Hello and thanks for following the blog.  And thank you for the kind emails and words of support, it means so much!

In our quest to advocate for victims of guardianship abuse, we found the case of Dorothy Helm.  Our article about her case attracted some attention, even being brought up in a declaration as the reason that Kristyan Calhoun of Senior Avenues wanted to have the petition for guardianship dismissed.  This was a victory for Dorothy and for us – proof that shining a light on the bad practices of these guardians and the legal community that supports them can bring about change.

Motion to Dismiss Petition for Guardianship

Calhoun’s attorney filed a motion to dismiss the petition in late March.  If granted, it would remove Calhoun from Dorothy’s life.

(AIP = “Alleged Incapacitated Person” – in this case, Dorothy; Mr. Young = Dan Young, Dorothy’s attorney; Petitioner = Calhoun) 

In his motion he filed a declaration that states in part:

40. AIP or Mr. Young has contacted other individuals that have left poor reviews on Petitioner’s social media outlets. Mr. Young has referenced these individual and their matters with Petitioner in his pleadings.
41. These individuals were informed of the proceedings and have appeared in court. One such individual is upset with Petitioner because she sought and obtained a protection order against him after an evidentiary hearing based upon both physical harm and financial protection order exploitation against his mother.
42. Another individual has taken to posting statements on the internet regarding these proceedings, that misconstrue events, demonstrate a blatant disregard for the truth and are in some cases outright fabrications. Petitioner is referenced by name and vilified for her actions in these statements.

Also, the motion is supported by a declaration of Kristyan Calhoun, which reads in part:

11. Further, it is clear that either AIP or Mr. Young have made contact with individuals that have left negative reviews on social media regarding me or my company. It should be pointed out that these individuals are not my clients.
12. At the hearing on January 10, 2019, these individuals were present in the court. One was proven to be physically abusive and financially exploitative of his mother.
13. Another, has begun posting statements online regarding this case. What is being posted misconstrues events and the proceedings. There are clear fabrications in the statements regarding the execution of AIP’s power of attorney, sale of AIP’s properties, attempts at revocation of the power of attorney and use of AIP’s funds. The statement is clearly intended to injury me and my company. See “Attachment G.” [Exhibit G is this blog post.] Of note in this statement is the assertion that the single largest expense of AIP has been my fees. This is not true, but the statement implies that the author has reviewed accountings. All accountings have been filed under seal with the court. Her only access to that information would have been through AIP and her attorney.
14. I am no longer willing to continue to expend the resources and suffer attempts at intimidation and defamation of my character and business. AIP clearly demonstrated that she will do anything to prevent the establishment of a guardianship.

An Opportunity To Be Heard

In a way this was a good thing.  By involving Jeff and I and this blog, we could respond with our declaration.  This may not have any impact on the current case, but having our story told and on record is important for our long-term goal of guardianship reform.  You can read the entire declaration here (pdf), and here are some highlights:

