. Supreme Court and federal judges have lifetime appointments and many of these jurists have demonstrated monumental decisions during their “golden years.”

The case of Justice Higley highlights the fact that every guardianship matter is different. Individuals have different impairments, some of which can be hidden in the course of day-to-day activities. Some individuals may require assistance yet present well. Conversely, others may appear disheveled or in despair, but have a clear grasp on their lives. As practitioners and judges, we must look at the details and background of each case and make certain that the outcome specifically fits the facts. As is the concern with judicial mandatory retirement, not everyone ages the same way.

Full Article & Source:
The Judiciary Is Not Above The (Guardianship) Law

Michigan AG launches Elder Abuse Task Force, wants guardianship laws changed in wake of 7 investigation

By: Heather Catallo

LANSING, Mich. (WXYZ) — Adult children separated from their ailing parents. Vulnerable adults being put into unlicensed group homes. Those are just a few of the guardianship problems 7 Investigator Heather Catallo has been exposing since 2017.

Now, the Michigan attorney general and several state Supreme Court justices have formed a new Elder Abuse Task Force.

For years, families in metro Detroit have been telling the 7 Investigators that guardians and conservators appointed by judges have devastated their families.

“I had watched those stories and I really struggled to understand how this could happen in our modern society,” Attorney General Dana Nessel told 7 Investigator Heather Catallo in an exclusive interview. “Your series of stories really helped to enlighten people… The problem is even greater than I thought.”

Now, Nessel is teaming up with Michigan Supreme Court Chief Justice Bridget McCormack, Justices Richard Bernstein and Megan Cavanaugh, and four state lawmakers to form the Elder Abuse Task Force. Stopping over-use of court appointed guardians is a top priority.

“As an attorney I’m just horrified," Nessel said. "I see cases, frankly, where there are civil infractions for traffic tickets where there is more time and energy and effort put in by the attorneys and by the judge and by the witnesses than there is when you have a person made a full guardian of another human being. And that’s atrocious."

Nessel and Assistant Attorney General Scott Teter want to require professional guardians to be certified.

“You could go out this afternoon, have business cards printed up, stick up a sign and you’re a professional guardian," said Teter, who is the director of the attorney general’s Financial Crimes Division and project leader for the Elder Abuse Task Force. "That’s just insane that we would have a system where we would use the power of the court and put somebody else’s entire life under your control with zero training, zero qualifications, zero monitoring.”

In Michigan, 32,137 adults are under guardianship, which means someone else is making all of their medical and legal decisions for them. Conservators are also appointed frequently, and they control all of your finances.

“This is not a system designed to help; this is prison,” said Niki Disner in 2017 when the 7 Investigators interviewed her about the years of her life that were controlled by a court-appointed guardian.

The 7 Investigators have showed you case after case where family members say professional guardians have prevented them from seeing their loved ones.

Most recently, Marcie Mitchell and her family members were prevented by the guardian from visiting her ailing dad and step-mom in Utica. That guardian has since withdrawn from the case, and Mitchell is fighting to become the appointed guardian.

Now, the Task Force wants to change the law so visitation will be allowed.

Certification for guardians, basic rights for families of wards, and more accountability on the finances. Those are just a few of the things @MIAttyGen and @MISupremeCourt and the #elderabuse task force want changed in Michigan. Join us tonight at 6pm on @wxyzdetroit pic.twitter.com/ygtSNOafFn

— Heather Catallo WXYZ (@HeatherCatallo) June 20, 2019

“Making certain that if an adult child is not made the guardian, if there is a guardian put in place that there is a damn good reason for that," Nessel said. "And that the judge has to explain that in full. So even if the court deems that adult child not the appropriate person, not the best person to be a formal guardian for their parent, it doesn’t mean they should never see their parent ever again.”

Teter says the task force is also making a list of basic rights for family members.

“We’ve put together a list that we’re working on to make sure that they have not only the opportunity to challenge visitation, but the opportunity to present their information as to why they should be a guardian or a co-guardian," Teter said. "And the right to notice of the hearings, the right to see a copy of the Guardian ad Litem recommendations before we get to court – all of those things. And then that would be a separate notice available at the court so that when you come in, they hand you a list that says these are your rights in the system."

The task force also wants to require testimony from doctors in court prior to a guardianship being granted.

“I think medical testimony should be mandatory," Nessel said. "If you’re going to make an assessment that an individual can no longer care for themselves and has to have somebody there making their medical decisions and their financial decisions for them, you ought to have a medical professional who’s going to attest to that. And not just an attorney who says, ‘well, I went and I spoke to this person for five minutes and it seemed like they weren’t really capable of understanding what I said to them.’ That’s astonishing to me."

