Doris and Rio Hamilton allege
that after they consulted lawyer CaraLyn Banks, she proceeded –
without telling them – to have Ms. Hamilton declared mentally
incompetent and Advocate Services (AS) appointed to take over her
life and make all her decisions, including banning her son, Rio, from
the house they own together.
Kise and Larry Davis would
understand the Hamiltons’ situation. A well-meaning acquaintance
of Kise reported her deteriorating cognitive abilities. Soon AS
controlled her life, vilifying her beloved stepson, Larry. Banks was
appointed “Kise’s” lawyer. Even after the court ordered Kise
be transferred to California, near Larry, AS and Banks battled for
another year, costing the family another year of agency
fees – PLUS both Larry’s legal fees spent trying to free his
stepmother, and Banks’s fees for opposing on Kise’s behalf, what
Kise and Larry wanted.
While
I’m sure that AS must do some good, families and friends of some AS
“clients” say they don’t like or trust AS. Professionals
who know the guardianship scene here have expressed similar feelings;
and there’s a surprisingly strong dislike of Banks among lawyers
who’ve opposed her in these matters. One lawyer with
firsthand experience with AS said he'd like to see AS shut down,
although there's a shortage of such businesses here.
Others have expressed the belief that judges are "in on it."
However, I’ve seen no basis for believing judges are involved in
any dishonesty. Nor can I say anyone’s committed crimes.
The Hamiltons say Banks and
AS “have demonstrated a pattern of exploitation of the elderly.”
Lawyer Raul Carrillo told a reporter that in the Davis case, the
fight to keep Kise in Cruces was “because of the vested interest of
[AS].”
Banks says AS is one of three
firms she uses, more or less in rotation, that “all three do a good
job,” and that complaints from families are no more frequent with
AS than with others in the field.
We all eventually need help.
The need grows as we age, often living far from family, some of us
without friends or family to provide that help. Too, not all
families are benign, honest, and competent enough to provide care.
But even where intervention
is initially necessary and helpful, do AS and Banks fight to maintain
their roles beyond when they’re really needed? They say they’re
looking out for the “client’s” needs, but it seems a disturbing
pattern. The owner of another agency, though she wouldn’t comment
on AS, said that her company did everything possible to turn over
control quickly to family or friends, as long as someone competent
and honest was willing to take on the responsibility. That makes
sense, both emotionally and financially. AS’s default mode seems
to be to fight for their turf, above all; and
some claim that’s particularly so when real property is involved.
The handyman who called for
help with Kise offered to withdraw the petition once he met her
stepson Larry, saying the move to California made sense. In the
Goldberg case, the well-meaning friend who called Banks regretted it,
and was appalled by how AS conducted its business. Doris Hamilton’s
guardian ad litem, David Lutz, has stipulated to Rio being named his
mother’s guardian. But that hasn’t happened. Maybe AS likes
collecting fees or knows something we don’t.
I’m sure these folks
started with great intentions and do some good; but even
“professionals,” don’t always know what’s right.
- 30 -
[The column above appeared this morning, Sunday, 19 January 202, in the Las Cruces Sun-News ("Guardianship Matters Aren't Easy But Can We Do Better"), as well as on the newspaper's website and on KRWG's website. A spoken version, also on KRWG's website, will air during the week on both KRWG and KTAL, 101.5 FM (Las Cruces Community Radio,)]
 |
| Larry and Kise Davis - credit AARP |
[This was a tough column to write. Many people discussed their experiences at length, and a couple of the lawyers even alleged that different judges here are "in it" with Advocate Services and Ms. Banks. (As mentioned above, I do not agree.) For obvious reasons, they didn't want their names used. Others allege criminal conduct. While I don't want to allege things of which I'm not certain, the fact that so many lawyers and others feel the deck is stacked against them has independent significance, in my view. I respect the judges involved. They may have an understandable sympathy with people doing the difficult work of caring for folks whose minds have softened, particularly professionals. Similarly I mention the lawyers' complaints about Banks not to allege misconduct based on that but because in my fairly long legal career, most lawyers we dealt with we came away respecting us as adversaries, or mixing that respect with acknowledgment of their shortcomings; but it was extremely rare to feel the kind of bitterness that several local lawyers express concerning cases with Banks. That's unfortunate, whatever the explanation may be. More often, I see (and believe in) a certain collegial approach, more cooperative where that's appropriate, with as little acrimony as possible -- even with camaraderie except when duty to clients requires lawyers to say negative things about each other that are warranted by fact.
