Within minutes, judges send seniors to supervised care
Maggie Kowalski, and Candice Novak
Globe Correspondents
Dawn Cromwell dares not leave her building. If she tried, a device girding her ankle would sound an alarm. For over a year, she has had to use store-bought reading glasses because her pleas for a prescription pair have gone for naught. She is given medications, but, she says, no one will tell her what they are.
For 20 months now, Cromwell's life has been defined by a 10.5-by-12.5-foot living space at North End Rehabilitation and Nursing Center. In her tiny closet, there are virtually no clothes, and she has no idea what's become of the cherished possessions in the Boylston Street apartment where she lived for years.
At 73, Cromwell is one of hundreds of forgotten docket numbers in Massachusetts probate and family courts, where judges routinely fast-track infirm elders into the care of guardians, often with little evidence to justify such wrenching decisions.
Cromwell, after a broken ankle and a brief rehab in early 2006, had expected to go home. But on the say-so from the nursing home's doctor - a short, nearly illegible diagnosis - a judge decreed that Cromwell was mentally ill and handed all of her decision-making to a guardian. Cromwell lost all power over her own life, with no opportunity to object, no right to have a lawyer represent her, no chance to even be in the courtroom.
Three months later, the same judge, E. Chouteau Merrill, made the guardianship permanent - in a two-minute hearing in which the judge asked not a single question.
"You think living in America is just great, but you never anticipate something like this," Cromwell said. "It's just been a disaster for me. If I was robbed on the street and everything taken, I wouldn't be as upset as I am now."
The Cromwell case typifies an everyday practice in Massachusetts probate courts. Too many judges, as Merrill did with Cromwell, award custody of elders to guardians without insisting on the minimal medical documentation required by court rules; without asking about the patient's long-term prognosis; and without considering whether an independent fact-finder should conduct an inquiry before such a life-altering judgment is rendered. And those whose lives are so radically affected are given no legal representation.
The guardianship system is meant to care for people who can no longer make sound decisions for themselves because they are mentally retarded, mentally ill, or physically incapacitated. Most often, guardianship is sought by a family member, usually for an elderly relative who has some form of severe dementia. When relatives are involved, there is widespread agreement that judges make sound decisions when they decide a guardian is needed.
But a category called "unbefriended elders" - people such as Cromwell who have no relatives or even friends to serve as their guardians - is another matter. In these cases, judges are wholly dependent on the assertions of petitioners, mostly hospitals and nursing homes, that the person is incapacitated.
Read Full-Text: From boston.com
-------------------------------------
Courts, Judges policymakers in America must review their current system regarding appointing guardian for their elder citizens. There are more and more stories revealed regarding similar stories, as the one above. This is a critical and urgent issue regarding guardianship and guardianship/conservatorship abuse and, judges, who are not doing their job properly.
We hope that policymakers, judges and legislators will act promptly to correct these FLAWS in the system.
DO NOT WAIT FOR PROTEST MARCHES! The public is saying: THIS IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH. DO SOMETHING, NOW!
No comments:
Post a Comment