Archive for May, 2009

Apathetic Court and Bank System

May 30, 2009
My Mother and I share the same birthday, October 22, approximately 44 years apart. I was very close to both of my parents. When my father passed away in 1996, he left a sizable estate for my Mother, and for the descendants he specified in his Will and Trust. My mother’s Will and Trust documents are identical to Father’s. Of utmost importance to my Father, was my Mother’s welfare, after his death. He left explicit instructions as to how his estate was to be distributed and protected.

My older sister, Cam (Mueller) Fischer had been disinherited and financially disowned for alleged theft of monies from a family business and tax fraud, officially in 1985. She chose to remove herself, and her children, from the family for almost 20 years; this was a source of great pain for my parents. In 1998 she maneuvered control over our Mother, through a Power of Attorney, that Mother lacked the capacity to execute. Cam sold the family home for below market value and made herself the recipient of the $500,000.00 + proceeds, along with all the personal property she valued. Items such as cars, jewelry, furs, furniture, oriental rugs, paintings, and silver have ‘disappeared’. Also lost are the irreplaceable mementos of lives well lived, such as photographs, family keepsakes, and the heritage passed down from previous generations. Cam currently benefits from the ongoing, annual $70,000.00 + per year Mother receives from Father’s trust; a total of over $630,000.00 to date; plus the $500,000.00 + from the sale of my parent’s home, a very conservative total of $1,130,000.00, that does not include personal property, social security monies, or other investments. In November of 2005, in court documents filed by Cam Fischer, Cam lists Mother’s total assets as $10,000.00. Where is all the money, and how has it been spent?

The co-trustee of Father’s two Trusts, Commerce Bank, continues to fail in the fiduciary duty it has been entrusted with, which is to protect the Trusts, and oversee the appropriate distribution of the Trusts assets’. Commerce had been alerted, as far back as 1998, by Mother’s own attorney, that she was already a victim of ongoing financial duress which she was unable to effectively resist. This abuse of the Trust assets has been allowed by Commerce, despite the overwhelming evidence and documentation that has been presented to the bank. In April of 2006, Commerce authorized $10,000.00 to be paid to Cam Fischer’s attorney, Matt Rossiter, and an additional $2,000.00+ to the Probate Court appointed attorney, Jim Wright, for Cam’s portion of the court fees. These monies were paid in Mother’s name, from Father’s Trust, for the benefit of Cam Fischer. I have asked Commerce, repeatedly, for an accounting of the monies dispersed from my Father’s Trust, into a checking account in Mother’s name; these monies are to be used for her welfare exclusively. They have yet to perform any type of accounting. In 2006, Commerce also assumed sole trusteeship of the Trusts without making any attempt to contact me, the beneficiary of the Trusts. Commerce disclosed that they had been unable to contact Mother for over a year; their attempts to speak with her had been blocked by my sister, Cam Fischer, who controls every aspect of Mother’s life. Cam’s absolute control includes preventing Mother and I from seeing one another. In 2005 I was forced to obtain a court order to “visit” with my mother once a week. Financially, I have been unable to maintain the visitation order. Cam will continue to have the financial ‘upper-hand’ as long as Commerce continues to disregard its fiduciary duty to Mother, Father, and I. I have seen my mother less than a dozen times in approximately nine years.

For 8-9 years, I have been seeking justice for my parents and myself. I have battled an apathetic judicial, probate court, and bank system, that disregard my Mother’s welfare; ignoring the evidence of elder abuse, in all its forms, in particular the financial abuse that has been perpetrated upon her. The attorneys, the bank, and the court system are the profiteers, acting in their best interest to Mother’s detriment. The personal, emotional, and financial cost of this battle has been high. Daily, I fear for my Mother’s welfare. I know she is not living the life she and my father worked and planned for.

May 2009 ~ Guardianship abuse victims recognized during Elder Abuse Prevention Month

>Judge Orders Private Conservator Be Replaced With Public Guardian

May 30, 2009

>

Judge William McLafferty ordered Patricia Rosen to the care of a public guardian despite her strenuous objections and those of her son, Brian Rosen.

The hearing grew testy at times, with McLafferty telling Brian Rosen he did not wish to hear from him any further and limited the hours Rosen could see her son.

In recent years, two private conservators quit Rosen’s service, citing irreconcilable differences with Brian Rosen, whom they’ve accused of relentless interference and obstruction. Two restraining orders were obtained against Brian Rosen; both were rescinded. Rosen has accused the conservators of attempting to loot his mother’s estate.