I did speak with Ms. Banks briefly regarding this opinion column. I asked about the Hamilton case, but she said Ms. Hamilton had been her client (despite the Hamiltons' denial of that) and that people, including Rio, had brought Mrs. Hamilton to her office more than once over a couple of years. I did ask her why, with regard to Kise Davis, she and Advocate Services had fought so long after the Judge ordered Kise transferred to California. She said that was only because the house took a long time to sell. That startled me. My memory was otherwise, and I checked with someone more intimately involved in the case during its last year. It certainly seems that if the problem was a delay in selling the house, Ms. Banks or Advocate Services could have articulated that, without arguing that moving to California was too expensive for Kise or that Larry was losing his own cognitive abilities -- and without the necessity for a whole new set of lawyers, with a whole new set of fees, to enforce the judge's order.]
[NOTE 21January: This was not a formal comment on the column, but was a response from a mutual friend of mine and Ms. Hamilton's, with her perspective. Another friend had sent her the column, noting that Ms. Hamilton had been bright and lively and smiling at the NAACP MLK breakfast Monday morning, and our mutual friend wrote:
Here are some other details that you may not know;
Dorris Hamilton had to get "PERMISSION" from her "guardian", Advocate Services to attend yesterday's MLK Breakfast. She had to ask Advocate Services to purchase a ticket for her because she doesn't have access to her own money.
But, for years, and even until August of 2019, Dorris Hamilton attended these events independently. And because Dorris Hamilton has such a kind heart; each year, she purchased a batch of tickets and gave them to students and to others who were less fortunate; those who couldn't afford the ticket price themselves. But Dorris Hamilton couldn't purchase tickets for others this year because SHE NO LONGER HAS ACCESS TO HER OWN MONEY!
To see such a generous and loving person be relegated to asking for permission (from a for-profit agency, no-less) to do things that she has done routinely for years, is sickening. To add insult to the injury; after the event, she had to be returned to her "cage" as if she is nothing more than a prisoner on work-release. Meanwhile, her house sits empty and her son is paying to live somewhere else. He cannot live in his own house, because the "guardian" won't allow it. This is UNACCEPTABLE! And, as many others have pointed out, this is not an isolated incident, rather, this is a pattern.
I am grateful for the community support, and pray that Dorris Hamilton and her son will be freed from these predators sooner than later!
[In shortening the column for radio, and altering for listeners rather than readers, I ended it:
"I’m sure these folks started with great intentions and do some good; but even “professionals,” don’t always know what’s right. Maybe sometimes our expertise gets in the way of seeing clearly into human hearts."
Despite my grave doubts about some of what these folks do, my own more limited experience with folks whose minds are slipping into the fog has convinced me that dealing with them can be challenging. However, that doesn't excuse anything and everything."]
[An emailed comment on the newspaper column read, in part:
"Thanks for the discussion of a characteristic of our legal system that has made me wary for decades. My dad (a 6th grade graduate of the Baltimore City Schools) repeatedly said to avoid dealing with those that profited from others' misery. As a consequence he avoided doctors, lawyers, cops and bankers like the plague. From his vantage point in the "19teens" in the Baltimore slums, that was his conclusion. Your column presents the quagmire that can quickly result from placing trust in our commercial or legal system.
Over the years I modified my "inherited views". My life crossed paths with all the "forbidden folks" on my dad's list. Since my paths crossed these folks paths in a social setting, I saw them to be humans trapped in the same nonsense as the rest of us. This probably why societies tend to degenerate over time to where an implosion or explosion wrecks the whole system. When this happens a lot of folks get damaged also. So we muddle on. Not sure what I would do to fix it. Sort of like draining a swamp full of alligators.
Thanks for the thought provoking presentation!!]
No comments:
Post a Comment