7. Calhoun states that one of the individuals that attended Ms. Helm’s hearing on January 10, 2019 has begun posting statements online regarding this case. Dec. of Kristyan Calhoun, ¶ 13.  She claims that these posts misconstrue events and proceedings, and states that they contain clear fabrications intended to injure her and her company. Dec. of Kristyan Calhoun, ¶ 13. She provided a copy of one of my recent Guardianship Focus blog posts to support her claims, but she did not specify what events are misconstrued or what statements are fabrications. Attachment G of Dec. of Kristyan Calhoun.  The statements contained in this blog post came directly from public court records.  I did not obtain this information from the AIP or from Mr. Young as she asserts in her declaration.  Dec. of Kristyan Calhoun, ¶ 13.
8. Calhoun infers from my blog post that I must have reviewed the AIP’s accountings, but then confusingly asserts that my statement about her fees is not true.  Dec. of Kristyan Calhoun, ¶ 13. I did not review the AIP’s accountings as I have no access to them. The fees were discussed in court proceedings, including Ms. Calhoun’s fees generated from hand-delivering a check to Ms. Helm.
9. Calhoun appears to be blaming Ms. Helm for “attempts at intimidation and defamation of [Ms. Calhoun’s] character and business.” Dec. of Kristyan Calhoun, ¶ 14. Ms. Helm had no part whatsoever in the production of any of my Guardianship Focus blog posts.
10. In fact, Ms. Calhoun is no stranger to using tactics of intimidation and defamation. My husband and I attempted to obtain accounting records from Ms. Calhoun, who is acting as the power of attorney for my mother-in-law, Kathryn Owen. When we requested Ms. Calhoun to provide accounting statements of the money she is spending from Kathryn Owen’s estate, she responded through her attorney in a letter, stating we would have to sue her in court and risk the loss of attorney’s fees.  See Ex. A.   Her letter contained a veiled threat that she will attempt to go after my husband for breach of fiduciary duty, a claim that is completely trumped up and defamatory per se to the extent that she is telling this narrative to people in the community.
11. Prior to Ms. Calhoun become Kathryn’s attorney-in-fact, she had the role of Guardian and/or Temporary Guardian of my husband’s parents, Keith and Kathryn Owen, she violated at least 13 Standards of Practice.  These include:
    • Making false statements to Kathryn Owen and other family members and professionals about the character and integrity of my husband, Jeff Owen, creating a hostile situation in which he was not safe to visit his parents without threat of a VAPO.
    • Allowing commercial liability insurance of Keith and Kathryn Owen’s commercial rental property to lapse due to non-payment.  (December 2016 and again in July 2017)
    • Allowing utility bills to go unpaid, utilities to be disconnected, and Kathryn’s account to be sent to collections due to non-payment. (July 2017)
    • Bouncing a check to the Assisted Living facility in the amount of $5890.00, drafted from the joint account of Jeff Owen, Keith Owen, and Kathryn Owen.
    • Frequent disconnect notices for AT&T due to non-payment.
    • Not providing Keith with the prescription glasses he needed in order to perform his daily activities and enjoy himself, stating she was “too busy”.
    • Not providing Keith with his regular pneumonia shot, nor updating the family on the status of the shot.  Keith died of pneumonia in June of 2017.
    • Entering Keith’s hospital room without a mask when she stated she had a bronchial infection and was contagious.

The Hearing

We attended the hearing on April 19th, along with other victims of Calhoun’s practices.

Both parties were in agreement that the motion for dismissal should be granted.  However, they disagreed on whether fees should be awarded to Calhoun.  The decision hinged on Calhoun’s argument that she brought the guardianship petition “in good faith”.

Calhoun’s attorney simply stated that she brought the petition in good faith.  The reasons he presented centered around allegations that Dorothy’s brother was attempting to exploit Dorothy.  In fact, Dorothy sought to replace Calhoun with Dorothy’s brother as PoA.

Calhoun also stated in the petition that Dorothy suffered from Dementia.  In fact, Dorothy has never been diagnosed with dementia even after extensive testing.  Dorothy doesn’t have dementia.  Calhoun is not a psychologist and lacks the ability to make such a diagnosis.

During Mr. Young’s argument, he stated that Dorothy lived in an Assisted Living facility where she had an exemplary record of participating in all duties assigned to her.  She was a model citizen there and demonstrated her ability to live independently.  Judge McCarthy interrupted Mr. Young and asked if it was true that all residents of that particular facility had mental illness.  Mr. Young stated that of course he had no idea, but that people with mental illnesses do not need guardians in every case.

This was a telling and important glimpse into McCarthy’s mindset.  He summarily lumped all mental illnesses into one heading, and through his statement demonstrated a bias toward guardianship without regard for any other solutions.  In fact, the statute states that when seeking guardianship, “less restrictive alternatives” should be explored.  Never were less restrictive alternatives even presented.  That alone would give a reasonable person pause.  If you are bi-polar or have depression or PTSD and live in Yakima County, you should be concerned that your constitutional rights will be stripped away by a judge whose statements indicate that he believes mental illness and guardianship go hand-in-hand.  (FYI, he’s up for re-election in 2020 and we are actively seeking candidates to run against him.  Apparently we are not alone in our observations.)

