National

Association

to

Guardian

Abuse©

 

CONTACT NASGA!

 

• Our Mission
   
•

JOIN  NASGA Advocates for Reform

   



 

   
• NASGA's Open Letters to Congress
and the
White House and Other Writings
   
• GAO Reports
   
• Senate Special Committee
on Aging
   
• Judiciary Sub Committee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts
   

•

Special
TV
Reports
   

BECOME INFORMED:

 
 • What is Guardianship and Conservatorship?
   
 •
 
Stripped of
All Power
 • Ten Dirty  Tricks
 • Warning Signals
 
 •
 
Partners in    Crime
 
 •
 
The Enablers
 •
 
The Pirates
 
 •
 
An Open
Door
 •
Know Your Rights
 • Misnomers
 •
 
No One is Safe
 
 •
 
Veterans
In Peril
 
•
 
Practical Advice
 •
 
YouTube Videos
 
 •
 
Great Escapes
(Success
Stories!)
 

 •
 

In Memoriam
 
 •
 
Victims
 
 • Memorial Donations
   
 •
 
Soapbox
 
 •
 
Who's Really
to Blame?

 
 • Who Else is Paying the Price?
   
 • Related links
   
 • T.S. Radio With Marti Oakley
   
 • The Dirty Little Secret
   
 • Wanted!
   

 •

Contact  us!
   
 • NASGA's BLOG
   
 • Donate!

Great Escapes!
(Success Stories!)

We celebrate these successes and congratulate the families.....

 2012:  A Victory We Will Never Forget!

Daniel Gross, one of NASGA's first "Great Escapes"  passed in 2007, but his legacy lives on through a CT State Supreme Court Decision announced in March of 2012 which will pave the way to holding lawyers and conservators (and guardians) accountable.  

Thank you, Dan Gross and  daughter, NASGA member, Dee King.  May this decision lead to many more "Great Escapes."

 

State Supreme Court Holds Lawyers, Conservators Accountable
In Probate Cases

March 23, 2012
by Rick Green

The state Supreme Court stood up Friday for a simple right that matters deeply for all, but especially to the old, sick and disabled.

The job of a lawyer appointed by probate court is to fight for the client, whether he is healthy or a stubborn 86-year-old man.

In a unanimous ruling in the long-running civil rights case of Daniel Gross, the justices ruled that court-appointed lawyers do not have immunity from lawsuits if they abuse their clients. The court also ruled, in a divided opinion, that conservators appointed by probate have limited immunity. The justices also ruled that a nursing home does not have immunity from lawsuits in probate cases.

The ruling has far-reaching implications for our troubled probate court system. It means that a court-appointed lawyer, and to a lesser extent the conservator — who is appointed by probate when a person can no longer live independently — cannot ignore the wishes of a client. The message to probate court is clear: Lawyers and conservators must be held accountable.

For probate courts, this has huge implications because many of the unsettling and outrageous cases I have been writing about for the past six years stem from abuse by conservators and court-appointed lawyers and judges who don't pay enough attention.

Although Gross died in 2007, his civil rights case lived on. The lasting lesson is that the old or disabled — even if they are unwell and cranky — have the same rights as the rest of us.

"It means that if you get a court-appointed lawyer, that lawyer cannot have any doubt that the lawyer's job is to listen to you,'' said Sally Zanger, the Connecticut Legal Rights Project lawyer who represented Carolyn Dee King, Gross' daughter. "It's what the lawyer is supposed to be doing."

Amazingly, that's been the problem in the probate cases I've been telling you about since 2006. Gross' was the first and most heartbreaking case I stumbled upon, when a Legal Aid lawyer told me an unbelievable tale of an old man from Long Island being held against his will in a Waterbury nursing home.

Elderly but still independent, Gross became ill while visiting his daughter in Waterbury. He was hospitalized, and while his children fought over his care and who should control his finances, Waterbury Probate Judge Thomas Brunnock approved his involuntary conservatorship.

Gross wanted to go home to Long Island. He wasn't told of the hearing where he was ordered conserved. His court-appointed lawyer, Jonathan Newman, failed to object to the conservatorship, even though Gross just wanted to leave Connecticut. His conservator, Kathleen Donovan, had him placed in a locked, restricted ward at Grove Manor Nursing Home in Waterbury. His roommate was violent.

Later, when Gross was on a day visit to his Long Island home, he was hospitalized. Donovan brought him back to Connecticut in an ambulance against the wishes of Gross' New York doctor.

