Community Joins Adult Guardianship Program Discussion

Community members are bringing their backgrounds and expertise to the conversation surrounding adult guardianship needs in Porter County.

Porter County Aging and Community Services’ board of directors and staff members are working with these interested individuals as well as Amber Poff, executive director and staff attorney at LaPorte-based Indiana Guardianship Services.

IGS is already serving a limited number of individuals in Porter County who are in need of a guardian, but many more are on a waiting list, said Bruce Lindner, PCACS executive director.

“It all started with a casual conversation with Amber. The reason for the meeting with our community members was to get a handle on what our organization can do and receive some insights from the community,” he said. “It helps to receive ideas from those who have worked in the field.”

Poff had recently detailed what her agency is all about and how it serves the community to the PCACS board. The program allows the agency to serve as a guardian for adults who have been adjudicated incapacitated and have no other viable alternative for a guardian. The agency utilizes trained professionals as well as volunteers to advocate for at-risk adults.

Attorney Christopher M. Ripley of Blachly, Tabor, Bozik & Hartman, who does work in the elder law arena, Marti Pizzini, who is retired and had worked in the home health care industry, and Joe Frankus, who had served an Illinois legal aid organization as an elder law attorney, all joined the discussion.

“Guardianship can be for those without anyone or who are alienated from their families,” Pizzini said. “If a family has always been dysfunctional, getting older doesn’t make it any better.”

“We can think about educating with forms on the (PCACS) Web site,” Frankus said, which would help with situations where the families are involved. “This is a growing problem with Baby Boomers aging and living longer and having to be taken care of longer.”

“Collecting information and having knowledgeable volunteers on-site periodically could be initial first steps to establishing a larger presence for an adult guardianship program in Porter County,” Lindner said.

“I would like to see PCACS provide services for those who have nothing and nobody,” added PCACS board member Kim Wiseman. “We need to be supporting that aspect for those at the end of their lives with no one to turn to.”

“Working with IGS would help serve those who fall into this area. We will continue to discuss this much-needed service and evaluate the best steps to move forward. It was extremely useful to gather like-minded individuals who have insight and expertise to offer. This is a program that needs more attention. Can we help it along?” Lindner said.

Community members who have input on this subject should contact Lindner at (219) 465-7144 or bhlindner@portercountyacs.org.

PCACS’ mission is to extend a helping hand to seniors, those with disabilities and low-income residents by providing services to improve their quality of life, including transportation, energy and emergency assistance, Section 8 and ramp programs.

For more information, visit www.portercountyacs.org.

Full Article & Source:
Community Joins Adult Guardianship Program Discussion

Will you be old and 'unbefriended?'

For the first time in Canada's history, more people are living alone or without children, according to the 2016 Census. Coupled with increasing life expectancy and geographic mobility, the chance of aging without a partner or children is significant.

Individuals who have no family caregivers are known as "elder orphans." When they become incapacitated (often due to a dementia), they are known as the "unbefriended."

In a new study, members of the pan-Canadian Translating Research in Elder Care (TREC) research program reviewed academic research and unpublished reports to understand what information was available on unbefriended older adults in Canada and the United States.

Public guardians

Since the unbefriended lack a willing or capable family support system, they often require a public guardian. Public guardians are case workers whose job is to make legal and personal decisions for people who are alone and incapacitated.

For many without a family caregiver, this protects against abuse and neglect.

However, the public guardianship system is plagued with challenges, including long wait times and large guardian caseloads. Unbefriended individuals are likely to live in long-term care (LTC) facilities.

Research from the United States estimates that between three to four per cent of LTC residents are unbefriended and this number is expected to grow.

Alarming lack of data

After reviewing thousands of abstracts and more than 100 papers, we found little information on this vulnerable group.

Studies from the U.S. indicated that unbefriended older adults were childless or had fewer children. They were more cognitively impaired than individuals with family guardians.

We found no Canadian studies or reports.

Our findings reveal an alarming lack of data on individuals who are unbefriended and living in LTC facilities. We do not know the consequences of public guardianship on their quality of care or quality of life.

Unbefriended older adults are exceptionally vulnerable to poor quality of care. Without family or friends who are familiar with their wants and needs, it is unclear if they receive treatment that is in line with their values and desires.

