Incapable persons can easily lose control of their property.

Courts can be complicit in what could be considered financial abuse by allowing orders not followed, or enforced, to be modified by subsequent orders, even when the court is informed the first order was not complied with.

Mrs. C, and some of her belongings, were removed from her home in April 2014. Sometime later M. reported:

The coins were brought to his (A.’s) place because it seemed very clear that quite a few have gone missing …  He is planning to take them to Wayne for more feedback but has not done so yet.  According to our lawyer he is acting properly to safeguard and verify Mom’s property.  M. Nov 7, 2014

The coins (and an extensive stamp collection not mentioned in the email but removed at the same time) were Mrs. Childs belongings. They were at A.’s on April 25, 2015 when M. was court ordered to:

“This Court Orders that [M.] shall deliver [Mrs. C] from [A.’s] home to Sand Lake at 3:00pm Saturday April 25, 2015 together with her belongings and all medication”

M. did not return the coins and stamps – though they are certainly Mrs. C’s belongings – and were at A.’s.

When this became an issue Section 3 (state appointed counsel) said

“Real property could be removed if Mrs. Childs’ doesn’t need it or miss it.” Section 3 did not consult with Mrs. C to find out if she didn’t need it or miss it.

There were then some 19 meeting and calls between Section 3, counsel for the property guardian and counsel for M. What was discussed is not know – but about October 21, 2015 the property guardian brought a motion that included the provision:

“This Court further Orders that any personal property currently in the possession of other family members shall herby be preserved and retained by them pending [Mrs. C’s] death”

Neither Section 3 or the counsel for the property guardian informed the Judge that the property in possession of others was the coins and stamps not returned under the April order.

On Nov. 13, responding to that motion, C. informed the court that M. had not complied with the April Order and that the Mrs. C’s property was still in possession of A.

Counsel for the property guardian subsequently stated:

“I can advise that I’ve spoken with A. today, who has told me that he is going to bring to BMO a stamp collection and coins.  So I think that deals with the concerns about the belongings versus personal items.”

The Judge did not change the Order and approved and entered it.

Where Mrs. C’s property is now I have no idea.