Movie "I Care A Lot" - question about accuracy (No spoilers)

[Amethyst]

In the Netflix movie, "I Care A Lot," an evil woman connives with an evil doctor and a stupid judge to obtain "emergency" guardianship of old people who have money, but no one to look out for them. The doctor exaggerates patients' early dementia to make it seem as if they are a danger to themselves. An "Emergency" guardianship hearing is held, unbeknownst to the victim.

The evil guardian shows up at a rich old woman's door with a court order. The old woman questions this, so the guardian shows her some police officers and a squad car with lights flashing. The intimidated woman assents, is allowed to pack one suitcase, and is driven to a care facility where they take away her cellphone. The guardian and accomplices quickly strip the woman's home, auction the contents, put it up for sale and take over all her other assets.

The whole thing came across like the Nazis knocking on the door and dragging people off to Auschwitz. Since we don't live in Nazi Germany, my question: What would have happened if the old woman (who, according to the script, had some problems but was capable of living alone) have said "No, thanks," closed the door, and called her lawyer? Could the police have taken action to remove the woman against her will?

 

[Nemo2]

Could the police have taken action to remove the woman against her will?

Since it's a movie I guess that's up to the writers.

 

[ExFlyBoy5]

While I have not seen the movie, this can be a problem and a recent thread in a lawyers forum illustrated to me that it's not an isolated problem. The Britney Spears case is one famous case (although she isn't "imprisoned" as can happen in the worst cases) Here is some reading for you:

https://www.ktnv.com/news/contact-1...ship-abuse-case-says-it-s-not-about-the-money

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/07/nyregion/court-appointed-guardianship-like-prison.html

And one of the most egregious abuses by an attorney...it got her 40 years in prison:

https://www.reviewjournal.com/crime...er Nevada guardian,for much of Friday morning.

A story prior to the attorney going to prison:

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/10/09/how-the-elderly-lose-their-rights

 

[Amethyst]

Sure, and the writers could've had Superman appear to rescue her, if they'd wanted to. I'm wondering what actually would occur if the "ward" refused to leave the home, and shut the door. I mean, what would you do, in the old woman's place?

Since it's a movie I guess that's up to the writers.

 

[Amethyst]

I read the New Yorker story about April Parks's horrible racket. It was never clear to me whether the old people only went along with her because they were intimidated, or whether she actually could compel them to go.

While I have not seen the movie, this can be a problem and a recent thread in a lawyers forum illustrated to me that it's not an isolated problem. The Britney Spears case is one famous case (although she isn't "imprisoned" as can happen in the worst cases) Here is some reading for you:

https://www.ktnv.com/news/contact-1...ship-abuse-case-says-it-s-not-about-the-money

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/07/nyregion/court-appointed-guardianship-like-prison.html

And one of the most egregious abuses by an attorney...it got her 40 years in prison:

https://www.reviewjournal.com/crime...er Nevada guardian,for much of Friday morning.

A story prior to the attorney going to prison:

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/10/09/how-the-elderly-lose-their-rights

 

[ExFlyBoy5]

I read the New Yorker story about April Parks's horrible racket. It was never clear to me whether the old people only went along with her because they were intimidated, or whether she actually could compel them to go.

Many of them were compelled. Some of the court filings are down right scary to read.

Here is some additional information: http://aaapg.net/

 

[Nemo2]

Sure, and the writers could've had Superman appear to rescue her, if they'd wanted to. I'm wondering what actually would occur if the "ward" refused to leave the home, and shut the door. I mean, what would you do, in the old woman's place?

I understand your point; I don't watch TV news, but from what I read there isn't a lot, presented as fact nowadays, that doesn't strain credulity...the highly improbable presented as irrefutable......and that's worldwide.

 

[Amethyst]

So far, no one has actually addressed the question of what the woman, legally, could have done, other than go along with the bad guys. It's true, we find out more later on in the movie about what this particular woman might have done...but no spoilers.

I've tried looking it up but all I get is stuff about how you shouldn't let things get to "that point" (i.e. have a DPOA). Nothing about what to do when the knock comes on the door.

 

[ExFlyBoy5]

I've tried looking it up but all I get is stuff about how you shouldn't let things get to "that point" (i.e. have a DPOA). Nothing about what to do when the knock comes on the door.

Have a really good lawyer on retainer?

So far, no one has actually addressed the question of what the woman, legally, could have done, other than go along with the bad guys.

I would explain what little I understand, but the law varies WILDLY depending on where you are. The mechanisms are different, the standards of proof are different, and well it's a VERY complicated area of law; that is why it's one of the most expensive malpractice insurance "practices." Oh, and I haven't seen the movie, so I can't even fathom what the fact pattern would be to even start to apply the law.