The 7 Investigators also exposed how some local courts use attorney general-appointed public administrators, whose job is to open estates after someone dies, as guardians.

“If we are able to corroborate information that these public administrators are not acting properly, I have no problem terminating their service,” Nessel said.

“We don’t supervise the guardianship side, that’s the courts responsibility," Teter said. "But we have repeatedly run into judges who use the language: ‘I’m appointing John Smith, the public administrator.’ And I assume that’s to lend some added credibility to that appointment, when they know that that’s absolutely legally incorrect."

State Senator Peter Lucido (R-Shelby Twp.), Rep. Brian Elder (D-Bay City), Senator Paul Wojno (D-Warren), and Rep. Graham Filler (R-Dewitt) are also on the task force.

“If the adult guardianship system is failing our moms and dads, we have to fix that,” said Chief Justice McCormack in a written release when the task force was announced in March. “That’s why I have asked Justice Bernstein and Justice Cavanagh to take the lead on this task force with Attorney General Nessel.”

Chief Justice McCormack also recognized investigation efforts by the media in this statement:

“The Court appreciates the work that the media have done to highlight families who have concerns regarding the guardianship system. Justices Cavanagh and Bernstein are actively involved in the Task Force, traveling the state, listening to families tell their stories. These families come to probate court at the most difficult times in their lives. They deserve a system that protects their rights, follows the law, and safeguards vulnerable residents. By listening to the public and working together, the Task Force is on the right track to make sure the system works for all our moms and dads.”

To report elder abuse, call 855-444-3911, or if you have questions for the Task Force they can be reached at 800-24-ABUSE.

Full Article & Source:
Michigan AG launches Elder Abuse Task Force, wants guardianship laws changed in wake of 7 investigation

Ohio’s Guardianship Laws Leave Seniors Vulnerable to Abuse

Ohio has struggled to care for vulnerable seniors, and it's getting worse.

The state's probate courts are responsible for creating and monitoring guardianships of the frail elderly, balancing freedom and protection. They are already strained. And yet, between 2010 and 2030, the number of Ohioans over 65 is projected to rise by half, from 1.6 million to 2.4 million. Over the next seven years the number of Alzheimer's patients in the state is projected to rise by 13.6 percent.

Authorities don't even claim to know how many guardianship abuse cases are out there. "Once a guardianship is imposed, there are few safeguards in place to protect against individuals who choose to abuse the system," wrote the United States Senate Committee on Aging in its 2018 report on guardianship. "Few states are able to report accurate or detailed guardianship data."

Since 2015, Ohio probate courts have been required to monitor complaints and have a response system in place. While this information can be requested by the public, no single agency tracks it across the state.

Already, state probate courts charged with protecting vulnerable citizens are strained. During 2017, the courts opened 6,864 adult guardianship cases, versus 2,159 involving children. As caseloads rise, courts struggle to find, pay, and monitor guardians. The resource shortage leaves older adults even more vulnerable to exploitation or abuse.

Some counties keep tabs on the well-being of wards through visits with court investigators or volunteer visitors. In others, the guardian is the only person who reports the condition of the ward back to the probate court.

A study by the Scripps Gerontology Center found that while most courts have investigators, only 28% of them said that monitoring guardianship is a regular part of their job. Just one in four Ohio probate courts have at least one full-time investigator on staff.

"I think one of the major issues that every county is experiencing is a lack of funding for these services," said Amy Restorick Roberts, who studies guardianship and teaches at the Scripps Gerontology Center. "Monitoring and oversight are critical steps that are very difficult to devote resources to if counties are strapped financially."

Restorick Roberts said that some smaller and rural counties still lack information management systems to help track general guardianship information. In her survey of 55 Ohio probate courts, only six counties could provide statistics on the reason adults were placed under guardianship.

"We need to have a better tracking system of who is involved and what their needs are and to ensure that their best interests are taken into consideration," she said.

"We have a real challenge in terms of making sure that these individuals are being served appropriately when we can't even track and identify who they are and what their situation really entails."

Adults who cannot care for themselves due to a mental impairment can be declared legally incompetent and thus become a ward of the state. A legal guardian can be a person, corporation or organization with the authority to make personal, financial and/or property decisions for an individual who lacks the capacity to do so.

"Being a guardian is pretty much like being a parent," said Judge Randy Rogers of the Butler County Probate Court. "It's a tremendous responsibility."

