We couldn’t believe when we started down this path how expensive and unjust the system is that protects corrupt guardians.  Really, people tried to tell us, but we thought the horror stories were one-offs or anomalies.  We believed in the judicial system, the sanctity of our constitutional rights, and the court’s oversight of guardianship.  We believed all of those formed obstacles to Jeff’s parents abuser and created a protective hedge around them.

The Guardianship system is the wolf in shepherd’s clothing.  Corrupt guardians pose as benevolent protectors of the vulnerable, while following the mantra, “isolate, medicate, steal the estate”, with the courts seemingly endorsing the behavior.

We saw this with Joan Messler, left home unbathed for 3 weeks and with no food except a piece of moldy bread on her counter while under the “care” of a limited guardianship with Kristyan Calhoun.  (After Calhoun’s resignation we are happy to report that Ms. Messler has found better care with a reputable certified guardian.)

We saw it with Jeff’s parents, as Calhoun fleeced their estate, failed to pay any bills other than her own fees, and neglected to give Jeff’s father a pneumonia shot even after Jeff’s constant requests.  (His father died of pneumonia.)

And then there’s the Dorothy Helm case.

Presumed Capacity

We are familiar with the term, “innocent until proven guilty” – our constitutional rights remain intact until we are proven guilty.  The sacred principle of presumed innocence puts the burden of proof on the accusing party.  It is a legal right in the U.S. (and many other countries) and also an international human right under the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 11.  We retain all of our rights – including our right to be treated as innocent of a crime – until our guilt is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Or, until a Guardian falsely states we lack the capacity to act for ourselves.

There is no presumed capacity.  There is no burden on anyone making allegations of our incapacity to actually prove our incapacity.  In fact, in many guardianship cases the “alleged incapacitated person (AIP)” never even appears in court before being placed in guardianship.

And the courts fully support this.

In Dorothy Helm’s case, Certified Professional Guardian Kristyan Calhoun filed a petition for guardianship over Dorothy, stating falsely that Dorothy suffered from dementia and Calhoun repeated this phrase throughout her petition to justify the need for Dorothy to be placed in a guardianship.

Never mind that just two months prior, Dorothy had been released to an assisted living facility and her discharge papers (the most recent medical records in her and Calhoun’s possession), stated clearly she did NOT have dementia.

Dorothy did what you or I would do – she fought this tooth and nail.  Calhoun and her team inundated Dorothy with motions, running up legal fees which they (and Calhoun) paid from Dorothy’s assets.  Dorothy’s only option was to fight to prove her capacity, or allow herself to be placed in a guardianship.  The difference is, once Calhoun made the false statement that Dorothy had dementia, every move Dorothy made was perceived as the misguided efforts of an incapacitated person.

Dorothy wanted to put the case in front of a trial jury, believing that putting the decision outside of the court system would give her a fair shake at reinstating her rights (not defending — they’d already been taken).  However, Calhoun had lost in trial before due to her carelessness so likely wasn’t interested in letting Dorothy’s case go to trial.

When Calhoun depleted Dorothy’s assets and then wanted to have her petition dismissed, she still wanted reimbursement stating that she’d brought the petition in good faith.  This was even after the Guardian ad Litem stated that she believed a guardianship over Dorothy would “not work”.  Superior Court Judge McCarthy decided in Calhoun’s favor, denying Dorothy “discovery” – the ability to depose Calhoun and get a clear statement from her why she brought the petition – and awarding fees to Calhoun.  This essentially endorsed that any person could make false statements as to the capacity of another and engage in a long drawn-out legal battle, making tons of money as the person simply tried to prove they had capacity.

The Money Printing Machine of Guardianship Petitions

Calhoun was no stranger to the financial benefits of filing guardianship petitions in Yakima County — whether they resulted in a guardianship or not, the petitioner and legal team were consistently awarded fees at the victim’s expense.

In the case of Lois Layman, a guardianship petition filed by Lois’s nephew (and seeking to appoint Calhoun) went to a 12-person jury trial.  The jury found in favor of Ms. Layman.  However, in yet another case of the court system protecting and enabling the guardian, Judge Blaine Gibson awarded fees to the losing party.  His reasoning?  Lois could better afford it.

So, you can fight to try to retain your “capacity” and rights, and lose thousands of dollars; or you can capitulate and lose thousands of dollars.  The corrupt system always wins.

(As an aside I’m working on an article about Judge Blaine Gibson’s decisions and disregard for individual’s rights.  Stay tuned.)

Appealing For Your Rights

I will never forget the first time I met Dorothy.  It was when the Guardianship petition was first being heard.  I met her in the hallway and introduced myself.  I wanted her to know she had friends, people who supported her, people who knew the hell she faced.  Her blue eyes were wet.  She pulled her grey hair back in a tight bun and wore practical sneakers, a purple skirt, a green sweater and shawl.  She looked every bit the sweet little old grandmother who probably bakes and quilts. (It turns out Dorothy is a fabulous quilter.)  Her sweet little old grandmother persona belied who she was as a fighter.  She shook my hand and said, “First they took my property, now they want to take my life!”

Dorothy appealed the decision by Judge McCarthy to dismiss Calhoun’s petition and award fees to Calhoun.

The Appellate Court denied the appeal and made what I think is a telling and incredibly dangerous statement, “While Ms. Calhoun technically misstated Ms. Helm O’Dell’s mental health diagnosis, the significance of Ms. Helm O’Dell’s mental health struggles and memory lapses were similar to what a lay person would think of as dementia.”

Such statements really illustrate the depth of mental illness stigmas and the impact of them on our ability to retain and protect our rights.  Judge Pennell incorrectly lumps dementia into the same category as depression or even heart conditions (which can cause memory lapses and short term memory loss), and erroneously asserts any of these are good enough reasons to strip someone of their rights and place them in guardianship.  THIS IS HOW OUR RIGHTS ARE TAKEN AWAY!

Further, the decision states, “It is unfortunate that this litigation has resulted in depletion of Ms. Helm O’Dell’s estate. But this is due at least in part to litigation decisions made by Ms. Helm O’Dell and her attorney. Ms. Helm O’Dell and her attorney could have reduced expenses by seeking county reimbursement of attorney and GAL fees. The record on appeal indicates the superior court had a reasonable basis for concern that Ms. Helm O’Dell’s attorney was running up the costs of litigation. We find no reason to second guess the superior court’s assessment of fees and costs.”

Dorothy’s decisions were to either defend herself against the numerous motions filed against her and the petition, or to capitulate.  Calhoun and her team filed 9 motions in this case.  Dorothy filed two.  Yet, the Appellate Court instead decides to reprimand Dorothy by saying, “well, it wouldn’t be so expensive if you didn’t fight it.”  That’s like saying rape or assault wouldn’t hurt if you’d just hold still.

Pennell then takes a jab at Dorothy’s attorney with a misstatement that the “superior court had a reasonable basis for concern that Ms. Helm O’Dell’s attorney was running up the costs of litigation.”  No such record or statement exists.  Likely because it’s so easily refutable — Ms. Helm had one attorney.  Ms. Helm simply defended herself.  Nothing more.  However we’ve seen numerous billing statements by Calhoun, who employed at least two attorneys for her petition.

The Appellate Court’s decision opens the door for further corruption and endorses it.

No one is safe.