I thank Scott very much for going to court for both Mary and
Gloria about a gazillion times and taking wonderful notes and thinking
these very inciteful thoughts he is willing to share with us all. Read
on…..
From Scott:
Overview: All endeavors that are a work-in-progress tend to suffer
from, “… the forest for the trees syndrome”. Hardworking persons in
any endeavor can get wrapped up in their own immediate perspective and
miss things or take them for granted, things that a broader view would
consider important.
Since Mary passed the Illinois written drivers test plus the driving
test just a few months before being declared incompetent and thus being
made a Ward of the Court, I can’t help but wonder what other similar
anomalies go along with her case. For instance, what would be the
typical events in the life of someone who actually had significant
dementia? The driver’s license issue begs the question of what else is
out there that the Friends and Family of Mary Sykes (FFMS) have gotten
so used to that these other keys points have been ignored, lost in the
forest.
Some examples: If the Sykes case was a legitimate Plenary Guardianship based on significant dementia ——-
REGULAR REPORTING ON HEALTH OF WARD: In other Probate cases I and
Gloria have sat through, the Plenary Guardian (PG), the GAL, and family
members regularly report on the health and wellbeing of the Ward of the
Court. Usually, this is in some detail, occasionally in strict medical
terms plus medical reports that are entered into the record.
For Mary Sykes, an abbreviated, very generalized and short discussion
is used, which varies from “….she is doing wonderfully..”, to “….she
has taken a turn for the worst….” — all without details, without prior
reporting to other family members and without written medical statements
put into the record.
FAMILY ACCESS TO THE COURT: In other cases, family members gather at
the bench, tell their relevant stories on the condition of the Ward,
often at length while the lawyers just give important but usually
concise information.
For Mary Sykes, Mary is discussed minimally or not at all.
DUTIES OF GUARDIANS: I would bet that most Wards of the Court have
friends and family that are encouraged by the Court to visit the Ward
and foster independence and wellbeing. Those concepts are included in
“Guidelines for Guardians” as put out by the Presiding Judge of Probate
Court. Gloria and I have watched Judge Stuart go to noticeable and even
poignant lengths on the proper treatment of the Ward and the Duties of
the Plenary Guardian.
The exception is Mary Sykes. Has the Plenary Guardian ever met the
Judge? Isn’t a report required every 12 months on the health, wellbeing
and financial condition of the Ward? Given all the hearings, would most
Judges make a point of meeting the Plenary Guardian?
CONTINUING CONFIRMATION OF NEED OF 24/7 CARE. If the need for 24/7
care was what made the Plenary Guardianship necessary in the first
place, shouldn’t that be reported on regularly and supported in detail?
[On May 11, I watched Judge Stuart give strict instructions to a new
Plenary Guardian that follow-up reports on the condition of the Ward
CANNOT say, “…same as before…or… no change….” The condition must be
spelled out in each report.]
For Mary Sykes, what gets used are short, glib statements by three
lawyers ( I use that term loosely) who have a glaring and roughly 6
figure conflict of interest.
SOCIAL CONTACT: For persons suffering from dementia, contact with old
friends and family members would be part of their ‘prescription’ for
wellbeing. [On May 11, 2012, Judge Stuart read to two new Plenary
Guardians from the guidelines for guardians and emphasized that the duty
of a guardian includes helping the Ward of the Court to achieve,
“…maximum self-reliance and independence….within limits of safety….”
For Mary Sykes, isolation, minimal to zero self-reliance, total and
enforced DEPENDENCE on the Guardian, including forced isolation such as
not being allowed to use the phone to make or even receive calls except
for special occasions, about twice a year , is considered by her
Plenary Guardian and her two GALS as what is ‘best’ for Mary’s
wellbeing. Of course as we all know, it is only best for the ease of
looting Mary’s hard-earned financial assets, the entire purpose of the
Guardianship in the first place. The ‘lawyers’ who practice this type
of ‘law’ refer to it as, “churning the estate”. It is their business
plan to transfer an elder’s money to their own pockets.
WISE USE OF FINANCIAL ASSETS: For most dementia suffers, careful
husbanding of the financial assets is carefully prescribed by the Court.
I have seen it discussed in detail while sitting through other probate
cases.
For Mary Sykes, the lawyers (that keep Mary in the situation she
clearly has stated she does not want be in) have openly complained that
they haven’t been paid. Clearly, the sale of Mary’s house is to pay the
people (I use that term loosely) that are responsible for Mary losing
her Constitutional rights as opposed to being sold for Mary’s future
care.
In fact it can be argued that if Mary actually did suffer from
Plenary Guardianship levels of dementia, she would have been treated far
better. And since the FFMS know Mary does not have significant
dementia, it is overlooked because it is a false accusation. However,
the result of knowing that truth has been to inadvertently allow the
alleged criminals (sorry Ken, “miscreants” is just too much of a
euphemism) to carry on to approach their self-centered financial goals.
And since we take it for granted that this case is only about Carolyn
and her lawyers protecting their own financial windfall and to counter
Carolyn being cut out of half of Mary’s Will/trust, if not all of it, as
of June through September 2009, the tendency has been to get caught up
in the ‘crisis du jur’ and not concentrate on the basics, the merits of
the case. There is no finger pointing here; this is just how these
things work out sometimes in any endeavor.
Until an incident like the driver’s license issue acts as a reminder,
the broader picture gets lost in the current events; …the forest for
the trees. After all, Tim, initially a year and a half ago, suggested
that going back to the beginning was a solution. An April or May, 2009
drivers test would certainly qualify as going back to basics.
As far as dealing with dementia of an elder family member goes, I
have no background in that. My paternal grandparents died early, my
maternal grandparents and great grandparents were in fine mental shape
up to their passing. So, please modify or add to the above examples of
standard treatment and actions concerning a Ward of the Court versus the
“special” actions surrounding Mary.
I suspect there are many relevant issues similar to the driver’s
license issue that could be added to it. I assume that putting them into
play at the same time is better than doing it piecemeal.
~Scott