Researchers have questioned the quality of care these individuals receive, suggesting they are at risk of overtreatment or undertreatment.

A growing population

Since our review found no Canadian studies or reports on the characteristics or health of unbefriended older adults, we have no idea how Canada may or may not compare to the U.S.

As a result, we are conducting research to estimate the prevalence and the unmet needs of unbefriended older adults in LTC facilities.

One thing is clear: This is population is likely to grow. Research on the health and care needs of unbefriended older adults, and the potential health impacts of public guardianship, are urgently needed. Without such studies, we are unable to adapt our continuing care system to meet the needs of this unique population.

We cannot solely rely on our children and other family members to care for us as we age. We need health and social systems that are prepared to care for our most vulnerable.

Further inquiry is imperative to examine guardianship services for older adults in Canada and around the world.

Full Article & Source:
Will you be old and 'unbefriended?'

NEW WRINKLES: A man on the moon, brought down to earth

Nearly three decades of life in a retirement town have convinced me that there’s no age limit on romantic love — even the kind that can teleport you back to all the dizzying sensations of a seventh-grade crush.

I’ve seen couples settle down in their 80s with newly found soulmates, and live happily ever after. And I’ve seen formerly thoughtful and dignified elders lose their hearts and their fortunes to an engaging home health aide or ballroom dance instructor.

That’s love for you. And at first blush, if you’ll excuse the term, this seems to be what has happened in the case of the second human being ever to walk on the moon.

Unlike most of the elders I have met and written about who become ensnared in Florida’s guardianship system, former astronaut Buzz Aldrin, 88, appears to have received excellent legal advice on how to defend himself against two of his children who petitioned the state to declare him mentally incompetent. Not only did he obtain an independent cognitive assessment from a geriatric psychiatrist at the University of California Los Angeles — who described his abilities as “superior to normal” — but he also went on the offensive, filing a lawsuit in Brevard County against his own kin.

The younger Aldrins’ claim is that their father suffers from dementia, has fallen under the sway of false friends and is spending money at a ruinous rate. In return, he accuses two of his three offspring of seeking to control him “for their own self-dealing and enrichment.”

Under Florida law, adults deemed by a judge too frail or mentally compromised to make decisions for themselves can be stripped of their civil rights — unable to manage their own finances, to buy or sell property, to marry or divorce, even to vote.

Guardianship laws are necessary, especially in a state like Florida where elders can find themselves isolated and vulnerable in their later days. But the system that attempts to safeguard penniless wards is terribly underfunded, and the money to pay for attorneys and guardians has to come from somewhere. Often, as the Herald-Tribune showed in a series nearly four years ago, it comes from far wealthier wards whose life savings become a target of shiny new love interests, manipulative con artists or mercenary adult children.

The result is an adversarial courtroom drama where a judge has to decide, based on sadly skimpy evidence, who is telling the truth. The process is almost always demeaning and humiliating for the elder placed in the position of proving a negative — that he or she has not irretrievably lost his or her mind.

What’s so tough for the judge is that an elder such as Aldrin, even with a history of depression and divorces, is legally allowed to be a fool for love and act against his own best interests, regardless of how his family feels about it — as long as he can convince a court of his mental competence. We’re talking about the subtle but vital difference between illusion and delusion.

As we approach the 50th anniversary of the Apollo 11 lunar landing, it’s far too soon to rush to judgment regarding this particular moonwalker. But it’s hard not to be moved by a plea Aldrin’s attorney has already made in the court of public opinion:

″He’s 88 years old, but he still has something to contribute to this country and the world. He doesn’t want to be a Fabergé egg stuck up on the shelf.”

Full Article & Source:
NEW WRINKLES: A man on the moon, brought down to earth

See Also:
Legendary astronaut Buzz Aldrin sues his family alleging fraud

Former guardian not eligible to bring DeBrodie lawsuit, judge rules

A Callaway County judge has dismissed a wrongful death suit filed by Carl DeBrodie's former guardian Mary Martin.

Judge Jeff Harris ruled July 2 that as Mary Martin and her husband, Bryan Martin, were not DeBrodie's birth or adoptive parents, they did not have standing to bring a wrongful death claim under Missouri statute, according to court documents.

