Guardianship scams (split from Support Fireside thread)

[Max Rockatansky]

I live with an elderly relative whose health has been deteriorating. One night, she fell, and she could not get up. The next morning, I called an ambulance and she was taken to the local hospital. She had suffered from hypothermia, but she recovered. After over four weeks in a hospital and in a rehab center, she returned home. I was rather surprised that she could barely walk. As she had earlier done, she stayed in her easy chair for most of the time, getting up only a few times in two weeks. At the end of that time, she fell and she refused to let me get help for her. But I did, and she was hospitalized again. After being sent to a rehab center, she was sent to an adult foster home, and she has remained there.

But during her second hospitalization, something curious happened. A certain guardianship company petitioned the county court system to get legal guardianship over that elderly relative. That guardianship would involve taking over her assets, like her house and her bank account. I filed an objection to that proposal, and I claimed in it that it would be more appropriate for me to be her guardian. That elderly relative also filed an objection, though a much shorter one, without any attempt to demonstrate that she is mentally competent. This issue went to a hearing in the county court, and then into a trial.

The judge decided on the guardianship company.

I am now dependent on the guardianship company for paying the house bills and food-shopping bills.

That elderly relative wants to appeal that decision, but I don't have much confidence that that effort will get very far.

I've heard of California doing that. One lady has "guardianship" over 100 clients and was billing all of them for the same hours of work. She was raking in a ton of cash until someone filed suit. The report said she claimed it was an "oversight" and returned some money.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Here is an article about how some of these guardianship situations may be huge scams.

In Nevada, as in many states, anyone can become a guardian by taking a course, as long as he or she has not been convicted of a felony or recently declared bankruptcy. Elizabeth Brickfield, a Las Vegas lawyer who has worked in guardianship law for twenty years, said that about fifteen years ago, as the state’s elderly population swelled, “all these private guardians started arriving, and the docket exploded. The court became a factory.”

Pamela Teaster, the director of the Center for Gerontology at Virginia Tech and one of the few scholars in the country who study guardianship, told me that, though most guardians assume their duties for good reasons, the guardianship system is “a morass, a total mess.” She said, “It is unconscionable that we don’t have any data, when you think about the vast power given to a guardian. It is one of society’s most drastic interventions.”

Read the entire article. It's horrifying, but in some cases there are steps that can be taken

Not to be snarky but that snippet sounds like it wants to have it both ways. It states that most guardians assume their duties for good reasons and that the system is a total mess. Doesn't sound much different than a lot of other institutions. It's probably working well for the state, just not perfectly well.

 

[zorq]

Not to be snarky but that snippet sounds like it wants to have it both ways. It states that most guardians assume their duties for good reasons and that the system is a total mess. Doesn't sound much different than a lot of other institutions. It's probably working well for the state, just not perfectly well.

I think you are interpreting the snippet poorly, which is likely why Tharmas encouraged reading the entire article. (which I did, BTW)

Ithink it's likely that most guardians, nationally, DO assume their duties for good reasons. Mainly because they are the family members of the elder relatives. But this Guardianship Company thing is a scam perpetrated by relatively few scammers with hundreds and hundreds of victims. At that rate it only takes a few criminals to ravish a vulnerable community. Of course we can only guess the actual scale of this problem because there are NO public records for this type of thing, as that article points out.

That is a terrifying article that I am thinking about sending to my grandparents right now.

As for lpetrich, I don't know what sort of advice would help you. We know that if you do try to go to court, the opposition's legal fees will likely be paid for out of your relative's account. This could potentially dig a deep financial hole to fix a problem that never existed until some strangers decided to take over your relative's life without their permission. This is an issue that should get bigger national attention.

 

[Copernicus]

It already has received some national exposure on John Oliver's show:

[YOUTUBE]nG2pEffLEJo[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Not to be snarky but that snippet sounds like it wants to have it both ways. It states that most guardians assume their duties for good reasons and that the system is a total mess. Doesn't sound much different than a lot of other institutions. It's probably working well for the state, just not perfectly well.

I think you are interpreting the snippet poorly, which is likely why Tharmas encouraged reading the entire article. (which I did, BTW)

Ithink it's likely that most guardians, nationally, DO assume their duties for good reasons. Mainly because they are the family members of the elder relatives. But this Guardianship Company thing is a scam perpetrated by relatively few scammers with hundreds and hundreds of victims. At that rate it only takes a few criminals to ravish a vulnerable community. Of course we can only guess the actual scale of this problem because there are NO public records for this type of thing, as that article points out.