In June 2006, Superior Court Judge Joseph Gormley, at a dramatic writ of habeas corpus hearing, ordered Gross freed, declaring that "a terrible miscarriage of justice" had taken place and that the man had been "deprived of his liberty."


Source: 
Hartford Courant article by Rick Green

Special THANKS to the Hartford Courant's Rick Green for following the Daniel Gross story from the beginning and keeping the spotlight on conservatorship abuse in the CT probate courts.

 


 


 

2011:

CONSERVATORSHIP ENDS AT LAST

I want to share the story of the amazing release of my mother, Patricia C. Rosen, from conservatorship.  Her conservatorship was ended July 28, 2011 by Judge Colleen Sterne.

It took six years to end this unjust conservatorship.  Hundreds of thousands of dollars were lost to a profit making network.  None of the people who made money off the conservatorship have responded to the letters to the editor, and I welcome them to do so.

The last professional conservator resigned after I challenged a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) put on me, and I subpoenaed witnesses.  She turned the conservatorship over to the Santa Barbara Public Guardian, who was a horse of a different color than the professional conservators.

The professional conservators claimed my mother had dementia, citing their own evaluators.  She was portrayed as going downhill, and needing caregiving.  Using my mom's money, they fought her efforts to get out of conservatorship, and even tried to take away her medical right of informed consent.  When my mother's doctor of many years wrote a letter stating she shouldn't be under conservatorship, he was told he couldn't see her anymore.  When my mother chose her own evaluator, and got a positive result, it was discounted, and the evaluator wasn't paid.

On the other hand, the Public Guardian's office saw my mom as competent and able in every way, and fought for her rights and dignity.  The case manager genuinely cared for her welfare.

I believe in the Public Guardian as an alternative to private, professional conservators.  There is no incentive to devour estates, as the salaries of staff members are fixed.  People are so easily corrupted by money. 

My mother has been the victim of elder financial abuse.  One can hear my mother's story by going to ustream.tv and searching for "Are Conservators Robbing the Elderly?"  To avoid this kind of problem, before choosing a conservator or fiduciary, go to the National Association to Stop Guardian Abuse website at StopGuardianAbuse.org.

~Bryan Rosen
Montecito

 

 

2010:

Woman Freed From Conservatorship

Ginger Franklin Regains  Control of Her Life
(reported by Nancy Amons)


A Nashville woman who fought for nearly two years to get out from under a court-ordered conservatorship was set free Thursday.

Ginger Franklin had a conservator, or guardian, appointed to handle her affairs after she tumbled down the stairs at her house in 2008 and suffered a brain injury.  After she recovered, she tried to regain control of her life but found it to be a long and draining ordeal involving multiple court hearings.

On Thursday, Nashville Probate Judge Randy Kennedy dissolved the conservatorship after reading a new doctor's report that Franklin had fully recovered.

"It's hard to take it all in," Franklin said. "I'm a free woman.  I can drive. I can work. I can get married.  I can vote."

They are things that most Americans take for granted, but they are things that people under a conservatorship are not allowed to do for themselves.

Franklin said she hopes to get her job back and start her life over.


"I'm going to celebrate by celebrating my life every day," Franklin said.

 

2010:

Musician Doesn't Need Conservator, Says Judge

Conservation Has Consumed $200,000 Of Danny's Tate's Savings
(reported by Nancy Amons)

A probate judge dissolved the guardianship that controlled a songwriter's finances while he was addicted to crack. But the judge made no apologies for setting up the guardianship to begin with.

The guardianship has managed his financial and legal affairs for the last three years. The musician's brother became Danny's conservator when Danny was admittedly addicted to crack cocaine. Danny Tate said he is now clean and sober.

Circuit Judge Randy Kennedy ruled that songwriter Danny Tate no longer needs a conservator. The judge gave Danny's brother David, the conservator, 60 days to account for how the money expended has been spent.

During the conservatorship, Danny Tate's bank accounts dwindled to nothing. He's not only paying his own legal fees, he's paying the lawyers his brother hired.

For example, attorney Paul Housch billed the musician for more than $21,300 for work done in a period of two months.

Danny Tate's estate, once valued at about $600,000, is now gone.

The conservation, including its legal fees, consumed more than $200,000 of the songwriter's savings.

The courtroom Monday morning was packed with people wearing T-shirts reading “Free Danny Tate." Supporters traveled from as far as Washington, D.C., and Key West, Fla., to show their support. They applauded loudly when Danny Tate entered the courtroom for the hearing Monday morning.

The lawyer for David Tate, Danny's brother, agreed that there doesn't need to be a permanent conservator. He asked for a temporary conservatorship so that Danny Tate will continue to undergo drug testing.