"We already knew we were going to be denied, so it's not such a blow," Mary Martin said Friday. "We'll carry it as far as we can."

She said she, her husband and her lawyer are exploring legal options to continue pursuing the suit.

The Martins filed the wrongful death suit April 13, claiming as "psychological, 'de facto'" parents of DeBrodie, they should be among the beneficiaries entitled to participating in the wrongful death suit.

DeBrodie, the developmentally disabled man found dead in April 2017 after vanishing from a Fulton group home, lived with the Martins from ages 13-21. The Martins attempted to adopt DeBrodie when he was 25, but the petition was rejected by the Circuit Court of Cole County. The legal battle dragged from 2011-14.

Harris cited the failed adoption attempt in his July 2 decision.

"Plaintiffs' claims are barred in that their attempt at equitable adoption has already been adjudicated and rejected in other proceedings," he wrote.

Additionally, Harris noted, DeBrodie's mother, Carolyn Summers, already has filed a wrongful death lawsuit in the case.

"Only one action may be brought under the wrongful death statute for the death of Carl DeBrodie," he stated.

Summers and DeBrodie's aunt Carol Samson filed their own wrongful death suit in January and have opposed the Martins' involvement in it. The Martins' civil suit was filed April 9.

On April 13 the Martins filed to intervene as plaintiffs in the Summers/Samson civil suit. At the time, Mary Martin said she hoped to change legal precedent to allow non-adoptive and birth parents more legal recourse in cases like this. She also mentioned plans to use money won through the suit to start a foundation to help people like DeBrodie.

The motion to intervene was terminated April 16.

In May, Samson filed a motion to dismiss the Martins' lawsuit. She and Summers also filed a motion to support its dismissal before the July 2 hearing.

The Martin suit was dismissed with prejudice, court records show, meaning the Martins will have to pay for costs associated with the suit.

"It hurts that the laws do not see us as the psychological parents," Mary Martin said Friday.

Full Article & Source:
Former guardian not eligible to bring DeBrodie lawsuit, judge rules

See Also:
Carl DeBrodie was killed by injuries from forced fighting, court documents reveal graphic details

Carl DeBrodie case: Family attorney says the charges didn't surprise him

Judge Dismisses Restraining Order Protecting Stan Lee

UPDATED with details from legal memo: A judge dismissed a restraining order that sought to permanently bar a memorabilia collector from involvement in Stan Lee’s affairs, citing confusion over who legitimately represented the Marvel Comics icon.

Attorney Tom Lallas said he appeared in court today to argue for a permanent restraining order against Keya Morgan, who had inserted himself into Lee’s affairs. Lallas said he was confronted, in court, by other lawyers who also claimed to represent Lee.

“It was very unusual,” said Lallas, who was asked by the Los Angeles Police Department detective investigating claims of elder abuse to step in as legal guardian. “It has never happened to me in 40 years.”

Judge Pro Tem Ruth Kleman, citing the lack of clarity about Lee’s legal representation, dismissed the request for a permanent restraining order without prejudice — meaning it could be refiled at any time.

Lallas filed a voluminous 263-page document (read it here) in state Superior Court supporting Lee’s request for a permanent elder abuse restraining order against Morgan and for the attorney’s appointment as Lee’s legal guardian.

Linda Sanchez, Lee’s former nurse and in-home caregiver, said she witnessed verbal abuse and financial manipulation, both by Morgan as well as by Lee’s 68-year-old daughter, JC Lee, whom the father describes as “a vulnerable woman” who is “an easy target for predators.”

Sanchez says JC “screams terrible, abusive things at her father” and blames him for her problems. The nurse also says that, although she has not witnessed direct physical abuse, “I have noted numerous bruises to the right side of Mr. Lee’s body which were unexplained.”

“Mr. Lee has told me privately that he is giving up, after his daily harassment, and that he believes he has nothing left to live for but to ‘go to sleep’ and ‘die,’ ” Sanchez said in her testimony. “As a result of everything described above, Mr. Lee falls into very dark and depressed moods because he doesn’t have the strength or will to fight anymore.”

