Beyond Britney: Abuse, Exploitation, And Death Inside America’s Guardianship Industry

For people under guardianship, the system can be dehumanizing, dangerous, and even deadly. For the professionals — who can control hundreds of people at a time — it can be very profitable. A BuzzFeed News investigation. By Heidi Blake and Katie J.M. Baker Posted on September 17, 2021, at 1:02 p.m. ET Beyond Britney This is part 1 of a BuzzFeed News investigation Part 2: They Both Fought To Break Free From Guardianship. Only One Escaped. Part 3: “My Human Rights Are Being Violated”: Fighting A Family Conservatorship They can isolate you: A teenager with cerebral palsy was snatched from the school gates and hidden from his parents. They can bleed you dry: A successful rheumatologist was declared incapacitated after a bout of depression and lost her million-dollar waterfront home. And they can leave you to die: A 46-year-old man died under a do-not-resuscitate order that went against the desperate pleas of his wife. All three nightmares share a common cause: These people had been placed under the care — and control — of legal guardians. America’s guardianship system was designed as a last resort to be used only in the rare and drastic event that someone is totally incapacitated by mental or physical disability. In those cases, conscientious guardians can provide vital support, often in complex and distressing circumstances. But an investigation by BuzzFeed News has found that the system has grown into a vast, lucrative, and poorly regulated industry that has subsumed more than a million people, many of whom insist they are capable of making their own decisions, and placed them at risk of abuse, theft, and even death. The #FreeBritney movement has drawn international attention to the case of Britney Spears, and wrongdoing by individual guardians… Read More

QUICK EASY SHARE OPTIONS PRESS + FOR MORE

Justice Sleeps While Seniors Suffer

Justice Sleeps While Seniors Suffer Emmeline Frey was wheeled toward the bench, escorted by a family friend. She was 93 years old and frail, suffering from dementia and a broken hip. In San Diego County’s busy Probate Court, it was up to Judge Thomas R. Mitchell to decide how to preserve the $1 million she had amassed pinching pennies over a lifetime. On the recommendation of Frey’s attorney, he appointed a professional conservator named Donna Daum. Frey’s affairs were now in the hands of a caretaker acting under court supervision. Her money should have been safe. It was not. Daum gave her son, a car salesman turned financial advisor, more than $500,000 of Frey’s savings to invest. Over the next four years, the investments lost more than $100,000 in value while the son collected commissions. Mitchell, who described himself as the “super father” of the seniors who entered his courtroom, never questioned what Daum was doing with her client’s money or why her son was involved. The case illustrates how inaction and inattention by the courts have left many elderly Californians vulnerable to abuse by the very people entrusted with their care. Professional conservators wield enormous power over people deemed too infirm to look after themselves. They choose their doctors, control their bank accounts and decide where they will live — even who can visit them. Probate courts, which appoint conservators, are supposed to monitor their conduct, scrutinize their financial reports and fine or remove those who misuse their authority. Yet the courts have failed dismally in this vital role. A Times examination of more than 2,400 conservatorship cases since 1997 found that judges frequently overlooked incompetence, neglect and outright theft. Some conservators steered business to friends and relatives without… Read More

QUICK EASY SHARE OPTIONS PRESS + FOR MORE