The Secretive “Protective” Court System That Often Destroys Families

A pressing family matter has, unfortunately, kept me away from Substack for several months. But my interest in exposing unwanted, corrupt and financially devastating court-ordered guardianships has never wavered. Here now is a recently published chapter I wrote for an academic book offered by Colorado State University. (citation: 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.)

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.