The legal documents claim Morgan took control of Lee’s business affairs and personal life in February and isolated him from the people Lee was closest to and trusted the most, including his executive assistant of 20 years Michael Kelly.

“I called Mr. Lee to arrange to meet with him but was told by Morgan that he would not come to his office at POW! and I would be required to come to his home,” Kelly said. “I went to his home to meet with him and Morgan and a bodyguard named Leo were present throughout my meeting with Mr. Lee … I was not allowed to meet with Mr. Lee privately.”

Lallas alleges Lee was held hostage in his own home. Morgan hired a security guard to block access to the Oriole Way residence, changed all of Lee’s phone numbers and tightly controlled his communications. “I was not permitted to meet or speak with Mr. Lee,” Lallas said. “The Morgan group also took control of all email communications.”

Morgan was arrested by LAPD on suspicion of filing a false police report, allegedly concerning a supposed break-in incident at Lee’s residence. Out on $20,000 bail, Morgan is due in court on the matter early next month.

At the time of Morgan’s arrest, Lee and his family were granted a 48-hour restraining order against the business manager. Among the various conditions of the order was that Morgan must stay at least 100 yards away from Lee and his home.

The paperwork also states that “Mr. Lee has a large estate worth over $50 million and therefore is vulnerable to financial predators.”

Full Article & Source:
Judge Dismisses Restraining Order Protecting Stan Lee

See Also:
Stan Lee Granted Restraining Order Against Business Manager, LAPD Investigating Claims of Elder Abuse

The Massachusetts Adult Guardianship System

By Anne Johnson Landry

In Massachusetts, guardians can be appointed (and removed) by the Probate and Family Court to make decisions on behalf of adults who lack decision-making capacity.Conservators, on the other hand, can be appointed (and removed) by the Probate and Family Court to manage the finances and assets of an adult who lacks the capacity to do so. The court can limit the scope of a guardianship to the areas of life over which the adult lacks the capacity to make their own decisions. Both nationally and in Massachusetts, there has been an outcry in recent years over abuses by unscrupulous and abusive guardians, as well as a movement to embrace alternatives to guardianship like supportive decision-making.

This legislative session, the Joint Committee on the Judiciary heard testimony relating to guardianship and decisional support services. S1177 , the bill originally filed, sought to create an Office of Adult Guardianship and Decisional Support Services within the Executive Office of Health and Human Services, which would be charged with appointing a non-profit organization to act as Public Guardian. The primary goal of the legislation, as stated by the proponents of the legislation, was to address an unmet need in the Commonwealth: to provide guardianship services for the “unbefriended”- those lacking both capacity to make at least some decisions for themselves and lacking the friends, family, or resources to find someone to act as their court-appointed guardian.

Although Senator Brownsberger was convinced (and the Committee heard consistently) that this unmet need was real, the Committee also heard concerns from several stakeholders about the fiscal impact, the immunity provisions of the legislation, as well as whether the legislation could be improved to address more directly abuses by predatory guardians.

The Joint Committee on the Judiciary chose to include the Public Guardian bill in a study order but reported a bill that would establish a special commission to study our adult guardianship and conservatorship system. The Senate included in its final budget a provision that would establish a similar commission, following the adoption of an amendment offered by Senator Creem and co-sponsored by Senator Brownsberger. This language is currently under consideration by the FY2019 budget conference committee. We should learn soon how the amendment language fared in conference. The substance of the Senate budget language reads as follows:

