As you will read I include cases here that were not discussed in my book on the topic, We’re Here to Help - When Guardianship Goes Wrong (Brandeis University Press, Sept. 2024) Proof that this state courts controlled system continues to victimize American citizens. And as I reveal, greedy bad actors working within the system have now targeted a fresh new group of casualties - kids in foster care who are being unwittingly funnelled into yet another form of institutional life - guardianship. Why foster kids? Because they can easily be declared “Developmentally Disabled” which makes them eligible for very lucrative state, non-profit and federal money. And as has been shown, the name of this corrupt game is MONEY.

The Secretive “Protective” Court System That Often Destroys Families

Every state in the United States has a court administered program designed to protect their most vulnerable adult citizens. It is called guardianship, although a few states refer to it as conservatorship, and it is supposed to be invoked only if all other less restrictive programs have been considered and deemed unsuitable. Each state’s system may differ slightly, but generally they all operate the same way. A judge receives a petition explaining why someone needs the court’s protection to live a safe and healthy life. That document is typically written by a lawyer on behalf of a family member (the petitioner) who is seeking legal authority to represent a loved one and arrange for their needs. Family taking care of family has long been an American tradition.

The document that begins the guardianship process may say that the person in question is a senior citizen suffering from memory loss or Alzheimer’s disease and has been erratically giving away their money. The petition might claim that someone with a physical, developmental or psychiatric disability forgets to take crucial medications, go to doctor’s visits or pay their bills. Sometimes the lawyer includes allegations against another family member accusing them of physical abuse or financial exploitation of the at-risk person. These filings end with a request for the court to appoint a guardian to take control of the named person’s life. Judges routinely agree to put a guardianship in motion.

Guardianship can be highly beneficial—even lifesaving—for truly helpless citizens who need assistance arranging for food, a safe place to live, appropriate medical care and applying for government services. But the success or failure of each individual case depends on who is appointed as guardian. There are many dedicated and compassionate people working within the system. However, this chapter will examine the countless thousands of cases where corruption and greed infect this secretive program. It is estimated that at least a billion dollars goes missing every year due to the actions of dishonest insiders. (1)

Depending on the state, guardianship and conservatorship hearings are held in what’s referred to as family court, probate court, common pleas court, surrogate court or orphan’s court as it’s called in Pennsylvania. No matter which specific name is used, judges hearing guardianship or conservatorship cases operate under what is called equity court rules. They do not follow the same rules as civil or criminal courts. In an equity court there is no guarantee of due process. Jury trials, open courtrooms and public transparency are non-existent. In almost all cases HIPPA medical privacy laws are invoked as the reason why confidential case files are sealed, and interested parties are placed under strict gag orders forbidding them from discussing the case with outsiders. Because these secret proceedings take place behind closed doors the public has little knowledge about how this part of the judicial system works.

The judge is the only authority in an equity court. While they are expected to operate within the law these judges can, as one legal description put it, “weigh many different sides to a case and explore different perspectives to arrive at a judgment, rather than having to rely on the narrow confines of the law.” (2) As one disillusioned relative of an unhappy guardianized person once opined, “A judge in this kind of court can do pretty much as he damn well pleases.”

As illustrated in my book, We’re Here to Help – When Guardianship Goes Wrong, all it takes is one person to initiate a petition, and the document is often presented to the court clandestinely. The targeted person and many of their relatives may have no idea a court action has commenced until someone arrives at the door with a court order. Perhaps most difficult to understand is why judges across the nation specifically choose to overlook concerned relatives seeking to be named as guardian for their loved one and, instead, appoint a for-profit professional to the job. Guardians are given extensive powers to decide what’s best for the vulnerable individual, yet a stranger guardian will know nothing about the targeted person’s hopes and dreams for the future and they aren’t obligated to learn about them either. Nor are they required to consult with the family before acting on behalf of the guardianized person. This is a recipe for conflict.

Once a judge initiates the guardianship process things happen quickly. Instantly the subject of the petition is declared to be an “incapacitated person” (IP) or an “incapacitated ward of the court” and all their assets are seized by the state. The deed to their home, their investments, property, vehicle(s) and valuable collections of art, coins or antiques are quickly put into the name of whomever is appointed as guardian. Immediately that appointee is tasked with making all decisions for the ward including every personal, medical and financial choice. The guardian is allowed to spend the ward’s confiscated money on anything and everything they see fit including hiring any number of helpers to service the ward. Everyone is paid out of the ward’s estate, at a rate set by the guardian, and these court appointees are not restricted from hiring their own friends and family for jobs like home health aides, cooks, housekeepers, drivers, personal shoppers, handymen, pool cleaners or dog walkers. Guardians can charge up to $600 an hour as they inventory the ward’s assets for the court, open mail, take phone calls, coordinate care, and arrange other necessities for the ward. At the very moment they are declared incapacitated the ward is, basically, stripped of their civil rights. They promptly lose their driver’s license and car keys, passport, checkbook, and sometimes their cell phone. In most states wards cannot vote, marry, or hire their own lawyer to represent them because they lack capacity in the eyes of the law. An IP has no say about where they will live, what doctors they will see, what medications they will take (or refuse to take) or who can come to visit them. They can no longer freely travel to church, the mall or even to a family wedding or funeral without the guardian’s permission. They can be involuntarily medicated or isolated from their friends and family if the guardian decides someone from the outside is too upsetting or meddlesome. Sometimes visitation bans are permanent and wards are kept from their loved ones until they die. Numerous complaints of wards being over medicated to ensure their compliance have been reported. Presumably all these steps are taken to keep the ward protected from harm.

It is not only concerned relatives who can become petitioners in guardianship cases. Angry former business partners, ex-lovers or neighbors can file one of these life changing petitions. So can total strangers like social workers, real estate agents or landlords who may have an eye on someone’s property. Even hospitals seeking to free up a bed, or financial institutions with mere suspicions of financial exploitation can—and have—successfully petitioned to place someone under guardianship. In New York, multimillionaire talk show host Wendy Williams was ordered into guardianship in May 2022 after her financial advisor at Wells Fargo concluded Williams and her college aged son were not spending money prudently. (3) In Rockwall, Texas, a car mechanic seeking payment of a large outstanding bill owed by a wealthy retired doctor was counseled to “go for guardianship” to get his money. With a lawyer’s help he was successful and was quickly placed in control of the forgetful elderly man’s multimillion dollar estate. It took the doctor’s family considerable time and funds to undo the court ordered arrangement. (4) In Kansas City, Missouri, a taxi driver was appointed as guardian for a man suffering from Alzheimer’s disease. The ward, 87, was “found living in the guardian’s filthy basement and wearing an old knit shirt and a diaper.” It was discovered that the guardian had stolen $640,000 from the old man, which he used to buy a Hummer and to cover checks he had written to exotic dancers. (5)

While many court ordered guardianships are obviously advantageous in keeping truly dependent wards safe, a vast body of academic research and media reports has revealed a troubling number of these arrangements are predatory, and that the system is populated by both unlicensed and often uncertified guardians and untruthful lawyers who frequently fashion petitions that exaggerate family dynamics to guarantee one of their professional colleagues is appointed as guardian. Many petitions for guardianship—the document that starts the entire process—have been discovered to contain provable falsehoods about so-called dysfunctional family members who are abusive, neglectful, addicted, financially greedy and more. But in case after case relatives say when they tried to defend themselves against such damaging allegations the judge overseeing the case declined to listen, choosing instead to take as gospel the accusations offered by the officer of the court.