Danny Tate's lawyer said that psychiatrists have found Danny Tate competent to handle his own affairs, and the lawyer asked to dissolve the guardianship.

"It was just a big victory for me, as an American citizen, to be able to make my own choices," said Danny Tate.

 

 

2009:

So happy to tell your readers how I was restored. My sincere appreciation to a fair and objective neurologist from Northfield, Il. who took his time to listen to my story and agreed I did not need a guardian. This letter from him was the ticket out of the system.  Immediately, my money was returned and my property.  It took months for the mail to get back to me. It all started with a letter from a neurologist in Hinsdale, who was not fair or objective, and is now facing legal action.

The court seems to act on direction of the physician, without a medical doctor.  I doubt people would find themselves as property in the for-profit and legal swindle of guardianship.  The one thing that baffled me and still does:  the ward is not even given basic competency tests.  It should be required before the judge gives your rights, money and mail up to anyone, or in my case everyone.  My daughter, her two lawyers. The OPG (office of public guardian) caseworkers, more lawyers, the GAL (guardian ad litem) and finally my attorney who admitted I was high functioning - normal as any one of them - and more so than some.  I showed up at every court date for two years, while I worked a full time job, and wrote letters of complaint to all organizations I could think of. I was on a mission to beat the system and get my life back. Nothing was gonna stop me; I was determined. It cost me and plenty, but it worked. Freedom really is priceless.

Also, the only agency that was even willing to act on the behalf of the ward is "Equip for Equality".

So, that is the end of two years of fighting, stunning legal fees and the family I used to depend on -  the same family that used to depend on me.  I miss my grandsons and hope someday things are different.  And final thanks goes to the attorney who took my med malpractice case to court.

~Rena Moss

 

 

    January 2008 

Maydelle Trambarulo is finally FREE!  A resident of NJ, she has been trapped by the CT probate system for three long years and imprisoned in a CT nursing home away from her family

After a Superior Court judge recently ruled Maydelle could return to her family, unbelievably, her conservator asked the judge for a stay of Maydelle's release from his custody!  The battle seemed insurmountable, but the Trambarulos believe in miracles - and they just got one!

  Look at these smiles! 

See this story on Fox TV:

http://www.myfoxny.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail?contentId=5821397&version=4&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=VSTY&pageId=1.1.1

 

 

Helen Fabis is Sylvia Rudek's beloved Aunt and God Mother. 
 
She was a clothing designer and gifted seamstress.  She designed and sewed Sylvia's wedding dress, veil, purse-the entire outfit including the apron that is customary to put on at the end of the wedding reception. This photo still makes Sylvia smile; it always will. 

Although Sylvia lost her dear Aunt, she was instrumental in seeing that the temporary guardian, Kathleen Simane, was held accountable and lost her  own freedom  when she was sent to prison.

 

Woman sentenced for swindling
great-aunt
(Published Friday, July 21, 2006 11:19:31 AM CDT)
By Mike DuPre' Gazette Staff

(Note:  Kathleen Simane was Sylvia's Aunt's court-appointed temporary guardian.)

The next 20 years of Kathleen Simane's life will be either behind bars or under the state's watchful eye.  And if Simane violates either extended supervision or probation she could spend up to 25 years in prison.

Judge James Daley sentenced Simane, 36, St. Paul, Minn., on Thursday for two counts of theft by bailee in a case in which her great-aunt, Helen Fabis, and other relatives were swindled out of more than $78,000.  Simane pleaded guilty to the two charges in April.

In a barely audible voice, Simane apologized to her relatives for her crimes and said she would pay the court-ordered restitution: $78,290.

In addition, she must pay a 15 percent surcharge-$11,743-to the estate.

"She is incredibly remorseful and never intended to do any harm to (Fabis)," said Simane's attorney, Stephanie Ames of Woodland Hills, Calif.

Simane became Fabis' guardian because no one else in the family was willing to help the elderly woman, not because she was after her money, Ames said.

"This is a crime of impulse and opportunity," the lawyer said.

Fabis, an 85-year-old childless widow of 30 years, fell seriously ill in March 2001, and Simane was named temporary guardian in what was a family emergency.

Fabis, a rural Edgerton resident, died the next month.

Prosecutor Barbara Oswald, an assistant attorney general for Wisconsin, painted a different picture: "This is a case about greed, not about need. … Kathleen Simane is a financial predator. She preys on people whose assets allow her to live a better lifestyle."

Within days of gaining access to Fabis' accounts, Simane started spending her great-aunt's money, Oswald said.

