Rick Green wrote this article about how ugly a conservatorship proceeding can turn in Connecticut.
I’ve represented people who have been involved in very difficult conservatorship proceedings that end up being a drain on not only their finances but their dignity.
Contested conservatorship proceedings can be ugly for all involved.
The unfortunate thing is that often times contested conservatorship hearings are avoidable.
Connecticut’s new conservatorship laws gives great deference to the choices of the individual and to considering means less restrictive than a conservatorship.
In many instances, a contested hearing can be avoided with a little advanced planning.
It’s important for all Connecticut residents to consider what would happen to them if they were to become suddenly incapacitated – even and perhaps especially young people.
If you haven’t already you should speak with a Connecticut attorney regarding: an appointment of a healthcare agent, a living trust, a will, a designation of conservator, a voluntary conservatorship, a living will, and a power of an attorney.
Every situation is different and only an attorney who knows your case can advise you on how best to plan for incapacity and possibly prevent the need to be conserved.
A little advanced planning can save you money, protect your wishes, and possibly spare your family a bitter proceeding.
___________________
This is an updated post which was first published in March.
Part 1
The new law is worthless is a probate judge will not even schedule a hearing on the new law.
I am listing below the problems with the legal system from the problems of just 1 mentally ill person ran into in the last 4 years. additional info at hubbard_jr@yahoo.com.
I am concerned for the administration of justice in Connecticut for the mentally ill and especially for those hundreds of patients in Connecticut Valley Hospital (CVH) in Middletown, CT. This is a list of the issues that comprise that concern for the administration of justice:
1.The attorneys that are the most familiar with the patients at CVH, those from Connecticut Legal Rights Project(CLRP), are prohibited by consent decree in Doe v Hogan 1989 US District Court on page 10 section D from representing patients in most matters in probate court or on any matter where statute provides legal representation.
2.There is no mandatory training for attorneys that represent the mentally ill in probate court, a complex area of the law, although CLRP is providing some voluntary training.
3.All of the attorneys for the mentally ill at CVH are appointed by the same judge- which decreases the independence of the attorneys.
4.All of the hearings for the mentally ill are held in a room at a CVH residential facility and is therefore not a neutral site.
5.None of the indigent patients have any outside psychiatric witnesses at any hearing to determine their release and therefore the judge has any little legally justifiable basis to release the patient except at the request of the hospital.
6.The same judge hears all the cases and is elected by the community and therefore susceptible to making rulings that will be unlikely to cause him problems at re-election.
7.The appointment of attorneys' to represent a patient is not seen by the attorneys as authorization to represent the patient in an appeal to the Superior Court if the ruling is adverse to the interest of the patient (Example: see exhibit 4).
8.The local bar members seem unwilling to represent patients in Superior Court even if their customary fee is paid (see exhibit 1 part V).
9.The local attorneys seem to be unwilling to even take the civil case of a mentally ill person even when assigned by the Superior Court (See exhibit 1 Part V) .
Reply
Part 2 additional info at hubbard_jr@yahoo.com
pg 2
10.The Attorney Statewide Grievance Committee is unwilling to appoint counsel for an indigent person to prosecute a grievance against a probate court appointed attorney. (See Exhibit 201 page 3)
11.A person cannot get a Superior Court Judge to appoint an attorney to prosecute a complaint against a probate court appointed attorney in the Statewide Grievance Committee because that would be ex-parte communication with the Superior Court Judge (See exhibit 105 of a letter drafted to Judge Pickard that was blocked by the court clerk, because it was deemed ex-parte communication with a judge).
12.The Connecticut Legal Rights Project is unwilling to provide counsel for an indigent person to prosecute a grievance against a probate court appointed attorney. ( See exhibit 201 page 1)
13.Office of Protection and Advocacy has refused to represent patients to grieve their probate court appointed attorney in the Statewide Grievance Committee. The Office of Protection and Advocacy has indicated in a letter that they provide legal assistance, but when you call them, they say “not really”, we just provide legal referrals.
14.Office of Protection and Advocacy has a strict policy that creates a catch 22 for the mentally ill. The Office of Protection and Advocacy makes sure that if a “next friend” tries to assist in soliciting their assistance to protect a patient, their primary response is solely to determine if the patient is in absolute agreement with the request. (See exhibit 107) If not then they seem mandated to never do anything for the patient, deeming the entire request to be the concern of the advocate and not the patient, and then can therefore do nothing for the patient with immunity. And the advocate can never get a straight answer about the issue because they are claiming they are protecting the confidentiality of the patient.
15.The Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities(CHRO) is unable to handle any complaints other than employment and housing and public accommodations. It is therefore completely useless in protecting the mentally ill for any but these issues. (Request for assistance, see exhibit 106)
16.The Legislature passed PA 07-116 that gives all Connecticut residents the right to not have a conservator under certain circumstances. Unfortunately Judge Marino has decided that he will not appoint an attorney to any patients at CVH to adjudicate the effect of the new law on their rights (See exhibit 1 Part VI) .
17.The Legislature passed PA 07-116 does deal with affirmative jurisdiction of the probate court over persons. The issue is unclear if that means that a person has the right to the probate court in his Connecticut hometown or just deals with the jurisdiction of the court in dealing with out of state residents. Judge Marino was requested to have a hearing on this matter ( See exhibit 1 part VI), but after more than a year, no hearing has been scheduled.
18.There is currently a shortage of supportive housing and group homes that would be the ideal place to put a person being discharged from CVH, and as a result the Middletown Probate Court is abusing its power to prevent people from being discharged from the hospital without going to the ideal suportive housing or group home (See Exhibit 1).
19.None of the law school clinics, when consulted, were able to help patients at CVH in their legal difficulties.
pg. 3
20.Connecticut Legal Aid, when asked to help indicated that they would be unable to help with any conservator issues for persons under the age of 60, although they said to another agency that am not correct about the age restriction. But that is what I was last told personally.
21.This list does not attempt to deal with the issues that the mentally ill may face in the Superior Court, because after 4 years we have never gotten there.
Reply