Why are some Judge’s revoking Patient Advocate/POA in guardianship &/or Conservator Petition Hearings with no verbal or written reason?
Documents signed by paid attorney years ago while person was competent. What gives a judge the legal right to not follow the law of a particular State? This causes to many nursing home early admissions when there are family members in most cases ready, willing and able to take loving care of the vulnerable elder and adult disabled loved one. Court appointed Professional guardian &/or Conservator is not in most cases allow ward to live at home or with family. Why?! If Mediation was Mandatory before Petition was accepted in Probate court would that eliminate so many deaths in nursing homes and they would still be alive living with family or other loved ones? Maybe with the help of home care and Medicare covering home care instead of just nursing home would make things a lot easier it seems especially with Covid-19!
As to a personal issue? Yes, absolutely. I spent my career as a nurse and I witnessed far too many families at war over the fragile, failing bodies of their elders. Usually "Siblings at War" attempting to pull their dying elders apart with their own deathbed drama. We often had to call security guards to usher them out the door.
The court often had to step in to sweep the family members out with the rest of the detritus. And happily so. The courts will ALWAYS choose a family to serve a failing elder if that family is competent mentally and intellectually to do so. If they are no so busy bickering over the bones of their poor elders that they can't see straight.
Indeed for me it is very personal when someone starts throwing around very faulty information. I will always be ready with the "Fickle Finger of Nonsense". In olden times when "Saints" were dying, or those thought to be headed toward Sainthood, people would come and try to pull off hair, or worse, as they lay dying. Relics, don't you know. I have witnessed some families pretty close to doing this, but more the wallets they are reaching for. It is extremely sad. I say again, thank goodness for the Courts.
I guess you got the LC reference? Because most people would say THAT is outlandish. Looks like it caught a big Phish this time. With a Capital P.
Again, if you would like to advise us about your own personal trauma and need of help we are all ears. There are many here who can give you great advice. But for myself, if a Judge just denied you, I stand with him (or her). I know some licensed fiduciaries. They are honorable people in my state licensed to do a good job, and a very difficult one to be sure. In fact, loonie-tune relatives come out of the woodwork, and out from under rocks at them so very often that they cannot post their addresses, and at times live in fear of nutjobs endangering their very lives because they just lost control of their grannie's money.
Wishing you the best. LC.
Didn't someone, actually one of the gentleman posters on the site, warn of the LC thing? I don't know. Something to watch for on twitter. Anything with LC in it, apparently some kind of call out to conspiracy theorists.
No, I am sorry. I don't believe in elder trafficking. I think it is nonsense.
Courts lean over backward to protect elders from predatory families especially, and from other predation, and almost always error in considering even impaired elders opinion on things. That's the fact overall in our wonderful country, and thank goodness for it.
LC, sounds a bit like some sort of conspiracy theory you have going there, but those are pretty common today, and if nothing else they are entertaining. W
hereas the abuse by judges is rare as hen's teeth. If you would like us to understand, however, HOW ABUSED YOU ARE, why not write us out the facts? They may go a long way, even if only YOUR side.
Often what happens when families come in with this complaint is that there has been a family squabble over an adult and over control of that adult and his or her money. The court doesn't look kindly on these squabbles, and will not mediate such things. The court will simply appoint, as you say, a STRANGER who is a Fiduciary (in California licensed by the state) to serve without any skin in the game on any side, but with only the BEST INTERESTS of the adult in mind. This person answers to the COURT and not to the family.
It is almost ALWAYS best for the poor adult, who is no longer competent, to have an uninterested party rather than siblings at war and a need for Solomon and his sword to divide the baby (or in this case, the adult).
Why not tell us exactly what happened in this instance where family was refused the right to serve as guardian for a needy adult?
Thanks.