There shall be a special commission to study adult guardianship and conservatorship practices in the commonwealth. The commission shall consist of the following members or their designees: the house and senate chairs of the committee on children, families and persons with disabilities, who shall serve as co-chairs; the secretary of the executive office of health and human services; the chief justice of the probate and family court; 1 representative from each of the following organizations: AARP Massachusetts, The ARC of Massachusetts, Massachusetts Alzheimer’s Association, National Association of Social Workers Massachusetts, Mass Home Care, Disability Law Center, Inc., Massachusetts Health and Hospital Association, Inc., Center for Public Representation, Inc.; 1 person who shall be a member of Massachusetts Advocates Standing Strong, Inc.; 1 person who shall be a member of the committee for public counsel services who practices guardianship or disability law; 1 person who shall be a member of the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys Massachusetts who practices guardianship law; 1 person who shall be an employee of Greater Boston Legal Services, Inc. who practices guardianship or disability law; 1 person who shall be a member of the Massachusetts Medical Society; 1 person who shall be a competency-expert faculty member or equivalent at the Harvard Medical School; 1 person who shall be a member of the Massachusetts Guardianship Policy Institute; and 2 persons to be appointed by the governor, 1 of whom shall be selected from at least 3 persons nominated by the National Association to Stop Guardianship Abuse and 1 of whom shall be a person under guardianship with a family guardian or conservator, who may be accompanied by his or her guardian or conservator.
The study shall include, but shall not be limited to: (i) a review of unmet needs in the commonwealth’s adult guardianship and conservatorship systems; (ii) recommendations on how best to meet the needs of adults with diminished capacity who lack financial resources or family or friends; (iii) an examination of the role that an office of public guardian might have in addressing unmet decisional needs in the commonwealth; (iv) an examination of methods to identify, prevent and remedy guardianship and conservatorship abuses; (v) an examination of the appropriate collection of fees by guardians and conservators; and (vi) a review of alternatives to guardianship, including, but not limited to, supported decision-making and other ways to encourage the use of such alternatives where appropriate.
Not later than July 31, 2019, the commission shall submit a written report of its findings, including legislative recommendations, to the clerks of the senate and the house of representatives, the senate and house committees on ways and means and the joint committee on children, families and persons with disabilities.

Full Article & Source:
The Massachusetts Adult Guardianship System

Upstate NY Judge Admonished for Entering Resident's Home, Sharing Photos on Facebook

An Otsego County judge was publicly admonished by a state commission on Thursday for entering a local resident’s home without permission and posting photos of it on Facebook.

William Fisher, a justice of the Worcester Town Court, agreed to the admonition by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct and pledged to be more careful about his social media use in the future, according to the commission’s decision.

The home Fisher entered previously belonged to relatives of his wife, who was a co-executrix of the estate, the commission said.

The home was sold in 2012 to a person not named in the decision. The buyer was behind on mortgage payments when Fisher entered her home without giving notice in January 2015, the commission said.

He took several photos of the home, which the commission said was in a state of disorder. He posted seven of those photos using his wife’s Facebook account with a caption that said his wife’s relatives “are turning over in their graves.”

The post was visible to the public, including the buyer who took screenshots of it on her phone. 

In March 2017, the commission requested court records about three occasions when the buyer’s then-domestic partner was a defendant before the Worcester Town Court. The buyer was not mentioned in the letter.

Fisher replied to the commission’s request with the records along with several Facebook posts by the buyer, where she asked her friends to contact the commission about him, the commission said.

One month later, Fisher posted photos to his personal Facebook account from when he entered the buyer’s home without permission. He wrote in the post about how she had previously fallen behind on mortgage payments.

Fisher told the commission in July 2017 that he would immediately remove the post. He did not take the photos down until November 2017 and the post itself was public until February 2018.
“Judges carry with them the mantle of judicial office both on and off the bench,” said Robert Tembeckjian, administrator of the commission. “They must therefore always be mindful that inappropriate personal behavior may undermine public confidence in the judiciary and result in discipline, as it did here for Judge Fisher.”

Fisher has been a justice in Worcester Town Court since 1991. Michael Breen, an attorney with a practice in Middleburgh, New York, who represented Fisher, declined to comment on Thursday.

Full Article & Source:
Upstate NY Judge Admonished for Entering Resident's Home, Sharing Photos on Facebook

Bank restores stolen funds to 112-year-old Texas man

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — Bank of America has credited the account of a Texas resident who is believed to be the oldest man in the U.S. after his family reported that thieves had stolen his identity and drained the account.

Richard Overton's family said Social Security and bank account numbers for the 112-year-old Austin man were used to make seven withdrawals over the past several months. The family filed a police report Friday .

Cousin Volma Overton said the family was shocked when the bank asked them to come in and sign for the restored funds. He declined to say how much money was stolen, but said it was a "significant amount."

