Wednesday, November 12, 2008

Our Elders Deserve More Consideration Than They Currently Get Under Curent System

by Rick Green as published in Courant.Com

I bring you another story about a probate-court kidnapping, another warning of the injustice unfolding in this dangerous, antiquated judicial system.

The tale of 85-year-old Marilyn Plank is a chilling example of why the renegade probate courts must be reined in.Plank, a mentally and physically fragile woman and lifelong resident of Michigan, was stealthily moved to Greenwich by two of her daughters via private jet in May 2007.

She was not a resident of the state of Connecticut.She does not want to be here.

But with the assistance of some slick lawyering, daughter Linda Higgins took control of her mother's assets. Along with another sister, she brought her mother to Greenwich, unbeknownst to three other sisters living elsewhere. One of seven children fighting over control of the family's 1,600-acre ranch in Michigan, Higgins moved the elderly Plank to an assisted living facility in Greenwich. Just days before, she signed a lease in Plank's name.

Plank, court documents say, was told she was going to a hotel. She had left her home in Michigan thinking she would visit a grandchild in California for a few days.

Within days of her arrival in May 2007, Greenwich Probate Judge David Hopper appointed Linda Higgins as temporary "conservator of the person" for her mother, based on the fact that there was a lease with Plank's name on it. That means Plank lost her civil rights.

"The statute is absolutely clear," Superior Court Judge Joseph T. Gormley Jr. stated in 2006 in the infamous case of Daniel Gross, another victim of probate-sanctioned kidnapping. "You can't appoint a conservator of someone's person unless that person is domiciled in the state of Connecticut or resides in the state of Connecticut."Hopper has had numerous chances to correct the mistake of May 2007. For the last eight months, even the plea of a permanent conservator
appointed in July 2007 has gone unanswered."Sooner or later the court will review the domicile of Mrs. Plank," that conservator, Richard J. Margenot, wrote in a brief filed in March.

The law "requires the court to review the domicile every 60 days.""The evidence overwhelmingly supports her wishes. She has friends [in Michigan] that came to probate court … and talked of Mrs. Plank's extensive involvement in her community.""Even through her dementia, Mrs. Plank is consistent in her statements about returning to Michigan," Margenot wrote earlier this year. "A conservator must listen to the wishes of the conserved individual."

"Not only does the evidence support a return to Michigan, it is in her best interest that she do so."Meanwhile, Plank's expensive care in Connecticut — about $9,000 per month at the Greenwich facility — and the fees of numerous lawyers working at $300 and $400 an hour have steadily depleted her estate.

Margenot has concluded that "every day spent in Connecticut puts Mrs. Plank deeper into financial chaos."For a time, the three sisters fighting to move Plank back to Michigan hired state Sen. Andrew McDonald as their lawyer, until they ran out of money. McDonald has been at the forefront of probate reform efforts in the legislature, where he co-chairs the judiciary committee."There is no question but that this court lacks jurisdiction over Mrs. Plank, a citizen, domiciliary and resident of Michigan," McDonald wrote in a brief filed in July 2007.

Plank "has repeatedly expressed to various persons" including her aide, lawyer, pastor and friends that she wants to go home.Plank, McDonald concluded, "was brought here without her consent, admitted to a nursing home under the guise that it was a hotel, and has essentially been incarcerated in a locked facility.

"Maybe Hopper will reconsider. Perhaps Judge Paul Knierim, the new administrator of the unwieldy 117-court probate system, will tackle this rogue judiciary.In the meantime, remember that Marilyn Plank is not an exception.

She is a symptom of a sick court system that unblinkingly sanctions and enables the kidnapping of the elderly and infirm.

Rick Green's column appears on Tuesdays and Fridays. Read his blog at courant.com/rick.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

I am a lawyer. I went to a probate court hearing today. I asked a question to the judge regarding a court policy. The judge never verbalized an answer. Another attorney did the speaking for the judge. The judge nodded in agreement with what was said.

It was when I left the hearing it dawned on me, the judge didn't want to be on the record. I've noticed this judge rarely says anything and lets an attorney who he/she frequently appoints speak for him/her and essentially takes direction from the attorney.

This judge is absolutely not in control of the courtroom. The pet appointees are.

Do I think there is something wrong with the current system? You betcha!

Anonymous said...

There are many reasons why judges do not want to go on the record. And, imagine this, many times there aren't any records, no transcripts of the hearings or proceedings, no record, whatsoever. Deals are made behind closed doors in secrecy.

I have stated many times that the probate system is out of control, with no oversight. We need surprise audits and reviews of probate guardianship and estate cases.

A high profile probate lawyer told me that in many cases "the loop" of powerful probate/estate lawyers run the courtrooms. Your IN or your OUT...period.

Far to many judges are comfortable with this process; many judges are reluctant to rock the boat, irritate/frustrate or question this powerful group of lawyers, so the judges take the easy way out, sort of just let the case float on calm seas and most of the time this strategy works.