Simane paid off one car and bought a better vehicle, Ames said.

Simane paid for breast augmentation with Fabis' money, and after Fabis died in April 2001, Simane asked that the funeral be delayed while her breasts healed, according to court documents.

"(Simane) also went to the effort of cashing (Fabis') Social Security checks," the prosecutor said.

Two relatives-Estelle Hartman, one of Fabis' sisters, and Sylvia Rudek, Hartman's daughter-asked the judge to sentence Simane to at least 10 years in prison.

"I am sad, and I feel guilty for the tragic way Helen died," Hartman said in a statement read by Ames. "The pain became greater as Kathleen's betrayal and treatment of my sister was revealed by my daughter, Sylvia."

Rudek said:  "Our family of four generations was destroyed by one person, and that person is Kathleen Simane. Kathleen Simane is not considered a member of our family. …

"There is nothing that Kathleen Simane won't say or do to get what she wants," Rudek said.

In levying his sentence, Daley noted Fabis' vulnerability and Simane's speed in taking advantage of her great-aunt.

"The funds should have been used for her benefit, but you used them for your benefit," Daley admonished Simane. "You took money from someone who could not protect herself. You were supposed to protect her. …

"We as a people will be judged by how we treat the least in our society and those who cannot help themselves," the judge said.

(See also:  From Television Personality to Prison)

 

Wrenching Story Ends With Justice
Waterbury, Connecticut
by Rick Greene
July 14, 2006

(Note:  Daniel Gross is NASGA Member Dee King's Father)

I could go on about the travesty that left Daniel Gross - an 86-year-old New York man with no legal connection to Connecticut - locked in a Waterbury nursing home for 10 months, his freedom stolen in the courtroom of Waterbury Probate Judge Thomas Brunnock.

Gross's shameful ordeal is a powerful lesson for our state legislators and governor, who are unwilling to demand reform of Connecticut's shoddy probate court system.

But Gross is now a free man. I prefer the words of the Superior Court judge who ordered Gross freed at an emotional hearing in Waterbury Wednesday.

"A terrible miscarriage of justice has happened here," Judge Joseph Gormley told the courtroom as Brunnock and the lawyers who worked on the old man's behalf hung their heads.

What happened was Gross, ailing and living alone on Long Island, came to visit his daughter in Waterbury last summer. He was hospitalized in August, suffering from cellulitis, as his children bickered over his care and who should control his money.

With Gross increasingly uncooperative, the hospital asked probate court to step in. His children agreed. Within days, Brunnock approved handing control of Gross's life to a court-appointed conservator.

Gross didn't want a conservator and wasn't even at the probate court hearing at which a conservator was named.

"This case has disturbed me from day one. I kept looking for evidence to support what was done, but I find none," said Gormley, who freed Gross on a writ of habeas corpus, terminating the conservatorship.

Gormley had strong words for Gross's court-appointed lawyer, Jonathan Newman. Last September Newman urged Brunnock to name a conservator for Gross, taking away his freedom and control over his finances.

"It is obvious to me he grossly underrepresented and misrepresented Mr. Gross," Gormley told the court as Gross looked on. The ruling removes Newman, and Kathleen Donovan, his conservator, from Gross's life. Newman was unavailable for comment Thursday.

Gormley said he was mystified how Brunnock thought his court - which covers Waterbury, Wolcott and Middlebury - had jurisdiction over the estate of a New York man visiting his daughter. He likened it to the absurd notion of forcing visitors to the state to pay income taxes merely because they spent a few days here.

Mr. Gross's plight is yet another reason to doubt the probate courts. It is a system in which prospective judges with close ties to the local legal community win office through election, their campaign coffers stuffed with contributions from lawyers and political insiders. No legal training is required to be a probate judge. Procedures can vary widely from district to district.

I wonder how many other Daniel Grosses there are, ones whose lives are buried in the backslapping underworld of probate court.

Were it not for two volunteer lawyers, John Peters of West Hartford and Veronica Halpine of Greater Hartford Legal Aid, Gross might still be in Grove Manor Nursing Home. His house, approved for sale by Brunnock, might have been sold, and an old man forever lost.

Ambling out of Wednesday's hearing with a walker, Gross said he couldn't wait to return to Long Island, where he will now live with his daughter Carolyn's assistance.

"I am overwhelmed with happiness," he said.

So am I.

Rick Green's column appears on Tuesdays and Fridays. He can be reached at rgreen@courant.com

Guardianship abuse and conservatorship abuse IS elder abuse!

           
(c) 2006 NASGA