Patricia Rosen has argued that she does not need help from anyone anymore and that the cloudiness of thought that accompanied the car crash that claimed the life of her husband and then later was exacerbated by chemotherapy treatment for cancer has passed.

McLafferty insisted that she submit to another neuro-psychiatric evaluation. Results of previous tests yielded conflicting indications. When Rosen refused to take a third test, the judge ordered her private conservator to be replaced with a public guardian.

Full Article and Source:
Disorder in the Court

Judge Orders Private Conservator Be Replaced With Public Guardian

May 30, 2009
Judge William McLafferty ordered Patricia Rosen to the care of a public guardian despite her strenuous objections and those of her son, Brian Rosen.

The hearing grew testy at times, with McLafferty telling Brian Rosen he did not wish to hear from him any further and limited the hours Rosen could see her son.

In recent years, two private conservators quit Rosen’s service, citing irreconcilable differences with Brian Rosen, whom they’ve accused of relentless interference and obstruction. Two restraining orders were obtained against Brian Rosen; both were rescinded. Rosen has accused the conservators of attempting to loot his mother’s estate.

Patricia Rosen has argued that she does not need help from anyone anymore and that the cloudiness of thought that accompanied the car crash that claimed the life of her husband and then later was exacerbated by chemotherapy treatment for cancer has passed.

McLafferty insisted that she submit to another neuro-psychiatric evaluation. Results of previous tests yielded conflicting indications. When Rosen refused to take a third test, the judge ordered her private conservator to be replaced with a public guardian.

Full Article and Source:
Disorder in the Court

>Guardians Can Now Adopt Wards

May 30, 2009

>

A bill allowing legal guardians to adopt children in their care is now law.

The bill signed by Governor Markell adds legal guardians to the list of people who can petition family court to terminate parental rights and seek adoption.

The bill’s co-sponsors, Representative Pam Thornburg and Senator Nancy Cook, say the new law will help about 100 families in Delaware give kids under their guardianship stable, secure environments in which to grow up.

Source:
Gov. signs bill allowing guardians to adopt

Guardians Can Now Adopt Wards

May 30, 2009
A bill allowing legal guardians to adopt children in their care is now law.

The bill signed by Governor Markell adds legal guardians to the list of people who can petition family court to terminate parental rights and seek adoption.

The bill’s co-sponsors, Representative Pam Thornburg and Senator Nancy Cook, say the new law will help about 100 families in Delaware give kids under their guardianship stable, secure environments in which to grow up.

Source:
Gov. signs bill allowing guardians to adopt

>Foreign Guardian

May 29, 2009

>

Florida law does not permit appointment of a foreign guardian who is not a family member, yet that’s exactly what North Carolina imposed upon this innocent and defenseless lady. The foreign guardian, appointed without due process by a Superior Court clerk, incarcerated Hazel in a 32-bed facility in Port Charlotte, Florida, without good cause or necessity. The same clerk later refused to hear evidence on her financial abuses. He expressly allowed this stranger to rip Hazel from a loving, stable and stimulating environment with her daughter in Asheville, NC. The relocation was against the advice of Hazel’s court-appointed guardian ad litem, doctors, day care case manager, her sister, her brother, her brother-in-law, another caregiver/friend, and of course, repeated pleas of Hazel’s daughter. Hazel’s daughter even asked to be allowed to care for her mother in Hazel’s own Florida home without any compensation. Her daughter was willing to give up her home and career, so Hazel would not have to go to a facility. Why should Hazel be “warehoused” when she has willing and able family or friends to care for her. The response: “Denied.”

Despite a successful appeal against such order, reversing for “prejudicial error,” the clerk’s office ignored the appeal ruling upon remand, even after the guardian ad litem testified that moving Hazel would be a violation of the guardian’s fiduciary duty, was against the public policies of NC for in-state and non-facility confinement, and was grounds for the guardians’ removal. Hazel’s “institutional confinement” also contravenes the 1999 US Supreme Court case, Olmstead v. L.C., as well as the stated legislative intent in two states and Florida’s statutory prerequisites for facility confinement.

The guardian has total control of Hazel’s estate which was worth $450,000 in January 2006. The guardian testified in December 2006 that Hazel’s assets were worth $300,000-350,000. The clerk made no inquiry about this extraordinary loss of value. The guardian would not let Hazel’s daughter into her mother’s home to retrieve Hazel’s most precious property. So, Hazel’s property (including Florida homestead property with no mortgage) is essentially gone. The guardian hired attorneys in two states to maintain her powers and Hazel’s assets pay them. Hazel does not have a lawyer since the guardian successfully argued to a Florida judge that Hazel is “incompetent” so cannot “hire” one, even if the attorney serves pro bono. Although this guardian consistently acts in conflict of interest with Hazel’s interests, her appointment continues although statute and case law authorizes her “removal.”