That is a terrifying article that I am thinking about sending to my grandparents right now.

As for lpetrich, I don't know what sort of advice would help you. We know that if you do try to go to court, the opposition's legal fees will likely be paid for out of your relative's account. This could potentially dig a deep financial hole to fix a problem that never existed until some strangers decided to take over your relative's life without their permission. This is an issue that should get bigger national attention.

There actually is some need for guardianship companies--someone who needs a guardian and there's no suitable family member. I do agree it's normally a scam, though. There should be far more oversight in assigning guardianship companies.

 

[zorq]

I can theoretically see the usefulness of this kind of service if the guardians act benevolently, but then we might as well hope to be ruled by a virtuous "Philosopher King." Power corrupts and that is as true for kings as it is for everyone else.

The hurdle to granting absolute power over another person's life here is minuscule. Show up at court with a vague doctor's note and all of a sudden you own all the decisions another person you have never met can and will make?

It is so easy to abuse this system, it is ridiculous.

 

[bilby]

Not to be snarky but that snippet sounds like it wants to have it both ways. It states that most guardians assume their duties for good reasons and that the system is a total mess. Doesn't sound much different than a lot of other institutions. It's probably working well for the state, just not perfectly well.

I think you are interpreting the snippet poorly, which is likely why Tharmas encouraged reading the entire article. (which I did, BTW)

Ithink it's likely that most guardians, nationally, DO assume their duties for good reasons. Mainly because they are the family members of the elder relatives. But this Guardianship Company thing is a scam perpetrated by relatively few scammers with hundreds and hundreds of victims. At that rate it only takes a few criminals to ravish a vulnerable community. Of course we can only guess the actual scale of this problem because there are NO public records for this type of thing, as that article points out.

That is a terrifying article that I am thinking about sending to my grandparents right now.

As for lpetrich, I don't know what sort of advice would help you. We know that if you do try to go to court, the opposition's legal fees will likely be paid for out of your relative's account. This could potentially dig a deep financial hole to fix a problem that never existed until some strangers decided to take over your relative's life without their permission. This is an issue that should get bigger national attention.

There actually is some need for guardianship companies--someone who needs a guardian and there's no suitable family member. I do agree it's normally a scam, though. There should be far more oversight in assigning guardianship companies.

Geez, you idiotic Americans with your terror of government and social provisions are hilarious.

There is really no activity so unsuited to being run for profit that you people will consider letting the government run it, is there?

People who do not have a suitable family member, but who require a guardian to look after their affairs (and their best interests), need a government agency to step up. Not a fucking company, for fuck's sake.

Companies are accountable to their customers. Governments are accountable to the voters. When the 'customers' are by definition incapable of holding the company to account, the only way to gain even a shred of accountability is to let the government do the job.

 

[Toni]

There actually is some need for guardianship companies--someone who needs a guardian and there's no suitable family member. I do agree it's normally a scam, though. There should be far more oversight in assigning guardianship companies.

Geez, you idiotic Americans with your terror of government and social provisions are hilarious.

There is really no activity so unsuited to being run for profit that you people will consider letting the government run it, is there?

People who do not have a suitable family member, but who require a guardian to look after their affairs (and their best interests), need a government agency to step up. Not a fucking company, for fuck's sake.

Companies are accountable to their customers. Governments are accountable to the voters. When the 'customers' are by definition incapable of holding the company to account, the only way to gain even a shred of accountability is to let the government do the job.

The problem, bilby, is that there is a genuine issue with professional 'guardians' appealing to local governing bodies, declaring that so and so is unable to manage his or her assets, often without knowing the individual in any way at all and convincing the local governing body that they are right, that the 'professional' is needed and so some unsuspecting individual who was managing just fine on his or her own suddenly finds that he/she is penniless and out of a long time home and perhaps living in an extremely low-rent medicare long term facility with zero control over what little remains of their assets.

Any of which would be reasonable if the individuals had actually demonstrated to anyone that they were incapable or unwilling to manage their own affairs.


