4 ms·

This is the most terrifying part! What would prevent some calculating third party from doing this to my parents? Is it solely down to whether or not the childre

This is the most terrifying part! What would prevent some calculating third party from doing this to my parents? Is it solely down to whether or not the children have the ability to pay costly legal bills? I dearly, dearly hope that there was something I missed, and that it isn't just a case of bureaucratic maneuvering to deprive that couple of everything they owned.

EGreg 9y ago
Only one thing: they should not live in such a terrible jurisdiction!
- gt_ 9y ago
  I guess so. Hmm... well I sure hope we get a more developed awareness of the issue so we can plan accordingly for ourselves.
- dsfyu404ed 9y ago
  Who's writing the laws you have to not get caught not following is a highly underrated contributor/detractor to one's quality of life.
  - rocqua 9y ago
    Its not a matter of the laws, its a matter of who is making the rulings. In this case, the issue with the jurisdiction was Jon Norheim, the Clark County guardianship commissioner. He seemed to rubber stamp whatever the predatory guardians put before him.
reverend_gonzo 9y ago
I think there's a couple preventative measures. First, don't go into things like nursing homes, elderly living communities, etc. Those are prime targets. Second, if you have wealth, give it to someone you trust, or put it into a trust. If you don't have wealth, well, there's not much for them to try to take from you.
soundwave106 9y ago
Normally, this is the standard process in most states that I am aware of. So yes, this is a big gap in my mind in the New Yorker article. Taking Florida's as an example (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0744/Sections/0744.312.html http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Displ...), the state gives strong preference to bloodline or marriage. The court has to declare in writing pretty specific reasons to appoint a professional guardian. Nevada's laws (https://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-159.html https://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-159.html), although not as strong as Florida, does seem to indicate preference for bloodline or spouse. So I wonder how they ended up with a professional guardian / fraudster in the first place. I understand that sometimes this happens due to family disagreements over who should be appointed, or inability to care for one reason or another. Maybe that happened in these cases. Incidentally, you can also declare, in your will, a medical power of attorney which basically pre-lays out the guardianship lineage in your preferred order. From what I understand, courts tend to use the medical power of attorney preferences well over anything else, so this is probably one of the strongest ways to prevent this sort of situation.
- bzbarsky 9y ago
  I think the article does in fact explain how this could have happened: 1) The professional guardian moved for an emergency ex parte hearing, without notification to family members, getting to speak to the court first, and unopposed. 2) The professional guardian mentioned the family members in her court filings, and indicated they were unfit for various reasons. 3) The courts didn't really check the professional guardian's claims. Those seem like facts, assuming the article can be trusted. What follows are my conjectures based on those facts: 4) The judge is in on it, fundamentally. At the very least, he thinks professional guardians are just a better idea than family members, and hence he was just looking for justification to ignore the preference-for-bloodline statute. 5) Item #3 is a consequence of #4 to some extent. The judge has no real incentive to double-check things here, and it's extra work, so why do it? The resulting lack of consequences described in the article indicates that this was a rational call on the judge's part, as far as that goes. 6) Item #2 gives cover to the judge to act on the predisposition I describe in item #4.

EGreg 9y ago

Only one thing: they should not live in such a terrible jurisdiction!

gt_ 9y ago
I guess so. Hmm... well I sure hope we get a more developed awareness of the issue so we can plan accordingly for ourselves.
dsfyu404ed 9y ago
Who's writing the laws you have to not get caught not following is a highly underrated contributor/detractor to one's quality of life.
- rocqua 9y ago
  Its not a matter of the laws, its a matter of who is making the rulings. In this case, the issue with the jurisdiction was Jon Norheim, the Clark County guardianship commissioner. He seemed to rubber stamp whatever the predatory guardians put before him.

reverend_gonzo 9y ago

I think there's a couple preventative measures. First, don't go into things like nursing homes, elderly living communities, etc. Those are prime targets. Second, if you have wealth, give it to someone you trust, or put it into a trust. If you don't have wealth, well, there's not much for them to try to take from you.

soundwave106 9y ago

Normally, this is the standard process in most states that I am aware of. So yes, this is a big gap in my mind in the New Yorker article. Taking Florida's as an example (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0744/Sections/0744.312.html http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Displ...), the state gives strong preference to bloodline or marriage. The court has to declare in writing pretty specific reasons to appoint a professional guardian. Nevada's laws (https://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-159.html https://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-159.html), although not as strong as Florida, does seem to indicate preference for bloodline or spouse. So I wonder how they ended up with a professional guardian / fraudster in the first place. I understand that sometimes this happens due to family disagreements over who should be appointed, or inability to care for one reason or another. Maybe that happened in these cases. Incidentally, you can also declare, in your will, a medical power of attorney which basically pre-lays out the guardianship lineage in your preferred order. From what I understand, courts tend to use the medical power of attorney preferences well over anything else, so this is probably one of the strongest ways to prevent this sort of situation.

bzbarsky 9y ago
I think the article does in fact explain how this could have happened: 1) The professional guardian moved for an emergency ex parte hearing, without notification to family members, getting to speak to the court first, and unopposed. 2) The professional guardian mentioned the family members in her court filings, and indicated they were unfit for various reasons. 3) The courts didn't really check the professional guardian's claims. Those seem like facts, assuming the article can be trusted. What follows are my conjectures based on those facts: 4) The judge is in on it, fundamentally. At the very least, he thinks professional guardians are just a better idea than family members, and hence he was just looking for justification to ignore the preference-for-bloodline statute. 5) Item #3 is a consequence of #4 to some extent. The judge has no real incentive to double-check things here, and it's extra work, so why do it? The resulting lack of consequences described in the article indicates that this was a rational call on the judge's part, as far as that goes. 6) Item #2 gives cover to the judge to act on the predisposition I describe in item #4.