About April 28, 2014 Mrs. C’s dream of living out her life at her home ended as one son removed her to his house and the other defended this action. He stated it was her desire but refused to allow me to meet with Mom to confirm that this was the case.
She entered an environment of despicable care and forced isolation. The following is copied from a letter sent to Section 3 and the PGT. It restated information that had been provided in affiavits in their possession for months. At no point did either investigate any of these issues.
- A’s laywer’s April 16/2015 letter that Andrew left Mrs. C’s in her excrement
- The Bayshore Home Health notes that suggest this happened repeatedly
- The pervasive isolation.
- Calls for children and joint attorneys under the PoA limited to 12-1 Sunday.
- M. allowing just a single non-Sunday call after Mom’s March 23 fall
- Restrictions on Mrs. C’s leaving A’s property
- The restrictions and frequent cancellation of visits, even those with lawyers consent
- The lack of contact or phone calls permitted from Mrs. C’s friends and neighbors
- The lack of visits to the doctor for 7 months between April 28 and Nov 26 when incontinence and vomiting had been reported for months.
- The doctors office notes stating Mrs. C’s “hit A. with a stick” and says to doctor “I don’t have a home” which suggest neither happiness and safety.
- The recordings of Mrs C’s cries for help from October to March supplied in transcript and recording form
- Mrs. C’s recorded statement that A. was a Walloper
- Mrs C’s asking me if she could use the washroom as if permission was required
- C. C’s observation of Mrs. C’s recoiling when a friend reached for her
Everyone also had access to reports from Personal Service workers that visited with Mrs. Childs. They state
- “(Mrs. C) is normally in bed when I arrive. She is fully clothed, no nightgown or pajamas”.
- “(Mrs. C) only changes clothes when she’s on her tri-weekly care”
- “(Mrs. C) had no brief on as she removed it and would not put them on … but I did not have any issue when I dressed her and included one”
- “I have asked that (Mrs. C) be given back her bras as she remarked on Monday that not wearing one was making her uncomfortable”
- “Son states only way to avoid her throwing up is not to feed her before a shower. I explained that … she tells me she is hungry and they would not give her breakfast”
- “She has repeated several times on my visits ‘thank god a human, I hate those people’
None of this conforms to the duties of fiduciaries, meets the requirement of the Substitute Decision Act, or conforms to Mrs. C’s Power of Attorney. And then there’s Mrs. C’s statements to numerous people that she had been struck by Andrew. This was relayed to the court via sworn affadavit.
Neither Section 3 or the PGT thought it that was worth speaking to Mrs. Childs about this – in fact both supported a motion that the material be struck from evidence when considering who should be Mrs. Childs guardian.
And through it all A. and M. (a university professor) through their counsel stated:
“At the present time your mother is receiving excellent care in a suitable environment”
The evidence suggests that this wasn’t the case – something the Public Guardian and Mom’s court-appointed lawyer could have investigated – but never did.
Pingback: Conflict of Interest? – part 1 | dignified-dementia.com