Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Comments
Bookmark This
del.icio.us.
Digg!
furl
google
newsvine
reddit
technorati
Facebook
Yahoo!Judge William McLafferty last week ordered Montecito resident Patricia Rosen to the care of a public guardian despite her strenuous objections and those of her son, Brian Rosen. The hearing grew testy at times, with bailiffs barking out orders to Rosen’s posse of supporters to take their seats and McLafferty telling Brian Rosen he did not wish to hear from him any further. Additionally, McLafferty limited the hours Rosen could see her son. In recent years, two private conservators quit Rosen’s service, citing irreconcilable differences with Brian Rosen, whom they’ve accused of relentless interference and obstruction. (Two restraining orders were obtained against Brian Rosen; both were rescinded.) He, in turn, has accused the conservators of attempting to loot his mother’s estate. Patricia Rosen has argued that she does not need help from anyone anymore and that the cloudiness of thought that accompanied the car crash that claimed the life of her husband and then later was exacerbated by chemotherapy treatment for cancer has passed. McLafferty insisted that she submit to another neuro-psychiatric evaluation — results of previous tests yielded conflicting indications — before cutting her loose. When Rosen refused to take a third test, the judge ordered her private conservator to be replaced with a public guardian.
Double-clicking on any word or phrase in this story will open a reference window with definitions and links to other reference material.
Previous Month
Comments
Discussion Guidelines
Disorder in the Court is an appropriate title!
Unfortunately, there is money to be made off of Patricia Rosen - for the conservator and all the attorneys, etc. A contested conservatorship is a lawyer feast.
Conservatorship is a good law, gone bad. The laws are designed to "guard" the vulnerable person, "conserve" his/her assets, and "protect" the public from the ward becoming a public charge.
None of those three noble goals is being met. Instead, conservatorship is harming the very people who the proceedings are supposed to protect!
Conservatorship wards are stripped of all rights: the right to decide where to live and whom to associate with, how to spend (or save!) ones own money, to accept or refuse medical treatment -- or even ask for a second opinion, marry, vote, etc. Most important, wards are stripped of the right to complain.
With the fox guarding the henhouse and the hens muzzled, conservators and their attorneys can easily unjustly enrich themselves at the expense and to the detriment of the very person they have been court-appointed to protect.
Many wards are forcibly taken from their homes and isolated in nursing homes against their will – and family is not permitted to visit or have any information or input regarding medical “care”. Wards die prematurely – alone and afraid. The devastation victims and families suffer at the hands of the system haunts them for the rest of their lives.
And where to the victims go for help? Many go to the AG, only to be turned away because the abuse has been court-sanctioned.
Visit NASGA at StopGuardianAbuse.org or NASGA’s blog at http://NASGA-StopGuardianAbuse.blogspot.... for more information.
Forewarned is forearmed!
Yours,
Elaine Renoire
NASGA
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 1 • Thumbs Down: 1 of 1
ElaineRenoire (anonymous profile)
May 29, 2009 at 6:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Post a comment