Ohio Boosts Protections

Before the summer of 2015, guardians were not legally obligated even to visit their wards."It was kind of a sad state of affairs," said Jack R. Kullman, the director of Franklin County's Guardianship Service Board.

Now, a guardian must meet with the prospective ward at least once before being appointed, and a minimum of four times a year afterwards.

The 2015 updates also require guardians to pass a background check and take a course offered by the Ohio Supreme Court before being appointed. Continuing education courses are now mandatory. These courses encourage guardians to consider the desires and preferences of wards whenever possible.

"Even though the guardian may be actually making the final decision the individual under guardianship should be involved to the extent they can in the decision-making process," said David English, a professor at University of Missouri School of Law who specializes in guardianship

Generally, he added, the aim is to "banish the view that the person is totally incompetent and 'Now I make all the decisions for you.'"

But even now, only 9 percent of Ohio's probate courts require that the ward be present for an initial court hearing, if able.

Adult wards have no rights guaranteed under Ohio law. A ward's bill of rights was initially part of the Ohio Legislature's reform bill, House Bill 50, but that section was dropped before the bill was passed.

And the reforms have not been free. Judge Randy Rogers of the Butler County Probate Court, which oversees about 1,000 guardianship cases, said his court filed 20% more documents from just two new mandated forms.

"It's a lot of work for probate courts and it's a lot of work that was created without any increase in resources," said Rogers. His staff is still still working on tracking down all the guardians appointed before the change, to make sure they've taken the course. Despite the challenges, Rogers said he believes the new requirements will have a positive impact, provided the courts embrace them.

"Was it good for us, to help us focus on what would make things better? Yes, it was good and a lot of work went into it," he said. "Now the job is for us in the probate courts to implement these changes."

Even after the reforms, contentious cases can be costly for the ward, partly for lack of a mediation program.

Legal fees pile up during arguments over who should be appointed guardian. Wards can lose a considerable amount of money in a legal battle over who gets control over their life, a battle in which they have little to no say.

What Can We Learn From Other States?

Ohio isn't the only state seeking answers.

Minnesota tackled financial elder abuse in 2012 by establishing a Conservator Account Auditing Program (CAAP). It created an online system for uploading records of court-appointed conservators and hired a team of auditors to periodically review them. A related initiative is called the Conservator Account Review Program (CARP).

According to Minnesota Judicial Branch Audit Manager Jamie Majerus, roughly 4,800 Minnesotans had assets under conservatorship in 2018 that were monitored by the programs. The value of these assets totalled $950 million.

In both programs, professionals supervised by certified fraud examiners oversee wards' finances. CAAP audits all conservator-managed accounts after the first year and all accounts with assets exceeding $10,000 every four years. CARP routinely audits all conservator-managed accounts, regardless of size, and can refer those accounts to CAAP if it spots potential problems.

After the audit, judges get an Account Review Report summarizing the auditor's findings and recommendations. A similar document is provided to the judge before conservatorship hearings.

One expert calls it the model for an auditing system.

Nevada addressed guardianship abuse after a fraud case drew national attention. Professional guardian April Parks used her court-appointed position to isolate and financially exploit more than 150 individuals in Las Vegas before she was caught. She got the maximum sentence of 16-40 years in prison after pleading guilty last November.

In 2017, the Supreme Court of Nevada created the Permanent Guardianship Commission, made up of judges, advocates and attorneys, to oversee and improve the state's guardianship practices.

Wards must be present at a hearing, if physically able, and must have legal representation. A proposed ward can hire his or her own lawyer, but many are appointed by the court through legal aid centers.

"Now, protected persons and proposed protected persons have trained lawyers fighting for what they want, not what everyone thinks is in their best interest," said Jim Berchtold, who leads the Guardianship Advocacy Program at the Legal Aid Center of Southern Nevada.

Berchtold believes that a lawyer independent from the probate system can best serve wards as an impartial advocate.

"Even if a protected person is unable to express his or her wishes, the mere presence of an attorney to represent them helps to ensure compliance with the statutes and dissuades financial exploitation and other abuses," he said.

Nevada also created a Guardianship Compliance Office, which supports district probate courts by reviewing cases and performing investigations upon request. It can investigate the health and welfare of a protected person, locate guardians the court has lost contact with, and run forensic audits if a judge is concerned about a ward's accounting.

"Before the court didn't have those resources to dig in and investigate," said Guardianship Compliance Manager Kate McCloskey. "We have one district court that calls our audits 'liquid gold.'"

The GCO also operates a hotline for anyone who has questions about guardianship or needs help reporting guardianship abuse.