The Florida Dept of Children and Family Services (DCF) is aligned with the guardian since the 20th Judicial Circuit Court has “regularly appointed” her for about 18 years. There can be no “elder abuse” if the court authorizes the guardian to act, notwithstanding the lack of meaningful scrutiny. She is under no obligation to maximize Hazel’s resources. This guardian is the president of a corporation (for administering guardianships), even though “appointed” individually, has admitted going to court hundreds of times, and has told Hazel’s daughter that she never loses and the court does whatever she wants.

May 2009 ~ Guardianship abuse victims recognized during Elder Abuse Prevention Month

Foreign Guardian

May 29, 2009
Florida law does not permit appointment of a foreign guardian who is not a family member, yet that’s exactly what North Carolina imposed upon this innocent and defenseless lady. The foreign guardian, appointed without due process by a Superior Court clerk, incarcerated Hazel in a 32-bed facility in Port Charlotte, Florida, without good cause or necessity. The same clerk later refused to hear evidence on her financial abuses. He expressly allowed this stranger to rip Hazel from a loving, stable and stimulating environment with her daughter in Asheville, NC. The relocation was against the advice of Hazel’s court-appointed guardian ad litem, doctors, day care case manager, her sister, her brother, her brother-in-law, another caregiver/friend, and of course, repeated pleas of Hazel’s daughter. Hazel’s daughter even asked to be allowed to care for her mother in Hazel’s own Florida home without any compensation. Her daughter was willing to give up her home and career, so Hazel would not have to go to a facility. Why should Hazel be “warehoused” when she has willing and able family or friends to care for her. The response: “Denied.”

Despite a successful appeal against such order, reversing for “prejudicial error,” the clerk’s office ignored the appeal ruling upon remand, even after the guardian ad litem testified that moving Hazel would be a violation of the guardian’s fiduciary duty, was against the public policies of NC for in-state and non-facility confinement, and was grounds for the guardians’ removal. Hazel’s “institutional confinement” also contravenes the 1999 US Supreme Court case, Olmstead v. L.C., as well as the stated legislative intent in two states and Florida’s statutory prerequisites for facility confinement.

The guardian has total control of Hazel’s estate which was worth $450,000 in January 2006. The guardian testified in December 2006 that Hazel’s assets were worth $300,000-350,000. The clerk made no inquiry about this extraordinary loss of value. The guardian would not let Hazel’s daughter into her mother’s home to retrieve Hazel’s most precious property. So, Hazel’s property (including Florida homestead property with no mortgage) is essentially gone. The guardian hired attorneys in two states to maintain her powers and Hazel’s assets pay them. Hazel does not have a lawyer since the guardian successfully argued to a Florida judge that Hazel is “incompetent” so cannot “hire” one, even if the attorney serves pro bono. Although this guardian consistently acts in conflict of interest with Hazel’s interests, her appointment continues although statute and case law authorizes her “removal.”

The Florida Dept of Children and Family Services (DCF) is aligned with the guardian since the 20th Judicial Circuit Court has “regularly appointed” her for about 18 years. There can be no “elder abuse” if the court authorizes the guardian to act, notwithstanding the lack of meaningful scrutiny. She is under no obligation to maximize Hazel’s resources. This guardian is the president of a corporation (for administering guardianships), even though “appointed” individually, has admitted going to court hundreds of times, and has told Hazel’s daughter that she never loses and the court does whatever she wants.

May 2009 ~ Guardianship abuse victims recognized during Elder Abuse Prevention Month

Foreign Guardian

May 29, 2009
Florida law does not permit appointment of a foreign guardian who is not a family member, yet that’s exactly what North Carolina imposed upon this innocent and defenseless lady. The foreign guardian, appointed without due process by a Superior Court clerk, incarcerated Hazel in a 32-bed facility in Port Charlotte, Florida, without good cause or necessity. The same clerk later refused to hear evidence on her financial abuses. He expressly allowed this stranger to rip Hazel from a loving, stable and stimulating environment with her daughter in Asheville, NC. The relocation was against the advice of Hazel’s court-appointed guardian ad litem, doctors, day care case manager, her sister, her brother, her brother-in-law, another caregiver/friend, and of course, repeated pleas of Hazel’s daughter. Hazel’s daughter even asked to be allowed to care for her mother in Hazel’s own Florida home without any compensation. Her daughter was willing to give up her home and career, so Hazel would not have to go to a facility. Why should Hazel be “warehoused” when she has willing and able family or friends to care for her. The response: “Denied.”