"Man, I teared up," Volma Overton said. "I couldn't believe it. They made it happen. The executive of the company said he'd take care of this, and he took care of it."

Bank spokeswoman Colleen Haggerty said the bank is investigating and the family said Austin police and federal authorities are also looking into it.

"Everyone wants to get to the bottom of this. I don't think it's going to be long before we know," Volma Overton said.

The money was separate from a 2015 online campaign that raised more than $300,000 to provide for Richard Overton around-the-clock, in-home care. He is the nation's oldest World War II veteran and was at Pearl Harbor just after the Japanese attack.

Full Article & Source:
Bank restores stolen funds to 112-year-old Texas man

See Also:
Thieves empty bank account of 112-year-old Richard Overton, oldest living WWII vet

Judges’ punishments should be public

By CJ Baker

A Cheyenne judge apparently did something she shouldn’t have.

The Wyoming Commission on Judicial Conduct and Ethics put out a news release last month announcing that Laramie County Circuit Court Judge Antoinette Healy had been disciplined with a “private censure.” That means the commission — which oversees discipline of Wyoming’s judges — issued Healy a confidential document expressing disapproval with something she did.

Whatever that something was, it was serious enough that the commission ordered Healy to take a legal class and to pay $15,990.28 to cover the expense of investigating and punishing her. The commission also apparently thought that, while the public didn’t need to know what Judge Healy did, it was important for the citizens of Wyoming to know she had been punished.

It’s hard to follow that logic.

We aren’t privy to any of the facts of this case, which makes it difficult for us to second-guess the judges, attorneys and private citizens who make up the Commission of Judicial Conduct and Ethics.

But we can say that the state and commission should do away with private censures: Our judges are some of the most powerful and highly compensated public officials in our state and if they engage in misconduct, they should be publicly disciplined.

As the Wyoming Tribune Eagle noted in a report last month, the commission’s rules give it the option of censuring, reprimanding or admonishing a judge privately.

Private discipline generally indicates that a judge’s misconduct was relatively minor. But the secret, confidential nature of the discipline leaves a whole lot to the imagination — especially as citizens consider whether they want to vote to keep that judge on the bench.

“It’s both unfair to the voter and unfair to the judge, frankly,” attorney Bruce Moats, who often represents Wyoming newspapers in open government issues, told the Tribune Eagle. “Unfortunately for the judge … it allows speculation and suspicion. [And] if the public has to go up and vote on retention, and you don’t know what [the conduct] is, it can certainly significantly affect that.”

The Wyoming State Bar Association similarly can impose private punishments when it disciplines an attorney.

But it’s a mistake to put judges on the same scale as lawyers. As Moats noted to the Tribune Eagle, “There is a difference between the discipline of an attorney, who may be acting totally privately, as opposed to someone that is holding public office.”

Further, these are public officials who wield tremendous power.

A few words from a judge can bring a lifetime in prison or financial ruin; they decide who can see their children and for how long; they decide whether someone can present their case to a jury; and they review decisions made by lawmakers, county commissioners and city councils.

Judges also enjoy a lot of discretion and their decisions are given great deference; in some cases, an appellate court will overturn a decision only if the original judge’s ruling “exceeded the bounds of reason.”

It makes perfect sense that judges are given the ability to tailor their decisions to the wide range of cases and people that pass before them — and that the judge who actually hears a case is given the benefit of the doubt on appeal.

But it also means our judges can and should be held to extremely high standards. If a judge is found to have engaged in misconduct or acted unethically, the voting public should know. There is no reason for a judge who has effectively been “convicted” by the commission to be afforded special protections.

Part of the reason we believe misconduct should be made public is that the overwhelming majority of our judges take great pains to follow the rules.

As Wyoming’s dozens of judges handled hundreds of thousands of cases last year, the Commission of Judicial Conduct and Ethics dealt with a total of 23 verified complaints. According to the commission’s annual report, 20 of the 23 were dismissed or withdrawn, while the commission issued just one letter of caution, one letter of correction and one censure — which, in that 2017 case, the commission chose to make public.

In short, discipline is rare, and when it happens, we, the voting public, should know about it. Private or, in this case, quasi-private discipline serves no one well.
 
Full Article & Source:
Judges’ punishments should be public