Within the nationwide network of insiders who make their living in this insulated arena—the judges, attorneys, guardians, conservators, mental health evaluators, court investigators and others—many have been shown to be all too eager to agree that someone seen as “vulnerable” should be placed under a strictly controlled guardianship. And, perhaps more importantly, they seem to quickly and uniformly agree that family members are not suitable to act as the guardian. As critics of the system point out, with every new guardianship comes the opportunity for more billable hours for the inside players, so why would any of them disagree that the targeted person needs to be guardianized and put under the control of one of their professional colleagues? As a result, there are countless relatives declared to be unfit and relegated to the sidelines. They desperately want to care for their family member but are ostracized by the legal system. Wives, husbands, adult children of wards can only stand by and watch as their loved one’s estate is repeatedly tapped to pay a group of strangers who may have more interest in filling their bank accounts than the wants and wellbeing of the guardianized person. Several frustrated relatives have described the situation akin to using the ward as “a human ATM machine.” (6)

The most sorrowful cases develop when an elderly ward’s readily available monies have been depleted. Guardians then go back to court to ask permission to sell the ward’s home, all the possessions within, the vehicle and any other tangible property so an easily accessible fund can be created to pay for the IP’s future care. In many cases, these requests are in direct conflict with the ward’s last will and testament or irrevocable trust fund plans. A caregiving daughter who was in line to inherit the family home; a son who was led to believe the valuable artwork his parents collected would be his some day; a grandchild who is relying on grandma’s trust fund for their college education will be out of luck as their loved one’s legacy is dispersed elsewhere. Judges uniformly give the guardian the authorization to sell everything even though such transactions may directly contradict longstanding power of attorney designations, trustee requirements, and bequeathments to heirs. Every carefully prepared legal document is made moot. So, once their home is sold where does the ward go? The guardian will choose an assisted living or nursing home for them, a place where they will spend the rest of their life. If and when the estate runs completely dry the guardianized person’s care will be borne by public assistance. Taxpayers will then foot the bill.

The statistics associated with the guardianship/conservatorship system demonstrate how pervasively it is applied, and how lucrative it can be for those working within. The numbers are jaw dropping. Although no federal government agency keeps track of how many Americans have had their civil rights suspended and their assets taken away, best estimates are that between 1.5 to 2 million citizens currently live under this severe court control. (7) That number will only increase as the aging of America, the so-called Silver Tsunami, increases every year. How many guardianships are neglectful or financially abusive is also unknown, but at this writing it is conservatively estimated that state courts confiscate ward’s assets totaling a collective $50 billion—every year. (8) Since the average arrangement lasts an average of six years, that is a $300 billion pot of available money at any given time. (10) With this kind of monetary lure, it should come as no surprise that the system is reported to be infected with financial corruption. Yet if a family complains about a guardian’s actions or monetary decisions and demands a hearing, that court appointee is allowed to hire their own lawyer to defend them, and that lawyer is yet another person paid out of the ward’s estate. When a family fights the system they are, in effect, depleting their own potential inheritance. Between paying guardians, lawyers, service workers, financial advisors or appraisers it is easy to see how someone’s life savings can be quickly drained. One extreme example comes from the case of multimillionaire pop star Britney Spears. At one point in her nearly 14 yearlong court-ordered conservatorship her estate was paying thirteen different attorneys who represented her, her father, the guardian, a conservator and other court players. (13) Spears’ longtime guardian, Sam Ingham, earned an astounding $10,000 a week for nearly the entire duration of her court controlled existence. (9)

Because the state run systems are so ill-regulated and the court appointees are largely unsupervised it is estimated that multiple tens of billions of dollars have been lost to the fraud and embezzlement of bad actors over the years. How is this allowed to happen? First, because mandatory annual reports from guardians, designed to show where a ward’s money has been spent, are often not filed, and when they are submitted there simply isn’t enough court staff to audit them. (10) Second, when there is evidence that a court appointee has committed malfeasance, negligence, or even an obvious financial crime there is usually no discipline or punishment as the suspect can always say they were acting with full knowledge of a judge. Even when confronted with allegations of elder abuse, kidnapping, or embezzlement police and prosecutors demur explaining to frustrated relatives, “A judge has ruled, it is a civil matter, there is a court order in place….” Law enforcement is frequently loath to challenge a sitting judge for fear of political blowback.

This is not to say no guardians have been prosecuted. Cases that were too shocking to ignore have resulted in convictions of guardians in several states including Florida, Michigan, Nevada, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. In New Mexico, a married couple that ran a so-called non-profit corporation was federally convicted of conspiracy to defraud the government (via diverted Social Security checks) and stealing nearly 12 million dollars from wards. (11)

Since 2004 the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has repeatedly warned the United States Congress that reform of the system and establishment of a nationwide database is urgently needed. (12) In 2010, GAO investigators reported they had “identified hundreds of allegations of physical abuse, neglect, and financial exploitation by guardians” in 45 of the states and the District of Columbia. In addition, the GAO concluded judges, nationwide, had failed to adequately screen guardians “appointing individuals with criminal convictions or significant financial problems to manage high-dollar estates.” (13) The state run administration of guardianship and conservatorship has only gotten worse over the decades as evidenced in subsequent recent GAO reports.

Not surprisingly there are cases of citizens being conscripted into the system who simply should not be there. Most of them had considerable money or reliable sources of income, and many of them were older, single, and female.

Case study #1: In Mountain Brook, Alabama, a wealthy heiress named Joann Bashinsky, 86, was secretly guardianized by two of her employees. Bashinsky was known locally as the “Potato Chip Queen” stemming from her late husband’s successful Golden Flake snack business which was sold to the Utz Quality Food Corporation for a reported $141 million dollars. (14) Widow Bashinsky was widely recognized and loved for her generous contributions to educational scholarships and other charities. She also gifted her only living relative, a cherished nephew, with multiple millions over the years. Bashinsky’s long time lawyer and a bookkeeper took exception to the monies given to the nephew, and presenting themselves as protective and worried about their employer they clandestinely filed an emergency petition for guardianship in late summer of 2018. It was immediately approved without the judge ever speaking with the elderly woman. All her assets were automatically seized and disposition was turned over to a professional guardian. The feisty Ms. Bashinsky fought back—all the way to the Alabama Supreme Court—and during discovery it was learned that her once trusted lawyer had filed an updated Last Will and Testament naming both himself and the bookkeeper as co-executors of the Bashinsky estate. On July 2, 2020, the high court issued a stinging rebuke of the guardianship judge’s actions declaring that Bashinsky’s constitutionally protected due process rights were “egregiously” violated. Her guardianship was terminated. Suddenly Ms. B was once again free to spend her money—or give it away—if she wanted to. Sadly, she only lived another six months. On January 3, 2021, at the age of eighty-nine, Joann Bashinsky died following complications of a heart attack. (15) Her struggle left many wondering just how this so-called “protective system” had been so haphazardly put in motion.