Judge McCarthy also made statements to the effect that the whole reason the case had dragged out so long was that Dorothy kept fighting it.  He appeared resentful that Dorothy was so adamantly opposed to losing her constitutional rights.

Guardian ad Litem Amelia (Amy) Clark also spoke at the hearing.  Ms. Clark’s role is to evaluate the “AIP” by performing interviews of Dorothy, her physicians, caregivers, family, etc.  In our research of other cases, there is a disturbing trend of incomplete reports presented by Ms. Clark.  In fact, in Dorothy’s case (which has gone on for over a year, despite the statute requiring no more than 2 months to resolve it), Ms. Clark never filed a complete report.  Keep an eye on this blog as we’ll be sharing more on that topic later.

Calhoun’s attorney argued that she brought the petition in good faith and thus should be awarded fees for their efforts.  The estimate of fees at that point were around $60,000 for Calhoun and $7500 for Clark.

It was stated in court that Dorothy’s assets were estimated to be somewhere north of $300,000 in late 2017.  As of the hearing date (4/19/19), she was stated to have around $27,000 and was only receiving a portion of her Social Security per month ($400).

The Decision

It was good, bad, and ugly.

The motion for dismissal was granted without prejudice.  This is good, it completely removes Calhoun from Dorothy’s life.  Dorothy can now receive her full Social Security check, without paying exorbitant sums to have it hand delivered.

However, Judge McCarthy simply stated, with no regard for evidence to the contrary, that the petition for guardianship was brought in good faith.  He awarded fees of $4500 to Ms. Clark for her incomplete report she presented in April of 2018 and $5000 to Calhoun.

Calhoun’s attorney Tyler Farmer then asked if they could pursue fees at a later date.  (In court it was stated that Dorothy may be receiving an inheritance later).  Judge McCarthy granted the request.  Dorothy’s attorney Dan Young asked for a time limit, and McCarthy spit-balled 4 years.

Summary

Dorothy gets somewhat of a reprieve from the guardianship matter, but what about the loss of her assets?  With the decision McCarthy handed down, it is possible that Dorothy could win or at least settle in her case in Kitsap County (against Calhoun) and any proceeds from that could be taken by Calhoun for “fees” for this case.

I hope that Dorothy has the wherewithal to appeal the decision to allow Calhoun to seek fees from Dorothy over the next 4 years.  I would imagine that just not having to deal with Calhoun in her personal life is a tremendous relief.

However, with the threat of fees looming over her head, it makes it difficult for Dorothy to plan, to line up whatever assistance she may want or need, and to live her life the way that she had planned and worked toward for years.

I was able to visit with Dorothy after the hearing, before she’d had a chance to speak with her attorney.  She was happy to be rid of Calhoun, frustrated by the judge’s obvious bias, and very discouraged that they could still be seeking further fees from her over the next four years.

I asked her about her property in Kitsap County — one of them a rental that Calhoun sold for $28,000.  The buyer (Calhoun’s realtor buddy Tom Parker) made no improvements to it and even left the same renters in there in the 9 months after he bought it before a freak tornado touched down, obliterating the rental.  Fortunately, no one was hurt.  The insurance payout on the rental (not the property, just the rental)= $92,000.

My personal opinion is that Dorothy will be offered all kinds of settlement options as a settlement wouldl keep everyone in business and licensed.  Calhoun’s prior bankruptcy combined with the facts of the Kitsap County case, and her breach of financial duty to Jeff’s parents would surely get her sanctioned by the Certified Professional Guardian Board, wouldn’t it?  Given that with her bankruptcy she shouldn’t even have been certified to begin with, I’m skeptical.

We’ll keep you posted.

Meanwhile, the victims of guardianship abuse by Calhoun just keep rolling in.  If you or someone you know is a victim of Guardianship abuse, please contact us at info@guardianshipfocus.com.

Keep Dorothy in your thoughts.