 

[MichaelB]

So far, no one has actually addressed the question of what the woman, legally, could have done, other than go along with the bad guys. It's true, we find out more later on in the movie about what this particular woman might have done...but no spoilers.

I've tried looking it up but all I get is stuff about how you shouldn't let things get to "that point" (i.e. have a DPOA). Nothing about what to do when the knock comes on the door.

The little bit I’ve read on this indicates the predators probe and filter, looking for particularly vulnerable candidates that are susceptible to influence and direction, and have no one else looking out for them. So, people unlikely to challenge this when it happens.

Someone who has the wherewithal to stand up to one of these efforts would be discarded as a candidate, not worth the effort.

My mother worked as a home health care nurse, most of her patients were seniors. She often said it was not uncommon for nurses to develop relationships with seniors under their care, their objective ending to gain access to assets.

Seniors are a vulnerable population and predators are ruthless.

 

[ExFlyBoy5]

The little bit I’ve read on this indicates the predators probe and filter, looking for particularly vulnerable candidates that are susceptible to influence and direction, and have no one else looking out for them. So, people unlikely to challenge this when it happens.

Someone who has the wherewithal to stand up to one of these efforts would be discarded as a candidate, not worth the effort.

My mother worked as a home health care nurse, most of her patients were seniors. She often said it was not uncommon for nurses to develop relationships with seniors under their care, their objective ending to gain access to assets.

Seniors are a vulnerable population and predators are ruthless.

Our family used the same banker for YEARS. No matter what bank she went to, they went with her. They appreciated her service and were very loyal. Nonetheless, she got caught up in a scheme to defraud an elderly widow who owned a very large parcel of land in up and coming NW Atlanta. While she didn't go to prison (worked a deal to send others to prison) it was eye opening to see her caught up in it. My parent's attorney (who also practices estate planning and does guardianships) was also very surprised as she was her banker as well.

Best thing is having at least TWO totally independent folks help monitor your situation. I know this is probably difficult in practice, but the threat is very real.

 

[Music Lover]

I understand your point; I don't watch TV news, but from what I read there isn't a lot, presented as fact nowadays, that doesn't strain credulity...the highly improbable presented as irrefutable......and that's worldwide.

Yup, what some supposedly credible sources claim as fact these days is completely wrong...and even worse, they know it but don't care.

The only thing that surprises me is that so many people, some of them intelligent continue to get duped.

 

[Jerry1]

So far, no one has actually addressed the question of what the woman, legally, could have done, other than go along with the bad guys. It's true, we find out more later on in the movie about what this particular woman might have done...but no spoilers.

I've tried looking it up but all I get is stuff about how you shouldn't let things get to "that point" (i.e. have a DPOA). Nothing about what to do when the knock comes on the door.

Nothing. By the time they’re at the door, it’s too late. Her refusing to go would then leave things up to the police. But, if someone is dragging you out of your house holding a court ordered guardianship, I don’t think there’s anything anyone can do at that point. Then, you need an advocate. The Britney Spears situation is a good example. Look how difficult it has been for her to even get her concerns addressed.

There was a case locally and DW and me were just yelling at the tv - how could that happen?? That case even had family members that were challenging the guardianship. Once the court orders it, it seems very difficult to reverse. Probably because you’ve probably been declared incompetent to take care of yourself.

 

[JoeWras]

Then, you need an advocate. The Britney Spears situation is a good example. Look how difficult it has been for her to even get her concerns addressed.

There was a case locally and DW and me were just yelling at the tv - how could that happen?? That case even had family members that were challenging the guardianship. Once the court orders it, it seems very difficult to reverse. Probably because you’ve probably been declared incompetent to take care of yourself.

This.

Once you go into the land of guardianship, it is difficult to undo. I highly recommend anyone watch the NYT episode on the Britney Spears case if you have Hulu.

I find this area of the law to be distressing as someone who has no heirs, is the youngest of siblings and cousins, and I doubt my nieces and nephews have a prayer of caring.

 

[ExFlyBoy5]

The Britney Spears situation is a good example. Look how difficult it has been for her to even get her concerns addressed.

She isn't a great example for the simple fact that us outside observers are not privy to her mental issues outside of what is reported (probably inaccurately). I am not licensed in California, but some of the attorneys that are familiar with California law have noted that the type of guardianship that was awarded is for someone with a mental issue that WILL NOT resolve and is essentially permanent. A couple of thoughts who are familiar with California law:

Conservatorship attorney here, just finished watching the doc. Britney is under a private probate conservatorship of person and estate. This type of conservatorship is governed by Ca Probate Code and is indefinite once established. Accounts of the estate are reviewed every 2 years. These are different from a LPS conservatorship that is renewed yearly, with the hopes that the conservatee will get better.