Case study #2: In March 2022, in Manhattan, New York, elderly widow Paulette Kohler went to the hospital for a relatively minor surgery and when the vivacious ninety-three year old awoke she found herself in a perplexing and unwanted guardianship. Kohler was placed in a rehab facility and told she would not be allowed to return to the rent subsidized Upper West Side apartment she had called home for more than 50 years. This spirited French-born woman had no idea that while she was hospitalized an emergency petition for guardianship had been filed alleging that her best friend, Inga Eggerud, was under active FBI investigation. The petition claimed that Eggerud, who the childless Kohler had chosen as her power of attorney, was under suspicion of elder abuse and stealing tens of thousands of dollars from her longtime friend. The petitioning attorney insisted Kohler needed “protection” from the scheming Eggerud and she successfully sought strict restraining orders to keep Paulette isolated from Inga and other friends. It was discovered that the petition for guardianship was initiated by board members and the management company of Kohler’s apartment building. Eggerud, who steadfastly maintained her innocence, and others close to the case saw the maneuver as a way to get the elderly tenant out of the way so they could “obtain access to Ms. Kohler’s apartment, worth millions,” as a lawsuit later stated. (16) When Paulette Kohler was involuntarily conscripted into the system she had a life savings of $870,083.51. After just 18 months, under a professional guardian’s control, her net worth had shrunk to just $149,478.08. There had been no mandatory annual accounting report filed to document just where more than $720,000 had been spent in such a short period of time. A kind benefactor and a pro-bono attorney stepped forward to fight for Kohler’s freedom and they were successful in winning termination of the guardianship in the fall of 2023. It was ultimately revealed that there never was an active FBI investigation of Ms. Eggerud. There had only been building gossip followed by an anonymous call to the bureau which, when followed up by an FBI agent, revealed no evidence of a crime or need to investigate further. The torturous episode left Kohler’s advocates wondering how any of it had “protected” her.

It isn’t just unstable celebrities and the elderly with attractive nest eggs (and other tantalizing assets like mortgage free homes) who are targeted for needless and financially exploitative guardianships. The victim base has grown over time to include young people who have earned or inherited substantial money; injured employees who have won sizable workers’ compensation settlements; victims of birth accidents who got seven-figure medical malpractice awards; those with intellectual or developmental disabilities who receive generous state and federal disability or Medicaid payments; military and government workers with attractive pensions; and those who suffer from traumatic brain injury or mental illness, even if it is only a temporary handicap. Astonishingly, some divorce attorneys have counseled their male clients with uncooperative spouses to petition to put their wife into guardianship because, once declared incapacitated, she wouldn’t be able to hire her own attorney to fight back. Citizens from wide ranging groups have been conscripted into this court-activated alternative existence. Included are some youngsters aging out of the foster care system who are being systematically channeled directly into guardianship. By keeping these young people under court control, it guarantees their generous state and federal support payments stay with them and remain available for judicially appointed caretakers to access.

Case study #3. Kayle Alyssa Micheli of Macomb County, Michigan is one of eight siblings who were born to the same mother and several different fathers. She was about three years old when her parents divorced. After visitations with her father Kayle’s mother allegedly subjected the girl to repeated retaliatory trips to psychiatrists. Beginning at the very young age of five Kayle was intermittently institutionalized at Harbor Oaks Mental Institution and diagnosed with, and medicated for, a wide range of maladies including attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, anxiety, obsessive-compulsive disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, and bi-polar disorder among them. Ultimately, the state removed all the children from the mother’s care and Kayle, then eleven, was placed in the foster care/juvenile justice system. There she lingered, with no access to a real education, according to her aunt, Charleen Musselman, who reconnected with Kayle via Facebook in November 2023. Musselman is an experienced educator working with clients battling dyslexia and language disorders and a longtime advocate for individuals with trauma and disabilities. “They just put Kaylee in front of a computer and she was on her own. There was an adult in the room, sometimes, but no real teaching went on … [even though] the required Individualized Education Plan was in place.” (17) As her 18^th birthday approached the state run facility in which Kayle lived was shuttered for licensing violations and she was given a choice to enter something called the guardianship system. Eager for a lifestyle change the uninformed Kayle agreed. On March 10, 2023, a clinical social worker examined Kayle and reported that while the teen had been diagnosed with “Adjustment Disorder With Anxiety” (perhaps not unusual for child held in such a long term foster care situation) she found “Kayle’s ability to receive or evaluate information in making decisions is average.” Instead of helping her assimilate into adulthood on the outside the state went to court. In late June a probate court order establishing a guardianship for Kaylee was filed on a form for individuals “with a developmental disability.” Under the guardianship system a person declared to be disabled can more easily be labeled as incapacitated and, therefore, eligible to be placed into guardianship. Kayle was funneled into the system on June 29, 2023, and her guardian is the ARC organization of Macomb County, Michigan. She was placed into a group home where the teenager says all other residents were over 80 years old. She was then moved to another group home where Kayle says everyone was over age 60. This young woman made an attractive target for guardianship because, as internal documents show, multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars from community, state, Social Security and other federal benefit programs follows her every year. The money goes directly to her handlers. Kayle receives just $44 a month for personal items. “She’s a capable young woman and has the capacity to make something of herself, if only they would let her,” says her Aunt Charleen. “They say she has all these problems; they make her sound so unstable because the worse they make her out to be the more money they get for her.” Kayle, 19, at this writing, was asked about her hopes for the future. She said, “I want to go to school, I want to learn to drive, I want to become a singer, a massage therapist, I want to have relationships – friends, boyfriends – anyone my age! Basically, I want a life like anyone else.” Interestingly, in November 2023, Kayle learned from her newly issued Michigan State identification card that she had been unknowingly added to the organ donor program. The court’s order specifically prohibits her guardian from consenting to “extraordinary procedures like sterilization, abortion or organ transplants from the ward.” (18) Those close to Kayle see her guardianship as unnecessarily invasive, money driven, far from protective, and a major impediment to her ever living a normal life. Aunt Charleen continues the fight to restore her niece’s autonomy.

The widespread institutional unfairness that is apparent in all too many of these cases screams for attention to be paid. But where to begin to fix the system? Since none of these court initiated situations can proceed without a finding of incapacitation it begs the question: who is making the determination that someone so lacks capacity that they need outsiders to step in to take control of their life? Many reform advocates believe the task should exclusively lie with experienced psychiatrists, psychologists or neuropsychologists. But depending on the state in question, that is not the case. In Florida, for example, a for-profit three person panel is enlisted to make a finding of incapacitation, and only one member must have medical training. As an aggrieved daughter who’s elderly father was, in her opinion, needlessly guardianized in Collier County wrote me, “The three examining committee members were as follows: [a woman] who worked at a hospice, [another] who is the Social Director at a rundown nursing home in Naples. Her job duties included, taking the residence (sic) to the supermarket, setting up bingo games, showing the facility to potential residents and their families, and finally [A 78 year old retiree] who was a gynecologist who spent his career looking at women’s vaginas.” Since Florida’s guardianship system is not immune from the state’s open Sunshine Law the committee reports on this elderly man are publicly available. Each committee member concluded the woman’s 83 year old father had full capacity on multiple levels. He enjoyed living with his daughter and grandchildren, was well groomed, nourished, and cared for. But the man’s two daughters did not get along and the estranged daughter had filed for guardianship. All three examiners, who frequently worked together to make these kinds of determinations, told the court the elderly man needed an outside stranger guardian to step in. And so, despite his comfortable life, the man was conscripted into the system by a committee who placed great weight on the mere existence of sibling conflict and the impact it might have on their father’s life.