Berchtold and McCloskey said Nevada's 2017 Protected Person's Bill of Rights was another major step forward. It includes the right to be educated about guardianships, to participate in developing plans that will affect the ward's future, and to remain as independent as possible.

Overburdened Ohio courts can be particularly overwhelmed when family members disagree on the proper way to care for loved ones who can't care for themselves.

In April 2013, Fourough Bakhtiar, an Alzheimer's patient, went to lunch with her daughter, Jaleh Presutto. She never returned.

Ten days later, Bakhtiar signed a document giving Presutto power of attorney. Bakhtiar had originally filed for divorce in 1988 but later dropped the case. Soon after she went to live with Presutto, she filed for, and was granted a divorce, after about 50 years of marriage.

Neurologists who examined Bakhtiar at the time said dementia made her "vulnerable to exploitation."

The question of her care has plagued the courts in Lorain and Cuyahoga County for six years.

The court later removed Presutto and her husband as guardians after they pled guilty to separate felony counts of forgery and unlawful use of property for misappropriating money from their son's school district.

Bakhtiar's new guardian, attorney Zachary Simonoff, supported Bakhtiar's petition to end her marriage. He said that while she was incompetent as a matter of law, her dementia did not bar her from expressing her wishes. He also pointed out that it's not the first time Bakhtiar has filed for divorce. She and her husband were separated for about four months in 1988; Bakhtiar began divorce proceedings, but ended up moving back in with her husband instead.

Her four sons disagree. They allege that their mother was unduly influenced by Presutto, who wanted access to the funds from a hefty divorce settlement. They said the lawyers involved in Bakhtiar's care have supported the divorce because they profit from the legal fees.

Simonoff said the only reason the Saghafis oppose the divorce is that they want their father to keep the settlement money. He said the family's appeals are to blame for the legal fees billed to Bakhtiar's estate.

"If they would stop suing the guardianship, there would be a severe drop off in the money that's going to attorneys," he said.

Jamsheed Saghafi vehemently disagreed. "I couldn't care less about the money that was stolen," he said. "I want my mom returned. If (the attorneys) want the money, go ahead and burn it all."

It's been years since Bakhtiar last saw her family. The court has ordered that Mehdi Saghafi not contact his ex-wife. The rest of the family is welcome to visit, says Simonoff, provided they give him one business day's notice. Jamsheed Saghafi said the family won't visit her until his father is allowed to join them, but they will continue to appeal the case.

Full Article & Source:
Ohio’s Guardianship Laws Leave Seniors Vulnerable to Abuse

The road ahead: Critical flaws abound in proposed guardianship laws

The Uniform Law Commission’s (ULC) recommended changes to New Mexico’s guardian and conservator laws continues to position judges and their appointees beyond any accountability for actions taken in guardian and/or conservatorship cases.

No financial monitoring of the judges, attorneys and professionals is proposed; the word “audit” is not found once in 150 pages of proposed statutes. Instead, existing laws are re-written, disguising while continuing the existing unconstitutional, yet deemed legal, actions of judges and their appointees.

Current law explicitly states that judges have the first priority in appointing who may become guardian/conservator. The recommended ULC statute reads:

Section 309 (c) The court, acting in the best interest of the respondent, may decline to appoint as guardian a person having priority under subsection (a) and appoint a person having a lower priority or no priority.

Note that “no priority” means anybody of the judge’s choosing can be appointed your guardian or conservator. Judges currently have – and will continue to have – unconstitutional authority to void your legal contracts and replace your legal instructions with the judge’s choice, violating your civil and constitutional rights.

Another fundamental flaw of the proposed ULC statutes is the inclusion of two words – “and equity” – contained in the title and the sole sentence comprising Section 103. The words “and equity” must be stricken from the proposed statutes. As long as the words “and equity” remain, judges can base their rulings on “equity” principles, principles which allow judges to ignore black letter law and accept their own appointed attorneys’ arguments that the appointees’ action have been “equitable” – even when those actions grossly violate laws, as well as the wards’ civil, constitutional and human rights.

The suggested Uniform Commission Laws recommended statutes do not offer the wards and their families protection from the judges’ and their appointees’ actions, should those actions turn out to be financially unfavorable to the ward, as currently estimated in 35 percent of all guardianship cases, according to retired Judge Ted Baca in this year’s March 22 town hall meeting.

Currently, and in the future, should these ULC statutes be adopted, there is not, and will never be, any recourse available to wards or their families to complain or receive justice from anyone if the judge and their appointees act contrary to the wards’ or the families’ and loved ones’ interests. Meanwhile, state regulators have not done their legislatively required jobs of annual audits, bonding requirements or even minimal oversight of the court-appointees to whom the judges have given total authority over living human beings and their entire lives’ assets.

