The Guardianship Board of any state or country has been mandated by law to help protect the vulnerable seniors. Unfortunately, there have been so many cases of mismanagement, fraud and acts of injustice perpetrated by these so called “protectors of the elderly” that it is beyond belief.
In the USA, many family members of those who experienced this sort of abuses, had to resort to putting up a web site to tell their experiences. There is even a National Association to Stop Guardian Abuse.
Media do not find this sort of cases “sexy” enough to want to write about.
There are no Guardianship Abuse in Australia?
WRONG! It is just that the country do not want to acknowledge that such cases exist in their sunny country.
In 2006/7 There was a Parliamentary Inquiry into Older People and the Law. The report was published September 2007. In the report, the section on Guardianship and Administration - quoted a ‘Transcript of Evidence’ (p. 167) :
If done incorrectly, it has the potential to be a fundamental breach of human rights because you are taking away people’s ability to make their own decisions in their own lives, so we always adhere to the principles of finding the course of action that is least restrictive of the person’s freedom of decision and action, looking for a decision that is in their best interests, and principles are consistent across all states and territories, even though we have remarkably different laws between states and territories.
(footnote: Ms Anita Smith, AGAC, Transcript of Evidence, 5 June 2007, po.2)
That is the rhectoric. Now for the reality.
It is most disturbing that there are cases, supported by heaps of documentary evidence pointing to the inability of the state, in question, to stop what they have indirectly created.
TASMANIA:
I have received ample documentary evidence relating to 2 such cases in that state. The 2 elderly lady do not have close relatives who can assist them in resolving the problems. A very determined old friend of one of these ladies, has contacted every authorities she could think of, but no one would look into the case.
CASE 1
- In 2006 an elderly widow (MB) surgery on her knees. One of her friends (S) persuaded her to sign papers, giving that person Power of Attorney. According to MB, things started that took away her rights and freedom.
- . Application was made to the Guardian Board of that state, to declare MB was suffering from Dementia and has“No Capacity”. On 16 June the GAB ordered that a guardian be appointed to take over MB’s affairs. That order was extended earlier this year, for another 3 years.
- . Another friend of MB (E) found that declaration hard to believe. She arranged for MB to see another specialist, for a second opinion.
- Incredible as it seemed, that appointment was cancelled by the Guardianship Board. The GAB flatly refused to consider second opinion on MB.
- MB (who cannot speak English fluently) had to rely on her friend (E) to try to find out how she could be declared demented and have no capacity to manage her own affairs.
- MB has voiced her concerns, to E, about missing assets and ‘fire sale’ of some of her other assets. S, who held the Power of Attorney then, was charged with 15 counts of theft, and the case was moved to the Supreme Court. However, the case was later dismissed. MB was NOT informed of the reasons behind that dismissal.
8. There is no doubt that MB has problems with language and mobility, but she is NOT Demented. This was documented by at least 2 other medical specialist, who conducted comprehensive tests to determine MB ability to make decisions.
9. Subsequent medical reports on MB have proven that she was badly affected by some of the medications she was told to take by S. Apparently, S persuaded MB to take 'Vitamin tablets'.
Those medications appeared to have affected MB's concentration.
The latest medical report on MB, dated 5 November 2009 has supported earlier reports that MB is NOT DEMENTED.
The latest medical report on MB, dated 5 November 2009 has supported earlier reports that MB is NOT DEMENTED.
How can the GAB denied MB a second opinion?
There is injustice and wrong done to MB.
Hard to believe, but this is just an example of how arrogant and powerful a guardianship board can be.
Why none of the officials and politicians of that state that were contacted by E, on behalf of MB, refused to review the case is a mystery.
I have gone through a stack of documents, relating to this case. It has the all marks of GUARDIANSHIP ABUSE.
I have gone through a stack of documents, relating to this case. It has the all marks of GUARDIANSHIP ABUSE.
What would you do if you, or a loved one, experienced such treatments?
What if you do not have a family member or a close friend who could highlight your case?
Who Guard the Guardians? This is a question that must be answered by the government responsible for setting up the system.
Someone must be held responsible for the debacle borne out in the 2 cases.
Someone must be held responsible for the debacle borne out in the 2 cases.
Wake up Australia !
Click for Updates, More Cases and Resources
Search Right Col/Labels for More Posts/Resources
2 comments:
IIn Tasmania there are at least 7 current cases of abuse by the Guardianship & Administration Board (GAB). An email blitz campaign to State politicians was recently launched by some of the GAB’s victims in an effort to make our politicians recognise and address the ongoing abuses inflicted by the GAB...and the Public Trustee. To date, this has been virtually ignored. Except...in last Sunday's newspaper (28 March 2010), a blistering attack was launched by Ms Anita Smith (president of the GAB) and Mr Peter Maloney (CEO of the Public Trustee) under the headline "Trusted relatives ripping off elderly". A large-font quote by Mr Maloney "It's accelerated inheritance, give it to me now grandma you don't need it" was prominently featured. The entire article implied that Tasmania is in the grip of a crime wave of relatives ripping off their [quote] demented [unquote] loved-ones. The article concludes: “Both recommended that if people have doubts about who they are appointing as their enduring power of attorney they should fork out the money to appoint a professional such as … the Public Trustee.” By the conclusion a lot of people reading the unbalanced, biased and, quite simply, scare-mongering article could well be frightened into appointing the Public Trustee. The timing of this article is thoroughly suspicious given its proximity to the email blitz campaign. Obviously someone is rattled and endeavouring to pre-empt any investigations into the respective bodies. If they had done nothing wrong they would not have needed to pre-empt anything! Nowhere in the article did the reporter, Ms Smith or Mr Maloney acknowledge the hundreds of caring spouses, children, and others who have given up their lives to take care of their loved-ones.
Request for the anon. person to contact me with more information about the 7 cases. I will highlight these on the blog.
Thanks
Andre
Post a Comment