In several New Mexico cases I researched, there was only one person who most often made the determination of incapacity. He billed himself as a neuropsychologist attached to the local Veterans Administration. And, as was discovered in so many cases, he always seemed to be recommended for appointment to the same handful of judges by the same petitioning attorneys, and he usually worked with the same close-knit group of appointed guardians. Similar chummy cadres of for-profit professionals appear regularly in guardianship courtrooms nationwide. As Rick Black, a recognized leader in the nationwide guardianship reform movement put it, “Everyone gets more money by creating more guardianships. Simple as that.” (19) Some of these inside players were discovered to have contributed to guardianship judges’ campaign coffers causing critics to describe the situation as an I’ll-scratch-your-back-you-scratch-mine relationship between jurists and court appointees. Many disgruntled family members have compared this secretive system to organized crime wherein none of the insiders report wrongdoing such as financial malfeasance, overmedication of wards, heartless isolation of loving family members and friends, or any other transgression lest they lose their seat at this most profitable table.

The federal government, the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division in particular, has taken a hands off approach to this problem declaring it to be a state’s issue. Hearings on Capitol Hill focused on the corruption and human toll guardianship creates have been held, periodically, since the mid-1980’s when the late Congressman Claude Pepper said of the system’s human toll, “It is, in one short sentence, the most punitive civil penalty that can be levied against an American citizen, with the exception, of course, of the death penalty.” (20) To date no meaningful federal laws have been enacted to right the wrongs caused by predators within the system. And at the state level, although some minor reform laws have been enacted, lawmakers are apparently convinced by powerful lobbyists from the legal, guardian, nursing home, hospital and financial communities that the biggest problem is dysfunctional families incapable of caring for their own. They insist the status quo is working well. It decidedly is not.

The few cases highlighted in this chapter are not outliers. They are at the forefront of waving red flags representing multiple tens of thousands of wards and families across the United States who currently have had their lives—sometimes the last months and years of their lives—stolen by greedy bad actors who cloak themselves in false compassion. What happens within the cloistered, secretive world of guardianships and conservatorships should concern everyone who cares about human dignity, fairness, and the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of civil rights for all.

###

END NOTES:

1. “Guardians’ Dark Side: Lax Rules Open the Vulnerable to Abuse,” Ronnie Greene & Holly Barker, Bloomberg L. (Mar. 6, 2023)

2. “We’re Here to Help – When Guardianship Goes Wrong,” P 39, Diane Dimond, Brandeis University Press, Sept. 2023

3. “Wendy Williams Guardianship Explained by Experts in Wake of Lifetime Doc,” Brande Victorian, Hollywood Reporter (Feb. 27, 2024)

4. “Investigation: Guarding the Guardians,” Fox 4 KDFW-TV (May 18, 2015) The case of Dr. Mike Reichert, Rockwall, Texas

5. “Guardianships: Cases of Financial Exploitation, Neglect, and Abuse of Seniors,” United States Government Accountability Office, a report to the Chairman, Special Committee on Aging, US Senate, (Sept. 30, 2010) Report No. GAO-10-1046, available online at gao.gov

6. “We’re Here to Help – When Guardianship Goes Wrong,” P 249

7. “A Broken System? A Look into Guardianships and How States Look to Reform the System,” Caroline Hardig, University of Cincinnati Law Review, Vol.91

8. “Casey, Braun Urge Examination of Guardianship Laws,” U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging news release, (May 31, 2023)

9. “Britney Spears’s Conservatorship Nightmare”, Ronan Farrow and Jia Tolentino, New Yorker Magazine, (July 3, 2021)

10. “Adult Guardianship Monitoring: A National Survey of Court Practices,” National Center for State Courts, Diane Robinson, Sarah Trescher, and Miriam Hamilton, (May 2021)

11. “Albuquerque couple sentenced to federal prison in Ayudando guardians case,” US. Attorney’s Office, District of New Mexico news release, July 15, 2021

12. “Guardianships: Collaboration Needed to Protect Incapacitated Elderly People,” United States Government Accountability Office, a report to the Chairman, Special Committee on Aging, US Senate, Report No. GAO-04-655, (July 13, 2004,) available online at govinfo.gov.

13. “Guardianships: Cases of Financial Exploitation, Neglect, and Abuse of Seniors,” United States Government Accountability Office, a report to the Chairman, Special Committee on Aging, US Senate, Report No. GAO-10-1046, (Sept. 30, 2010,) available online at gao.gov.

14. “Golden Flake, an iconic Alabama brand, is being sold in a jaw-dropping $141 million deal,” Alabama NewsCenter, (July 19, 2016)

15. “Joann Bashinsky, Golden Flake heiress who fought for control of estate, dead at 89,” Ivana Hrynkiw, (Jan. 06, 2021) AL.com

16. Paulette Kohler and Kjersti Inga Eggerud vs. West End 84 Units, LLC, Roanne P. Goldfein, Sandra Gentile, the board of Managers of 500 West End Avenue, Arturo DePena, William Bricker, Jack Pace, Sandra Lee, Elizabeth Adinolfi, Phillips Nizer LLP, Charles Barbuti, Yvonne Agbobtaen, riverside Premier Rehabilitation and Healing Center, Lucasz Kowalski, First Service Residential New York, Inc, and John and Jane Does 1-10, New York State Supreme Court, Index no. 654985/2023, P 73

17. Interviews with author conducted on Aug. 13 and 16, 2024

18. Interview with author conducted on Aug. 13, 2024

19. Interview with author conducted on Aug. 7, 2024

20. “I’m Petitioning … for the Return of My Life,” John Leland, New York Times, (Dec.7, 2018)

* Dimond, D. (in press). The Secretive “Protective” Court System That Often Destroys Families. In A. Cantú, E. Maisel, & C. Ruby (Eds.), Institutionalized Madness: The Interplay of Psychiatry and Society’s Institutions. Ethics International Press.

In late January the comedian filed legal papers in a California court to gain conservatorship of Mavis and her estate. (As readers of this column know this court-initiated process is called guardianship in most states.) People magazine quoted David Esquibias, a California attorney who works in the field as saying, “He (Jay) initiated the filing to set up a living trust for Mavis…to ensure that she has “managed assets” to provide her with future care if he died.” If a judge rules that Mavis is “an incapacitated ward of the court” and approves Leno’s request to be appointed as conservator then Jay would then have the legal authority—known as “substituted judgement”—to create a will, an irrevocable trust and/or a beneficiary designee for Mavis. Apparently she did not craft such documents prior to her diagnosis. The Leno’s have no children but Mavis does have a brother who could become heir to her estate.

Let’s all take this as a reminder to get our legal documents in order NOW. Had Mavis Leno previously taken time to prepare a Last Will and Testament, a trust or some other sort of estate plan its likely her husband would not have had to take this step now. Probably a lawyer informed Jay Leno that if he dies first, then his wife passes with no legal documents in place their fortune would be up for grabs in a great feeding frenzy in California’s notorious probate court.