Whatever that court investigator uncovered and the information in the capacity declaration, it was enough to find that her mental health condition was not going to improve.

Most ER 5150 holds result in LPS conservatorships. Especially for young people. We all have hopes they will get better. In Britney’s case she went from ER to Probate conservatorship which is not very common.

People usually try and establish these conservatorships when people are at their worst. So it’s usually not difficult to get a judge to find the petition true since the conservatee is in such a bad state.

LPS conservatorships expire yearly. A Probate conservatorship (as used in Spear's case) goes on indefinitely as the standard to establish one is that they will never get better. (Probate Code). If the doctors believed she would get better then they would establish a LPS conservatorship that must be renewed every 12 months and each renewal requires 2 doctor declarations.

Worth noting that probate CSHIPS have court investigator follow up interviews with the conservatee every two years. If the conservatee raises some kind of new objection, the investigator's report to the court will almost always trigger a review hearing and a new court appointed attorney for the conservatee.

 

[socca]

... but the law varies WILDLY depending on where you are.

Yeah - I suspect that generalizations aren't too useful.

I watched a documentary last year (sorry - no link) where the scenario described in the first half of the movie actually happened. Some details:
(1) the victim (an older gent) lived in Massachusetts;
(2) the victim owned some valuable local real estate;
(3) a banker reported the victim (a client) to the authorities as mentally impaired;
(4) state-appointed lawyers seized and sold off the victim's assets;
(5) in the documentary, the victim was sufficiently mentally 'with it' to be upset that his assets were sold without his permission.

I've heard enough anecdotal horror stories about Florida guardianship to want to avoid this fate if at all possible.

 

[JoeWras]

She isn't a great example for the simple fact that us outside observers are not privy to her mental issues outside of what is reported (probably inaccurately). I am not licensed in California, but some of the attorneys that are familiar with California law have noted that the type of guardianship that was awarded is for someone with a mental issue that WILL NOT resolve and is essentially permanent. A couple of thoughts who are familiar with California law:

This was covered in the documentary. All of this is sealed, so nobody can discuss it.

However, I still find it very disconcerting because it gives the doctors an awful lot of power. Perhaps they are right. But what if they are not? Has anyone ever had a bad diagnosis from a doctor?

And then you have the cases of the scammers who worked with doctors who were in on the scam. I'm not saying that happened in Spear's case, I'm just saying in general we've seen this happen with vulnerable populations.

 

[RetiredAndLovingIt]

That New Yorker story about April Parks and her cohorts is absolutely horrifying. I had no idea that this kind of thing could happen in the USA. This is a good reminder that I need to get all my documents in order before the mind starts to go. I've been stalling on it for the past couple of years now.

 

[Jerry1]

She isn't a great example for the simple fact that us outside observers are not privy to her mental issues outside of what is reported (probably inaccurately). I am not licensed in California, but some of the attorneys that are familiar with California law have noted that the type of guardianship that was awarded is for someone with a mental issue that WILL NOT resolve and is essentially permanent. A couple of thoughts who are familiar with California law:

Wouldn’t that be similar to anyone with dementia?

Point is well taken to discuss this with any family you have, an attorney and even a trusted friend. Being alone seems dangerous in these cases.

 

[ExFlyBoy5]

This was covered in the documentary. All of this is sealed, so nobody can discuss it.

However, I still find it very disconcerting because it gives the doctors an awful lot of power. Perhaps they are right. But what if they are not? Has anyone ever had a bad diagnosis from a doctor?

And then you have the cases of the scammers who worked with doctors who were in on the scam. I'm not saying that happened in Spear's case, I'm just saying in general we've seen this happen with vulnerable populations.

It is a scary preposition no matter what the "truth" might be in regards to Spears (and others). I hold out hope that the system works as well as it can (multiple doctors, etc.) but as we know...there is no absolutely perfect system, especially when $$$ are involved.

Wouldn’t that be similar to anyone with dementia?

Point is well taken to discuss this with any family you have, an attorney and even a trusted friend. Being alone seems dangerous in these cases.

I think it would be very similar to dementia. I haven't personally known anyone with a significant mental impairment but it happens and it can be permanent. Sometimes the chemicals just can't be balanced.

 

[Gumby]

This is all reminding me of "The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo".

 

[Aerides]

(haven't seen it, but going by the description here): The gaps in the story - that challenge the legality and likelihood - seem to fall in the process of how the court order was obtained.

We assume that the judge isn't compromised...but decided to sign the emergency binding order without insisting on interviewing the woman first and having a court appointed doctor complete an exam. And that they made a permanent decision without doing so. At best I would imagine - IRL - that a temporary order would be put in place to "rescue" the woman and have an independent assessment.