Unfortunately, bilby, you rarely seem to miss an opportunity to knock on the US, regardless of whether or not you actually know what you are talking about. Since I don't think you are stupid or uneducated in matters relating to the UK or Australia (despite being willfully ignorant and bigoted with regards to the US), this is particularly irritating.

 

[bilby]

There actually is some need for guardianship companies--someone who needs a guardian and there's no suitable family member. I do agree it's normally a scam, though. There should be far more oversight in assigning guardianship companies.

Geez, you idiotic Americans with your terror of government and social provisions are hilarious.

There is really no activity so unsuited to being run for profit that you people will consider letting the government run it, is there?

People who do not have a suitable family member, but who require a guardian to look after their affairs (and their best interests), need a government agency to step up. Not a fucking company, for fuck's sake.

Companies are accountable to their customers. Governments are accountable to the voters. When the 'customers' are by definition incapable of holding the company to account, the only way to gain even a shred of accountability is to let the government do the job.

The problem, bilby, is that there is a genuine issue with professional 'guardians' appealing to local governing bodies, declaring that so and so is unable to manage his or her assets, often without knowing the individual in any way at all and convincing the local governing body that they are right, that the 'professional' is needed and so some unsuspecting individual who was managing just fine on his or her own suddenly finds that he/she is penniless and out of a long time home and perhaps living in an extremely low-rent medicare long term facility with zero control over what little remains of their assets.

Any of which would be reasonable if the individuals had actually demonstrated to anyone that they were incapable or unwilling to manage their own affairs.

Yes, I am aware of all of this (it is the exact issue my post addresses; not sure why you imagine that you are contradicting me in any way), and the solution is for the private 'professional' who can make a profit to be eliminated, and for guardianship to be a purely government responsibility (and expense) when no family support is available. If nobody can make money out of it, the whole problem goes away.

Unfortunately, bilby, you rarely seem to miss an opportunity to knock on the US, regardless of whether or not you actually know what you are talking about. Since I don't think you are stupid or uneducated in matters relating to the UK or Australia (despite being willfully ignorant and bigoted with regards to the US), this is particularly irritating.

If you don't like people pointing out that your country does stupid and harmful things, then elect a government that stops the stupid and harmful things.

Don't shoot the messenger.

 

[Toni]

The problem, bilby, is that there is a genuine issue with professional 'guardians' appealing to local governing bodies, declaring that so and so is unable to manage his or her assets, often without knowing the individual in any way at all and convincing the local governing body that they are right, that the 'professional' is needed and so some unsuspecting individual who was managing just fine on his or her own suddenly finds that he/she is penniless and out of a long time home and perhaps living in an extremely low-rent medicare long term facility with zero control over what little remains of their assets.

Any of which would be reasonable if the individuals had actually demonstrated to anyone that they were incapable or unwilling to manage their own affairs.

Yes, I am aware of all of this (it is the exact issue my post addresses; not sure why you imagine that you are contradicting me in any way), and the solution is for the private 'professional' who can make a profit to be eliminated, and for guardianship to be a purely government responsibility (and expense) when no family support is available. If nobody can make money out of it, the whole problem goes away.

Unfortunately, bilby, you rarely seem to miss an opportunity to knock on the US, regardless of whether or not you actually know what you are talking about. Since I don't think you are stupid or uneducated in matters relating to the UK or Australia (despite being willfully ignorant and bigoted with regards to the US), this is particularly irritating.

If you don't like people pointing out that your country does stupid and harmful things, then elect a government that stops the stupid and harmful things.

Don't shoot the messenger.

Somehow, I never feel compelled to point out the numerous stupid and harmful things your government does, with the blessings of its people.

I know that I don't know the entire situation. I know how racist, sexist, bigoted and abominable some of the things the Australian--and British! governments seem from my side of the pond. I do know how that it is vastly easier and more comfortable to point out the wrong doings and faults of other people than it is to deal with one's own issues.

 

[southernhybrid]

Why are you guys arguing in a support thread? I am well aware of Loren's problems and these latest posts aren't helping him. Loren, if you're reading this, have you heard from your case manager this week? PM me if if you don't want to discuss this here.

 

[Toni]

Why are you guys arguing in a support thread? I am well aware of Loren's problems and these latest posts aren't helping him. Loren, if you're reading this, have you heard from your case manager this week? PM me if if you don't want to discuss this here.

You are right: arguments have no place here. My apologies to all.