The court filing makes it clear that Jay truly believes Mavis wants him to take this step and that she does not want anyone else to be named as her conservator. But if someone comes forward at the scheduled April 9^th hearing on the case to contest the proposed arrangement—say Mavis’s brother or another interested party—this whole process could get very complicated. If there is disagreement the judge can bypass Jay and appoint a total stranger, a for-profit professional, as the conservator. In addition, other outsiders could also be tapped by the court to render independent opinions about Mavis’s mental capacity, her estate value, living arrangements and other quality-of-life issues.  If one determines Mavis is incapable of caring for herself at home they might suggest she be moved to an assisted living or nursing home and the judge could quickly decree it.  As I wrote here after Cher recently filed for conservatorship of her habitually drug-addicted 47-year-old son:

   “I just hope she was fully informed about the pitfalls of conservatorship. After many years investigating this routinely exploitative system I sure hope Cher realizes what a morass she may be signing up for! Does she realize that this ill-regulated and largely unsupervised system is populated by financial predators just waiting in the wings for juicy, lucrative cases like this? Simply say the words, “Cher’s son” and dollar signs pop into their eyes.”

It appears that the Leno case is far more calm and amiable than Cher’s attempt to conserve Elijah Blue Allman, her son with the late rocker Gregg Allman. For one thing her son’s estranged wife is back in the picture and together the couple is insisting that Cher’s attempt at conservatorship is retaliatory and not necessary. Elijah maintains he is currently clean and sober. Now there is no telling which direction the judge hearing that case might take. As I wrote in my recently released book, We’re Here to Help – When Guardianship Goes Wrong (Brandeis University Press) if the court decides a family is “dysfunctional” it is a safe bet that a battle will ensue. In most cases a judge will appoint professional strangers to determine what happens next—should a permanent conservatorship or guardianship be established or not? In cases where there is lots of money to be made by these chummy professionals it isn’t likely that any of them will quickly report that a conservatorship is not needed. The more they draw out the proceedings the more fees they can charge.  The estate of the proposed ward pays for all of it.

  In contrast, and by all accounts, the Leno’s have enjoyed an idyllic marriage. Jay has publicly said that the secret to his happy union is that “You have to marry a normal person” like he did. “Marry the person you wish you could be…that’s worked out for me.” He called Mavis a “perfect partner.” There is no indication that anyone associated with Mavis Leno will come forward to challenge Jay’s attempt to establish a legally binding estate plan for his wife. But I can tell you after investigating this nationwide states-run system for many years judges hearing such cases have done baffling things. These proceedings are heard in what’s called “equity courts” and all proceedings are held in secret. In this world due process is not guaranteed, there are no trials and no normal witness testimony as is heard in civil or criminal courts. Equity court judges can, according to one prominent activist who works to change the often predatory system, “These jurists do whatever they damn well please” and anxious families have nowhere to turn with their complaints. Once a conservatorship or guardianship is established it is next to impossible to undo it.

Here’s my biggest concern. Because the mainstream media reports almost exclusively on guardianship/conservatorship cases that involve a celebrity the public might think it’s only the uber-rich (think Britney Spears) who are conscripted into a court controlled lifestyle. Not so! The public does not fully understand how easy it is for one person to guardianize another.  The average citizen has no idea that currently there are an estimated two million Americans living as a ward of the court. They have been stripped of their civil rights, including the right to spend their own money, drive their car or decide which doctors or friends they can visit with. They can no longer vote, marry, freely travel or decide where they will live. In all but a few states they cannot hire their own lawyer to fight for them.  As I wrote in my book, the moment someone is declared an incapacitated ward of the court all their money, property and investments are confiscated by the state and put into the name of the appointed minder. At least $50 billion is seized from wards—every year! So, with that much money at stake is it any wonder that the unscrupulous are attracted to work in this ill-regulated and largely unsupervised arena? Guardians don’t even have to be licensed to practice except in three states (Alaska, California and Nevada) Your plumber or hairdresser must pass a far more stringent set of exams and adhere to lots more rules and regulations than a guardian whose job it is to take over all personal, medical and financial decisions for the ward.

There are lots of guardianships and conservatorships that work out well. And there are many fine and compassionate court appointees who work within the system. However, over the years the system has morphed from a program designed to protect the vulnerable to one that preys on them—especially those who have some money. Let’s hope none of the negatives that have touched so many American families affect Jay and Mavis Leno as the TV star pursues his current path to help his beloved wife. They both deserve the peace of mind that comes with making sure all their affairs are in order.

###

Cher may be relegating her son to forever live under court control. I just hope she was fully informed about the pitfalls of conservatorship. After many years investigating this routinely exploitative system I sure hope Cher realizes what a morass she may be signing up for! Does she realize that this ill-regulated and largely unsupervised system is populated by financial predators just waiting in the wings for juicy, lucrative cases like this? Simply say the words, “Cher’s son” and dollar signs pop into their eyes.

I’m betting this worried and desperate mother went to a lawyer and poured out her worries about her son’s reckless lifestyle. She certainly must have mentioned that the trust fund her late ex-husband, Gregg Allman, left Elijah was being used to buy drugs, thus endangering her son’s life. (Allman died in 2017) In addition, Cher would have brought up Elijah pending divorce from his wife Marieangela King.  In court papers Cher’s legal team described King as “actively” keeping Elijah “from getting clean and sober or receiving mental health treatment that he desperately needs.”

After hearing of her circumstances, I’d bet the farm if I owned one that the lawyer convinced Cher that filing for conservatorship was the only way to go. This legal eagle might have given the singer/movie star the idea that the judge would appoint her as her son’s legal guardian, the person who will henceforth make all personal, medical and financial decisions for Elijah Blue Allman. What will most likely happen—and surely the attorney explained this—is that a stranger, a for-profit guardian will be named. Since Cher is now 77 years old and Elijah is 47 she was likely told that a younger professional guardian would be the prudent way to go.

But see, what I’m not sure Cher realizes is that after an outsider is named as the legal guardian for her son she will lose all control—and so will she. Once Elijah is named an “incapacitated ward of the court” Cher will have no say so over her son’s fate or future. The court will immediately confiscate whatever money, investments and property Elijah has and those possessions will immediately be transferred into the name of the court appointee. If he has a considerable amount of assets a separate conservator might be appointed as well.  Elijah’s passport, driver’s license, credit cards and check book will be seized. The guardian will tell him where he will live, who he can see, what doctors and friends he can visit. The conservator, if there is one, will pay all the bills and will have the final say if the ward wants to buy something. Elijah will no longer have the right to vote, freely travel, go walking or shopping on his own or decide which medications he will take. And it will be up to the guardian as to whether Elijah will be able to see his mother. Does Cher understand all this? If she complains later about the treatment her son is receiving, or challenges the guardian in any way, that appointee has the power to go back to the judge and ask to ban Cher from seeing Elijah—maybe permanently.  Overworked or uncaring judges usually approve their court appointee’s requests on the spot.

Understand that in the courts that hear these petitions for conservatorship or guardianship, a so-called “equity court,” due process is not guaranteed. There are no trials, hearings are held in strict secrecy under the convenient veil of protecting the ward’s medical information so family or other witnesses who want to challenge the petition are often unaware there is a legal proceeding underway. If Cher decides to speak to the media about a visitation ban, or anything else pertaining to her son’s conservatorship, she could face contempt of court charges, fines and even jail time as have so many others who tried to fight the system.