Despite a successful appeal against such order, reversing for “prejudicial error,” the clerk’s office ignored the appeal ruling upon remand, even after the guardian ad litem testified that moving Hazel would be a violation of the guardian’s fiduciary duty, was against the public policies of NC for in-state and non-facility confinement, and was grounds for the guardians’ removal. Hazel’s “institutional confinement” also contravenes the 1999 US Supreme Court case, Olmstead v. L.C., as well as the stated legislative intent in two states and Florida’s statutory prerequisites for facility confinement.

The guardian has total control of Hazel’s estate which was worth $450,000 in January 2006. The guardian testified in December 2006 that Hazel’s assets were worth $300,000-350,000. The clerk made no inquiry about this extraordinary loss of value. The guardian would not let Hazel’s daughter into her mother’s home to retrieve Hazel’s most precious property. So, Hazel’s property (including Florida homestead property with no mortgage) is essentially gone. The guardian hired attorneys in two states to maintain her powers and Hazel’s assets pay them. Hazel does not have a lawyer since the guardian successfully argued to a Florida judge that Hazel is “incompetent” so cannot “hire” one, even if the attorney serves pro bono. Although this guardian consistently acts in conflict of interest with Hazel’s interests, her appointment continues although statute and case law authorizes her “removal.”

The Florida Dept of Children and Family Services (DCF) is aligned with the guardian since the 20th Judicial Circuit Court has “regularly appointed” her for about 18 years. There can be no “elder abuse” if the court authorizes the guardian to act, notwithstanding the lack of meaningful scrutiny. She is under no obligation to maximize Hazel’s resources. This guardian is the president of a corporation (for administering guardianships), even though “appointed” individually, has admitted going to court hundreds of times, and has told Hazel’s daughter that she never loses and the court does whatever she wants.

May 2009 ~ Guardianship abuse victims recognized during Elder Abuse Prevention Month

>Investigators: The Power of One – May 2009

May 29, 2009

>

Minnesota lawmakers have granted new rights for the tens of thousands of Minnesotans who require the help of a conservator or guardian. Over the last year and a half, the FOX 9 Investigators have shown you how powerful conservators and guardians are and how sometimes that power is abused. Now, there is help.

More than a dozen men and women drove from all over the state earlier this year when Gast was charged for lying under oath during a hearing for one of her many clients. Gast had testified she has a nursing and a business degree.

Investigators told the court she has neither. Gast eventually plead guilty to perjury and court officials say she is resigning from all her court appointed cases in Hennepin county.

Jean Krumpelmann of Shoreview said, “I trusted she was a nurse. We had many problems with her.”

The new law will require all guardians and conservators to register with the state and file a sworn statement outlining their education background and whether they have ever been removed for cause from serving as a conservator or guardian. They must also update their criminal history every year.

Full Article and Source:
Investigators: The Power of One – May 2009

See also:
“Bill of Rights” for Wards

Gast Pleads Guilty to Perjury

Gast Charged with Perjury

Sheila Gast – Case Files

Investigators: The Power of One

Investigators: The Power of One: A Call For Change

Investigators: The Power of One – May 2009

May 29, 2009
Minnesota lawmakers have granted new rights for the tens of thousands of Minnesotans who require the help of a conservator or guardian. Over the last year and a half, the FOX 9 Investigators have shown you how powerful conservators and guardians are and how sometimes that power is abused. Now, there is help.

More than a dozen men and women drove from all over the state earlier this year when Gast was charged for lying under oath during a hearing for one of her many clients. Gast had testified she has a nursing and a business degree.

Investigators told the court she has neither. Gast eventually plead guilty to perjury and court officials say she is resigning from all her court appointed cases in Hennepin county.

Jean Krumpelmann of Shoreview said, “I trusted she was a nurse. We had many problems with her.”

The new law will require all guardians and conservators to register with the state and file a sworn statement outlining their education background and whether they have ever been removed for cause from serving as a conservator or guardian. They must also update their criminal history every year.

Full Article and Source:
Investigators: The Power of One – May 2009

See also:
“Bill of Rights” for Wards

Gast Pleads Guilty to Perjury

Gast Charged with Perjury

Sheila Gast – Case Files

Investigators: The Power of One

Investigators: The Power of One: A Call For Change