At Americans Against Abusive Probate Guardianship we support legislation such as HB 146 Protection of Vulnerable Adults as originally introduced in the 2017 legislative session by Reps. Yvette Herrell, R-Alamogordo, and Deborah Armstrong, D-Albuquerque. The original wording of HB 146 criminalized and penalized actions that defraud vulnerable adults, such as the actions taken by court-appointed Paul Donisthorpe/Desert Trust and (allegedly taken by) Ayudando Guardians. HB 146 could also be used to investigate cases of suspected fraud, such as the case of Blair Darnell and the cases of several other clients of the same court-appointed attorney, including the RC Gorman estate.

In the protection of vulnerable people who are at the court’s mercy, the devil is truly in the details of the law. Legislators would do well to nix the Uniform Law Commission proposed changes since they offer no guarantees to New Mexicans that if the courts fail to follow existing laws – as has been documented time and time again by the Journal – that the harmed parties have recourse to hold those judges and their appointees accountable, and for the wards to be reimbursed ALL money improperly taken from them by court order.

Legislators should instead enact 2017’s HB 146 as originally submitted, to put some teeth and punishment toward criminals who abuse their judicial or court-appointed authority to steal from the vulnerable.

Kelley Smoot Garrett is Executive Vice President of Americans Against Abusive Probate Guardianship and was a panel member at the March 22 town hall meeting about guardianship sponsored by the Albuquerque Journal.

Full Article & Source:
The road ahead: Critical flaws abound in proposed guardianship laws

CONTACT 13: New Nevada guardianship laws promise accountability and protection

LAS VEGAS (NV) - A Contact 13 investigation has led to long-overdue changes in state law. Abuse and exploitation have run rampant in our adult guardianship system, but protection and oversight are on the way.

It's deadline day in the Nevada Senate and two bills both passed to safeguard older and vulnerable citizens from those who would exploit them.

Court-appointed guardians are supposed to protect those who can't care for themselves.

But, as a recent spate of indictments shows, the so-called protectors often take advantage of vulnerable people for their own personal gain.

Senate Bill 360 increases both civil and criminal accountability in guardianship cases and provides for more prison time for convicted abusers.

It also establishes a bill of rights for people under guardianship.

Senate Bill 433 ensures those protected persons can't be isolated and compels the court to hear cases in short order.

It also makes sure protected persons will have legal representation and authorizes a court to impose fines and order restitution in cases where guardians are guilty of impropriety.

This legislative action comes as the result of a two-year Contact 13 investigation.

After we exposed systemic corruption in the guardianship system and lack of oversight in Clark County Family Court, the Nevada Supreme Court formed a guardianship oversight commission to fix flaws and change laws.

Full Article & Source:
CONTACT 13: New Nevada guardianship laws promise accountability and protection

MS Supreme Court Launches Project to Reform Guardianship Conservatorship Laws

Professionals in the medical, mental health, legal and social services fields statewide are meeting at the Mississippi Supreme Court in Jackson. They're concerned about the state's guardianship and conservatorship laws for vulnerable adults and working to develop solutions. Ta'Shia Gordon, with the Court's Administrative Office, coordinated the effort. She says the process should be more user-friendly. The attorney had to help her family after Gordon's father had a stroke.

"Having to navigate the process of getting help and resources to him was a little difficult. So, I can't imagine for someone who doesn't have the education or the training," said Gordon.

Gordon explains a guardianship is used when someone is physically or mentally unable to take care of him or herself. A conservatorship allows someone to manage a person's financial affairs when he or she is unable to do so. Professor Desiree Hensley is here with her students from the University of Mississippi School of Law.  Hensley says a major concern is once a guardian is appointed, the adult loses all legal rights to make decisions.

"So I think one idea that the committee needs to look at is whether or not court should be required to consider whether there's some other means to help you, that allows you to continue to be a decision-maker on your own behalf to the extent that you're able," said Hensley.

Hensley says there's a lack of training and oversight for people appointed to these roles. Also no data are collected. Gordan says they'll begin by implementing short term goals.

"Hopefully we can launch a website to have some information on there for persons who are serving as guardians for family members or people in their community," said Gordon.

A $7,000 grant from the Working Interdisciplinary Networks of Guardianship Stakeholders is funding the sessions.

Full Article & Source:
MS Supreme Court Launches Project to Reform Guardianship Conservatorship Laws