Cher doesn’t strike me as a shrinking violet. In fact, her son’s wife, Marieangela King, says Cher deliberately interrupted the young couple’s anniversary reconciliation in a New York hotel room last year. According to legal filings in divorce court King claims the Oscar/Grammy/Emmy winner hired four men to “kidnap” Elijah and take him away to an undisclosed location. Cher denied that in an interview with People and was quoted saying, “I’m not suffering from any problem that millions of people in the United States aren’t. I’m a mother. This is my job — one way or another, to try to help my children. You do anything for your children.”

It sounds as though Elijah Blue Allman has gambled with his very life and something must be done to set him on a more productive path. But as I explain in my new book We’re Here to Help – When Guardianship Goes Wrong his mother may now be gambling with their future relationship.

  Again I ask: does Cher fully understand the ramifications of the path she’s chosen? Will she, ultimately, have to contend with some of the California conservatorship industry’s worst offenders? Who exactly is standing in the wings to be recommended as the appointed guardian and how many other high profile (read that financially profitable) cases have they been assigned to? I sure hope she does some investigation of her own to determine who exactly will be deciding everything about Elijah’s life going forward. In case after case I studied there were desperate family members who turned to the courts for help and, in the end, fell victim to a system that preyed upon rather than protected their loved one.

                                                       ###

Share Diane’s Substack

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/fairness-justice/guardianship-a-50-billion-magnet-for-predators

https://www.thedailybeast.com/from-the-osage-to-britney-spears-guardianship-is-corrupt-and-abusive

      Loved the movie. But director Scorsese failed to explain to his audience why, just five minutes into the film, an Osage Indian woman named Molly Kyle (wonderfully portrayed by actress Lily Gladstone) sits before a pompous white man and declares herself to be “incompetent,” utters the phrase “282 allotment,” and asks the man for money to pay her medical bills. It was her money, as we quickly learned, so why was she forced to beg this man to release it?

Almost lost in this cinematic retelling of the tragic history of the Osage Indians is the defining role the U.S. government played in financially crippling the tribe and setting the stage for what the Osage would come to call the murderous “Reign of Terror” waged against them. It occurred in the early 1920’s and marked the nation’s first horrific misuse of the legal system to conscript into guardianship an entire group of people. Today the guardianship system continues to trap citizens and allow their appointed guardians to financially exploit them. Some grieved families of the guardianized insist the murders continue to this day.

In the 1870’s the Osage people were forced to relocate to a desolate area of Oklahoma. They lived peacefully there for a couple of decades and then, in 1894, oil was discovered. Massive amounts of oil. Suddenly the Osage became the wealthiest people on earth. The tribe devised a system called “head rights” to insure each adult member would get an equal portion of the riches. Royalties on the black gold swelled to nearly $30 million at one point, equivalent to some $414 million today. The head rights were to be passed down within families, ultimately bequeathed to all Osage children.

What occurred instead was the systematic targeting of tribe members for their wealth. Scathing newspaper articles reported on the flamboyant and luxurious lifestyles of the Osage. They had built mansions! They rode in fancy cars driven by chauffeurs and they sent their children to schools in Europe! They had become so lazy they had hired white servants! Many Caucasians became resentful that people they saw as being ethnically inferior would reap such a bounty from gifted land.

A secret solution was devised in Washington D.C. whereby the Osage were declared to be “mentally incompetent” and in need of government “protection.” In 1921 Congress passed a law requiring any full or half-blooded Osage member to be appointed a guardian until they could prove their own “competency.” Minors who were heirs to the land were also required to have guardians, even if their parents were still living. The appointed guardians were, of course, white attorneys and businessmen who were supposedly protecting the Osage from their own foolish spending.

No member of the tribe was ever able to prove they were not incompetent and, as the Scorsese movie so compellingly portrays, the Osage were forced to rely on stingy guardians to dole out their money. Then they watched helplessly as their fellow tribesmen and women were murdered in alarming numbers. The lucrative head rights of the dead were systematically transferred to white outsiders.

I so wish Mr. Scorsese had taken just a moment in his script to explain this astonishingly unconstitutional government intervention in the lives of people who had already suffered agonizing forced displacement.

 Today the guardianship system (called conservatorship in some states like California where Britney Spears lived as a “ward of the court” for nearly 14 years) continues, but on a much larger scale. Currently, some two million Americans live under guardianship control. Like the Osage of yesteryear, today’s ward is stripped of their civil rights and all their money, property and investments are immediately confiscated by the court and transferred into the name of the appointed guardian or conservator. Wards exist in a world where someone else – often a total stranger – decides how their money is spent, where they live, who they can communicate with, whether they can travel, go to church or synagogue, even what doctors they can see. A ward can no longer sign a contract, hire their own lawyer, cast a vote or marry. Today a death row inmate has more rights than someone in guardianship. 

The Osage were controlled via deadly poison or a bullet to the head. These days numerous relatives of the guardianized, nationwide, say they believe their loved one’s death was hastened by either deliberate neglect or overmedication ordered by the guardian to insure the ward’s submission. Consider the case of Angela Woodhull, a licensed private detective in Gainesville, Florida. After her guardianized mother’s suspicious death she immediately confiscated the bedside urine bag and submitted it for laboratory testing. The result was shocking. Louise Falvo, an elderly woman who wasn’t even five feet tall, had three opioids in her system when she died: morphine, propoxyphene, and norpropoxyphene. “I phoned the lab for an explanation and spoke with the man who certified the report,” Woodhull said during a phone interview. “He told me there were enough drugs in my mother’s body to kill an entire football team.”

In Las Vegas, Nevada a notorious duo of guardians is alleged to have caused the deaths of several wards. That cannot be confirmed at this late date, but numerous aggrieved relatives wrote in an anonymous internet chat room where they felt safe to vent.  The autopsy of one elderly ward reportedly concluded he died of starvation; another distressed family member wrote that her deceased aunt suffered from malnutrition. A third person wrote from Utah, “Dad killed himself. He slashed his wrists.”  The note he left behind stated “he couldn’t stand what (the guardians) had done to him and his family.”

Why would a court appointee resort to such awful treatment of a vulnerable person? Family members believe that once the guardian’s name has been put on all of a ward’s financial holdings there is no incentive for them to be kept alive. Mandatory audit reports are required to account for where a ward’s money has been spent but frequently they are never filed. If the forms are submitted there is usually no staff to check them. Guardians and conservators can (and frequently do) keep an estate open long after the ward’s death and continue to charge fees for their services.

In Florida, state investigators discovered a guardian named Rebecca Fierle had routinely issued Do Not Resuscitate orders on all her wards. She had hundreds of them simultaneously. In the case of Steven Stryker, Fierle also demanded that his vital feeding tube be capped, a device he needed to combat a serious swallowing issue. Stryker died in May 2019 while hospital staff stood by. Fierle was originally charged with multiple felony counts, but once in court she faced only one misdemeanor charge of neglect. She was sentenced to just four years’ probation.   

To understand the scope of today’s system, and the draw for the criminally minded working within it, realize that state courts seize a collective $50 billion in ward’s assets—every single year. That is a crystal clear motive for bad actors within this ill-regulated and largely unsupervised system. Overworked, understaffed and/or compassionless judges simply don’t have time to police their court appointees. Informed critics of the system estimate that predatory players illegally divert multiple billions of dollars from the monstrous $50 billion cache each year.