A complete asset confiscation and guardianship setup on one court appointment with a non-compromised judge seems like a stretch. Even if the judge is on the take it seems like a leap that all that happens from a first order.

 

[rodi]

My husband is guardian of my mother in law due to dementia. He has had to reapply for guardianship in 3 states as she moved facilities. There were numerous safeguards to protect MIL. Here's some details.

MIL's dementia became problematic in caring for FIL (wheelchair bound with aphasia and dementia on top - needed caretaking.) SIL visited daily and did her best to help out/etc... but was working full time. State social services (Adult protective services) got involved when FIL fell back in his wheelchair and banged his head - when arriving at the hospital bed sores were noted. Over time the state insisted that FIL needed more than MIL could provide with her mild dementia - and since she was the only one with POA for FIL and refused to let him be put in a home, someone needed to get guardianship of both of them. Emergence hearing gave DH immediate guardianship of FIL (and he was put in a home the next day). MIL's non-emergency hearing was set. She had to be assessed by a medical doctor, a psychiatrist, the social worker. She hired a lawyer to represent her. The state provided a lawyer to advocate for guardianship being issued (to DH) since the state social services were mandating this. MILs primary care doctor tried to refuse to fill out the paperwork until the social worker explained it wasn't optional. No one was telling her what to say, just that the form was required. (Doctor confirmed early dementia but said MIL could live independently with support.)

It was sad when DH got guardianship because MIL was extremely upset. However, MIL remained in her home for another year or two until she became unsafe. Final straw was her freaking out on a car ride to her granddaughter's wedding and throwing herself from the backseat of a moving car. fractured vertebrae. Since SIL was burnt out from being the person on the ground caring for MIL, and MIL was asking to move back to PA to be nearer her siblings and 3 of her kids - she was placed in a memory unit in PA. Her sister was at the same facility in assisted living.

PA accepted the reciprocity of guardianship to an extent... but PA had some additional hoops to jump through to get the guardianship transferred. DH had to file financials every year to show that money wasn't being stolen. While in PA the house in KY was sold and proceeds had to be documented/shown to both states (KY and PA) to confirm the money was being put into her accounts and for her use.

After several years in PA we moved MIL to a memory care unit that is in Michigan, about 1/4 mile from youngest BIL. He visits her 5-6 times a week and has assumed guardianship of person (medical decisions). DH continues to be financial guardian. Michigan, again, while recognizing the PA (and previous KY) guardianship, required additional hoops.... Including a full financial analysis. MIL never trusted stocks - having her federal TSP 100% in the bond fund, having a big stack of paper EE bonds, and her IRAs in CDs. DH kept this super conservative allocation because her pension and SS cover most of her expenses and it was the AA MIL wanted. The state appointed financial person tried to insist that DH needed to invest in stocks or mutual funds (preferably through her firm.) He went through the state social service agency to get this person to back off. So the state appointed person (private - and MILs money was dinged for the fee) tried to put MILs money at risk. Michigan requires even more in-depth financials than KY or PA...

Back to the emergency guardianship. FIL was not physically able to be at the hearing, nor competant enough to know what was going on... But the county attorney and county social services department were all over this. It would have been hard to slip a fraud past.

 

[Amethyst]

And look what she had to do to escape her guardian! After paying him one final "visit," of course.

This is all reminding me of "The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo".

 

[Amethyst]

The movie doesn't suggest the judge is compromised; just complacent, not as suspicious as a good judge ought to be. He is completely taken in by the act put on by the guardian and the bad doctor.

The doctor has provided the guardian with a strongly-worded diagnosis of dementia and incompetence. The guardian explains, later on, that in an "emergency" situation, it is not necessary that the patient appear. It is all about their safety and health, because they have no one else looking out for them!

The guardian and accomplices do move fast on her assets, stopping along the way to celebrate because there is so much more wealth than they had realized. This struck me as (I hope) speeded up for the sake of moving the plot along. I wondered why there wasn't someone looking over the guardian's shoulder and demanding a full accounting, as happens with an estate executor. Then again, the point is made that there are so many "wards," and everyone in the System is so overwhelmed, that it's impossible to keep track of every move the guardians make.

(haven't seen it, but going by the description here): The gaps in the story - that challenge the legality and likelihood - seem to fall in the process of how the court order was obtained.

We assume that the judge isn't compromised...but decided to sign the emergency binding order without insisting on interviewing the woman first and having a court appointed doctor complete an exam. And that they made a permanent decision without doing so. At best I would imagine - IRL - that a temporary order would be put in place to "rescue" the woman and have an independent assessment.

A complete asset confiscation and guardianship setup on one court appointment with a non-compromised judge seems like a stretch. Even if the judge is on the take it seems like a leap that all that happens from a first order.