California conservatorship reform

Iris L.

California has a new law to make it harder to get conservatorship and to make it easier to get out of one.  This might be great for adults like Britney Spears, but what about others who will never regain their intellect and judgement?  I could not copy a link, but you can search for "California conservatorship reform".

Iris

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Iris L.

Thank you for the links, Victoria.  I don't know why it took thirteen years for Britney to be released from her conservatorship, and I don't see how her case applies to PWDs.  I see nothing but chaos stemming from this.  I mean more chaos, because it is already chaotic to get legal guardianship for a PWD.

Iris

GothicGremlin

What happened to Britney Spears was just horrible, and I think the state was right to put new procedures in place to protect people like her. However, people like Britney Spears and people with Alzheimer's are not in the same boat.

The intent of the law is good, but the application is problematic. People with Alzheimer's get taken advantage of, and putting in safeguards is a help. But this law fails to recognize that while people in Britney Spears' position can, and do, recover, people with Alzheimer's don't. In fact, they get progressively worse. Having them engage (depending on their stage and their symptoms) in "supported decisionmaking" is just too painful to even think about. It's like the lawmakers didn't talk to anyone knowledgeable about Alzheimer's before they came up with the bill.

In my opinion, they should have introduced separate sections to address people with Alzheimer's.

https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1663/2021

From the legiscan link:

This bill would require the court to provide conservators with written information concerning the conservator’s obligations to support the conservatee. The bill would require the court, within 30 days of the establishment of a conservatorship and annually thereafter, to provide conservatees under the court’s jurisdiction with written information regarding their rights, including a personalized list of the rights the conservatee retains. The bill would expand the annual duties and reporting requirements of court investigators conducting required visits to assess the progress of the conservatorship. The bill would revise the procedures for termination of a limited conservatorship by requiring the court to terminate an uncontested petition for termination under specified circumstances, and without a hearing.

I like the idea of giving conservators more education, and I like the idea of giving conservatees information about their rights. In the case of people with Alzheimer's, more information is good up to a certain point in their disease, and then it just becomes too much for them. I can't imagine giving Peggy a laundry list of her rights right now. She'd forget the whole list a minute after I gave it to her.

I also like that there are more reporting requirements. I think requirements go a long way towards keeping conservators honest.

The bill would establish a supported decisionmaking process and a process for entering into a supported decisionmaking agreement for adults with disabilities, as defined. The bill would define “supported decisionmaking” as an individualized process of supporting and accommodating an adult with a disability to enable them to make life decisions without impeding the self-determination of the adult. The bill would authorize an adult with a disability to request and have present one or more adults, including supporters, in any meeting or communication. The bill would set forth the duties of supporters and would specify the elements of a written supported decisionmaking agreement, if one is used.

Now there's a nightmare waiting to happen.

If I apply this to my own situation, I could easily see Peggy wanting both me and my brother to be involved. She would want this because she would want me and my brother to be valued equally, and having us both aid her in decision making would be a way to do that.

What she would never understand is that my brother has almost no critical thinking skills, and has no ability to tell real information from scams. He sees something that looks positive and runs with it, and gets angry if we all don't immediately jump onboard.

Right after Peggy was diagnosed, he wanted her to use the Bredesen protocols, and he kept sending me to "wellness" web pages filled with scammy come-ons for very expensive supplements. In fact, it was the whole Bredesen thing that got me to sign up on this site. It might have even been the first question I asked of people here.

Under this law, I'd have to deal with my brother until I got a court to shut him down. I have enough stress in my life without that! I'm getting hives just thinking about it. I'm sure others besides me have problematic relatives, so while in theory this section is good, in practice it could be a real nightmare.

SunnyAB

Might this help PWD who are not quite impaired enough to qualify for full conservatorship but who are still wreaking havoc with some of their life decisions (such as finances) and could use the help of court-ordered assistance?  It could give families another option rather than having to wait until the situation is at catastrophic levels. 

On the flip side, if some judges are inclined to grant conservatorship to PWD who clearly need help but who are not yet at the "totally incapacitated" level, "supported decision making" could give a judge another option rather than prematurely granting conservatorship in an effort to help someone and respond to a need. 

Based on my cursory reading of the bill, my understanding is that "supported decision making" is not a required step in the conservatorship process, it is simply another option for those that qualify for it.