As a society we need a system that takes care of our at-risk citizens, those who truly cannot care for themselves. What is not needed is the current court system that routinely ignores trusted family members who seek to become the legal guardian of a vulnerable loved one. In case after case, it was revealed that judges routinely bought a lawyer’s argument that the family was “dysfunctional” and they accepted the attorney’s suggestion to appoint a professional guardian. The financial devastation being perpetrated today mirrors the injustices done to the Osage people a century earlier. 

The public doesn’t understand how easy it is for someone (anyone!) to guardianize another, or that the system operates under strict secrecy. Courtroom doors are closed to the public, court records are sealed and judges frequently impose gag orders on all those involved. No wonder most of us have little knowledge of how emotionally abusive and financially exploitative guardianship can be when the wrong person controls the life of another. And after a lawyer, guardian or conservator recklessly spends a ward’s money there is often little or nothing left for intended heirs. Wills, trusts and powers of attorney are routinely ignored.

Why haven’t state or federal lawmakers moved to pass meaningful laws to regulate this often out-of-control system? Likely because its either too big a problem, or they’ve been persuaded by lobbyists from the legal, guardianship, conservatorship, judiciary and nursing home industries that the status quote is working just fine. It decidedly is not.

It’s so unfortunate that director Martin Scorsese didn’t insert just one or two lines of dialogue to explain that it was guardianship that so weakened the Osage and made them easy targets for the system’s earliest predators. Scorsese missed a golden opportunity to spark a public conversation about how this obviously unfair system must be reformed.     

###

https://crimereads.com/on-the-perils-of-adult-guardianship-an-industry-rampant-with-fraud-and-abuse/#

Now, after a reported 4.9 million migrants have flooded into the US under his tenure, the president shrugs and says that, well, you know, errrr, Congress appropriated the money to build about 20 more miles of border wall and so, ummm, there’s nothing he can do about it. Asked if he thinks the wall is effective in keeping out the hoards of illegal entries Mr. Biden seemed to almost snicker when he said, “No.” So why the hell doesn’t he launch a legal fight to try to stop a resumption of construction?

“We are complying with the law,” White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre kept saying over and over during a media briefing after the stunning news dropped about a resumption of border wall construction. “We are complying with the law.”

Does the White House think we’re stupid?

The president didn’t hesitate to ignore the law when it came to his idea to forgive up to $400 billion in student loan debt. Don’t tell me not one of Mr. Biden’s advisors mentioned that the plan was a.) a budget buster and inflation igniter and b.) obviously illegally unconstitutional. The president didn’t blink an eye when he decided to spend taxpayer money on government lawyers to fight the inevitable challenge to his scheme which seemed designed to court young voters. Then after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June that the president had overstepped his bounds with that idea, he thumbed his nose at the high court by announcing another program to forgive $9 billion in student loans. Geez, even Senator Elizabeth Warren is saying out loud that she thinks Biden will lose again when the pared down version is challenged.

Does someone need to remind Joe Biden that he is the leader of a superpower? If he truly believes pouring millions (billions?) into building more border wall is a bad idea he could fight the idea. His own administration provided the ammunition if he was truly convinced that a border wall is not a true deterrent to migration invasion. In an official notice filed this week it was revealed that building more border wall would likely violate some two dozen federal laws and regulations, including the Clean Air Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Endangered Species Act. But instead of fighting Congress on the grounds that construction would go up against all those laws the Biden Administration announced it would waive them all.

“We are complying with the law,” the amateurish press secretary declares. Time for Ms. Jean-Pierre to get another, more believable comeback. It’s obvious that Mr. Biden has come to the realization that something drastic must be done to stop the millions of illegals coming into this country. It’s time for our president to stop insulting our collective intelligence.

###

     Everywhere I go I try to work into the conversation that I have a new book coming out. Boorish, I suppose, but in this day and publishing age an author has to be their own marketing cheerleader to help spur sales. Fellow authors, you know what I mean.

     The fascinating thing to me is that when I mention the title of my book – We’re Here to Help – When Guardianship Goes Wrong—someone in the group invariably snaps to attention. “Guardianship!?” they say, “My (fill in the blank – mother, grandfather, brothers, cousin) got caught up in that and it was a nightmare! The guardian banned us from seeing (Aunt Lillie) and she died alone in a nursing home, her entire estate was wiped out.”

I’m always surprised that so many people have some sort of personal connection to guardianship, a state run system that is supposed to protect at-risk citizens but frequently winds up victimizing them. They may know a bit about it – but truly understanding how it works is quite different.

The new book, my fourth, hit stores yesterday. Pre Orders from Amazon dropped into reader’s mailboxes earlier. Now my email and text messages are full of comments from readers and those who cooperated with me during my 8 yearlong investigation into the secretive world of court-ordered adult guardianship. (Called conservatorship in some states, like California where Britney Spears was conserved for nearly 14 years.)

“I just got the book!” Suzanne Terranova Whelan wrote after reading the chapter about her kidnapped, guardianized and abused Aunt Susan who had an estate worth more than two million dollars when, at just 64, she began to have memory issues.  “It’s all so great & sadly true. Susan matters! I read the section (about her) & yes I cried.”

What I want people to understand about this book is that it is not a dry, scholarly read about the mysterious legal system that drives guardianship. Yes, I explain how secretive closed door hearings, sealed court documents and gag orders keep the general public from realizing how insidious this system can be. I explain how incredibly easy it is for one person to file a Petition for Guardianship against another. How the targeted person can quickly become an “incapacitated ward-of-the-court” and be stripped of their civil rights. (Frankly, a convict on death row has more rights than a guardianized person. At least they can hire a lawyer to help them fight their situation!)  I also recount how guardianship judges often allow a ward’s Last Will and Testament, their power of attorney and irrevocable trusts to be ignored. In what world should THAT be allowed?!?  

But the heart of the book is a myriad of unforgettable personal stories from those who were forced to submit to powerful and predatory court-appointed guardians who were given permission to make all personal and financial decisions for them—even if they weren’t really incapacitated. The common denominator in all the cases I investigated over 8 long years was: MONEY. Every victim of an abusive guardianship had just enough money to attract the bad actors that populate this part of the justice system. Some targets were downright wealthy. I also explain how and when court appointees can decide it’s time to dip into a ward’s investment funds, sell their home and heirlooms or place them in a nursing home, and there is nothing the ward can do to stop it.

Firsthand accounts from family members reveal their painful journey through the system. Many relatives who sought to become their loved one’s guardian were rebuffed by the court, and in an astounding double-cross they saw a for-profit appointee installed instead—a total stranger who could charge up to $600 an hour for their services. When family members disagreed with a guardian’s actions they were often banned from seeing their loved one – sometimes permanently. I relate cases of emotional, physical and sexual abuse of wards and proof of their overmedication to insure compliance with the guardian’s orders. Murder has been suggested in some cases.

In short, these unforgettable stories of human tragedy reveal how easily you or someone you love could find themselves trapped in this often destructive system. Britney Spears was one of the rare lucky ones who escaped guardianship’s grip.

Look, we as a society need a system that takes care of our most vulnerable citizens—the elderly with memory or mobility problems; those living with severe disabilities; people with brain injuries, mental issues or other medical infirmities. On paper guardianship and conservatorship seem to fit the bill. And many situations work out well, especially if a trusted family member is named guardian. But it is the execution of the current system that has severely failed those who needed it most, and some who didn’t need protecting in the first place.  

