So I pose to those who have the answers these five riddles:
1. How can the same Judge who handled William's restraining/harassment/protection orders be the same Judge who heard the case for Dorothy's Guardianship? Is this not a conflict of interest?
2. How can any document that Dorothy signed, including power of attorney forms citing her son as her caretaker be null and void due to a Judicial order of incompetence based on NO MEDICAL DOCUMENTATION IN SUPPORT OF THIS DECISION.
3. How is it that any document signed by Dorothy for the last two years are nullified EXCEPT FOR the document sealing the land sale of the parcel in Lake Elmo to the developer for $6.3 Million, dated less than 30 days from her declaration of incompetence by the Washington County Courts?
4. The Minnesota guidelines for guardianship state clearly that assessments must be made in order to adjudicate someone as incompetent. These assessments include:
- Medical assessment of the person's diagnosis and treatments, including the cause of the impairment and the possible treatments for such impairments if available. This should be completed by a licensed physician.
- Behavioral assessment of the person's behaviors and decision making skills. This should be completed by a licensed psychologist, care provider, or behavioral specialist.
- Independent living skills assessments of the person's ability to care for him/herself such as dressing, hygiene, the ability to cook for oneself or eat food that is prepared. This should be completed by a licensed care provider, occupational therapist or physical therapist.
- Intelligence testing may be provided by a licensed psychologist or psychiatrist to decide the level of comprehension the prospective ward has with making financial and personal decisions.
I fail to locate these documents in any of the proceedings regarding Dorothy Lyons. Why is that?
5. Minnesota guidelines for guardianship also clearly states that "A person under guardianship or conservatorship retains any civil or constitutional rights not specifically given away by the court", and "Whatever the need may be, the guardian or conservator must always consider the ward’s or protected person’s wishes". The statute further offers these rights to a ward in Minnesota:
- The right to care, comfort, social and recreational needs, training, education, habilitation, and rehabilitation care and services, within available resources;
- The right to be consulted concerning, and to decide to the extent possible, the reasonable care and disposition of the ward or protected person’s clothing, furniture, vehicles, and other personal effects, to object to the disposition of personal property and effects, and to petition the court for a review of the guardian’s or conservator’s proposed disposition;
- The right to personal privacy;
- The right to communication and visitation with persons of the ward or protected person’s choice, provided that if the guardian has found that certain communication or visitation may result in harm to the ward’s health, safety, or well-being, that communication or visitation may be restricted but only to the extent necessary to prevent the harm (Mncourts.gov, 2013).
Why is it that Dorothy has never been explained these rights, nor given the opportunity to exercise them? Additionally, why do all of Dorothy's visitors need to be pre-approved by the guardian. Is this not a blatant violation of her civil rights? Why has she not been consulted on any decisions made by the guardian in regard to her place of residence, level of care and whom she may see?
Who is the true beneficiary of Dorothy's estate? Dorothy, William and I would like to know. Who aims to benefit from these unethical acts committed by the courts, lawyers and guardian in this case? We demand answers.
References
Conservatorship And Guardianship in MInnesota (GAC101). (2013). Retrieved from Minnesota Conference of Chief Judges website: http://www.mncourts.gov/forms/GAC101.pdf