My book includes ways to safeguard yourself and those you love from becoming a casualty of this long neglected part of the justice system. Please, help me spread the word about the dire need to reform this predatory court-supported system.

###

We like to think something like this couldn’t happen in the United States of America. It happens all the time, in states across this country.

Imagine waking up one day to discover you are not in control of your own life, not any aspect of it. No longer are you allowed to freely travel, sign a contract, write a check, use your credit cards or vote in the next election. Strangers suddenly appear and take away your car keys, computers, cell phone and put their name on your bank accounts and financial holdings. You ask them for an explanation and learn that a judge you never met has declared you to be “incapacitated.” You had absolutely no idea you were the subject of legal action! But you soon realize that you no longer have the right to hire your own attorney to fight the situation because in the eyes of the law you aren’t capable of making such a decision. You are suddenly labeled as an incapacitated “ward of the court” and nothing you say or do will change that legally binding fact. You are trapped in a system from which few escape.

Welcome to the world of guardianship, called conservatorship in some states. It is a system designed to protect at-risk people – the elderly, those living with disabilities, people who have suffered a traumatic brain injury or a mental illness. But too often an ill-supervised court appointed guardians and conservators emotionally and financially victimize wards and their family members. Sometimes these guardianships aren’t even necessary, they are orchestrated by greedy outsiders with eyes on your money, property or valuable heirlooms. It’s been called legalized human trafficking.

All it takes is for someone – anyone, from an angry relative or ex-business partner to a former lover or your landlord – to hire a lawyer to write a Petition for Guardianship. They might make up all sorts of exaggerations or downright lies about your situation in that petition, and the stated purpose is to inform the court that you need “protection.” They may claim you can no longer take care of yourself, or that you are a danger to yourself or others. The petition might allege that you are being physically or financially exploited by another person and you need the court to appoint a guardian (or conservator) to step in to manage all your medical and financial decisions. Realize, you likely won’t get the chance to state your case in court—why bother to listen to someone who, according to a legal document, is incapacitated? Judges routinely approve these petitions and the gears of guardianship commence because, after all, the document was presented by a trusted officer of the court who has sworn that the facts herein are all true!

Britney Spears told the world about her nightmare – for nearly 14 years she was controlled by others. She continued to earn multiple millions of dollars yet she labored under the label of being incapacitated. And Britney – like all other wards – was forced to pay all the bills for her 10,000 a week guardian and no fewer than 13 attorneys brought onto the case. Spears saw her fortune diminished by millions of dollars.  But few people realize that as many as two million Americans are currently living under guardianship. I can’t tell you a precise number because there is no government agency, state or federal, that keeps track of wards. There is no national database for this information. Oh, we keep track of stolen cars and missing kids, but not those Americans who have been court ordered to turn over every life decision to someone else. It is estimated that state courts confiscate a combined total of $50 billion of ward’s money and property—every year. Just how that money is spent by court appointees isn’t known because state court auditing systems are shoddy or non-existent. Is it any wonder that the criminal element has been attracted to work in the guardianship system? And all but three states (Alaska, California and Nevada) don’t even require a guardian to be licensed. Your plumber or hairdresser had to pass a more stringent set of requirements than a guardian who, literally, takes over another person’s life.

Look, there are certainly some vulnerable souls who really need the help of a court appointed guardian or conservator. The elderly with no family or those living with profound disabilities to name just two groups. And many of these situations work out well, especially if a loving relative is named as the guardian. But after an 8 yearlong investigation I’m here to say many do not turn out well. Judges frequently (and conveniently) agree with the petitioning lawyer that if a case winds up in court the family must be “dysfunctional” and they opt to appoint a for-profit professional guardian – a total stranger to the ward – to take control. Guardians are known to charge between $200 and $600 an hour for their services, and they can hire any number of helpers to assist. It doesn’t take long to deplete someone’s estate. When all the money is gone the ward is put on public assistance and taxpayers foot the bill for their care. Then these court insiders move on to the next person who needs protection.

Oh, and by the way, once your liquid cash is spent on paying these court appointees the guardian will ask the judge for permission to sell your home and all the possessions in it.  They will explain they need the funds to pay for you to be transferred to an assisted living or nursing home. No matter that your Last Will and Testament bequeaths the home to your son and your precious art and coin collections to your daughter. The judge will grant the guardian permission. If they ask to bust your irrevocable trust and forget your end of life wishes the court will likely okay that too. Court auditing of exactly where all your money has gone are spotty or non-existent, so your designated heirs should assume they will not get their expected inheritance.

There are lots of threads to this mysterious system which conducts all proceedings behind closed courtroom doors. Most Americans have never heard of this civil and human rights busting system because it is conducted under such a cloak of secrecy. By invoking the federal HIPAA law (which protects the privacy of citizen’s medical information) judges frequently seal case files, issue gag orders and find those who speak out about the proceedings in contempt of court.  My latest book, We’re Here to Help: When Guardianship Goes Wrong explains the good, the bad and the ugly of this ever-growing part of the judicial system through the eyes of those who have lived through it. Their stories are unforgettable.

I hope you read it. Guardianship could happen to you – or someone you love.

Click the book to order

There will come a day when we will all need help navigating life. Age may be the reason. Or a sudden illness, or perhaps a physical disability will impede daily function. If we’re lucky we’ll have a reliable support system to help.

If any of those things happened to you would you expect the justice system could suddenly strip away all your civil rights? That can’t happen in America, right?

It happens all the time, as I explain in my upcoming book, We’re Here to Help - When Guardianship Goes Wrong. Just ask Britney Spears what her life was like for the nearly 14 years she was labeled a “ward of the court.” She was denied the basic right to make her own health, marriage and financial decisions. She couldn’t spend her money, sign a contract, hire her own attorney, freely travel, vote, have a baby, chose her doctors or her work schedule. Her court appointed minders kept saying that, “We’re here to help.”

Guardianships (called conservatorship in some states) are remarkably easy to set in motion. All it takes is for someone (from an angry relative or business partner to a landlord or former lover) to get a lawyer to draw up a petition that says the targeted person is unable to care for themselves and is vulnerable to exploitation. Judges routinely approve the request and the almost unstoppable guardianship wheels are set in motion. Once established guardianships/conservatorships are next to impossible to terminate. It is estimated that up to 2 million Americans currently live under this kind of court control.

Some of these arrangements work out well especially if a judge appoints a trusted relative or friend as the guardian. But frequently total strangers—for-profit professional guardians who charge up to $600 an hour—are chosen to, literally, take over a ward’s life. The court immediate confiscates all the ward’s money and property and transfers it into the guardian’s control. A collective $50 billion is seized by the courts every single year in this country creating a tasty target for predator lawyers, guardians and their minions. All the inside players are paid for with the ward’s money. And it’s not unusual for a judge to allow a guardian to ignore a ward’s carefully prepared will, trusts and estate plans.

The book offers readers practical advice to protect themselves and their loved ones from conscription into this oftentimes dehumanizing part of the justice system.

This is a dense topic with many twists and turns, and it took me some 8 years to fully investigate and write this book. The horrifying real life effects of guardianship/conservatorship, the emotional and financial toll it has caused to both wards and their often helpless families, cries out for justice.

Please read it and protect yourself.

We’re Here to Help - When Guardianship Goes Wrong, Brandeis University Press, Out Sept. 19, 2023. Available here.

Subscribe now