Latest Posts

Up All Night

Posted in Probate on Wednesday June 23 2010 @ 6:48pm

While the world slept, court-o-rama was up late eating macaroni and cheese and watching Charlie Rose. (Anything for the blog!)

What a fantastic topic and panel! Experts around Charlie's table discussed mental health issues -- diagnosis, genetic roots, neurology, treatment, health care (including a tip o' the hat to the new parity laws), and effects on the family.

All somewhat familiar ground. What was different here were the panelists -- two of whom suffer from major mental illnesses. Imagine devoting your career to solving a disease from which you yourself suffer. This wrinkle did not go unnoticed by Mr. Rose.

Where's the court-related lesson, you ask? If you're around the courts and legal system for any length of time, you're bound to encounter mental illness in some form or another. Civil commitment, guardianship, domestic relations, crime -- the nexus between legal and mental looms large. So see Charlie Rose Brain Series Episode Nine (June 22, 2010). You'll be glad you did.

Bronx Jeer

Posted in Probate on Wednesday June 03 2009 @ 1:09pm

What's as good as cash?

The answer is not risky securities.

Yet, the Bronx Surrogate's Court office of public administration invested millions from the dead not-so-wisely.

Frankly, we're surprised this doesn't happen more often. As the demographic ages and market slumps, watch for this kind of accident to happen more often.

How can it be avoided? Pay attention to these offices and officers. Make rules regarding the types of investments that may or may not be made (although many such rules already exist). Let the sun shine in.

See Audit: Court Invested Bronx Estate Cash Illegally, Barbara Ross, New York Daily News (June 1, 2009).

Where in the World is Court-O-Rama?

Posted in Probate on Saturday April 18 2009 @ 6:49pm

Here in NYC for the ABA ADR Section spring conference!

Our panel on probate mediation, consisting of Lela Love (Cardozo) and Karen Borgstrom (New Hampshire courts) was a hit. Thanks to everyone who attended, and even greater thanks to those who stayed all the way through!

More later...

Who Ya Gonna Call?

Posted in Probate on Tuesday April 14 2009 @ 8:47am

Your aged mother left the stove on again. In an odd twist of fate, children want to take the car away from dad. Who ya gonna call? Elder mediators!

If demographics and the decades-long trend favoring ADR is any guide, elder mediators will be as common as baristas in a few years.

See Mediators Help Families, Joseph Shapiro, Morning Edition (April 13, 2009), particularly the many expert comments.

Probate Reform

Posted in Probate on Friday January 23 2009 @ 8:58am

This time of year, everyone is turning over a new leaf. Whether it's the inauguration, the Year of the Ox, or fresh and (as-yet) still unbroken New Year's resolutions, everyone is trying to better themselves and renew their surroundings.

We've written before about Connecticut's probate court troubles. Probate is in high demand as the population ages; the courts lose $20,000 a day. The system is strained.

Reform is on the way. While we were unable to locate the actual report, we hear that the courts will encourage voluntary consolidation, streamline finances and operations, restructure compensation, and create an appellate track.

See Probate Court Reform Plan Released, Newsday (January 22, 2009).

Somewhat OT but very fine work -- see the OLR Research Report on Silver Alert Legislation by Nicole Dube (January 7, 2009). Connecticut's legislative analysts do it again!

Method to the Madness: Some Fool Tried It

Posted in Probate on Wednesday December 10 2008 @ 2:06pm

If you've ever giggled at the directions on product labels, you know there are some pretty crazy rules out there. They exist for a reason even sillier than the rules themselves: because some fool tried it, or is about to...

Not to make light of the issue, but it is the same (to some extent) with human rights. If you've ever read a guide to mental health patient or inmate rights, you were probably (hopefully) amazed that some of these obvious things -- the right to hot, edible meals or the right to be free of humiliating treatment -- needed to be written down. Again, they're set to the page because some fool tried it.

It has come to light that people who complained about corruption in China were civilly (?) committed. Hospital staff (?) forcibly medicated them against their will. (It's hard to find the proper words to use here, hence the question marks.)

This treatment is in addition to the initial cause of the citizen complaints -- police beatings, damaged property, and other grievances. Others were hospitalized for practicing their chosen religion. In sum, a broken system.

See Locked Up for Complaining in China, Chris Hogg, BBC (December 10, 2008); Whistleblowers Sent to Mental Ward, Chinese Paper Says, Andrew Jacobs, International Herald Tribune (December 8, 2008).

Jurisdictions are forever re-examining their probate and civil commitment procedures and laws. Employers are constantly revisiting their policies protecting whistleblowers. If some of the rules and policies seem extraneous, recall why they were written down in the first place.

Jailhouse Talk

Posted in Probate on Wednesday November 19 2008 @ 7:33am

Never been to jail but just a leeetle curious about what it's like on the inside? Ask Kiefer Sutherland!

All lights, no smokes, no motor car, not a single luxury.

Lost Boy tells all: Sutherland Says Jail Was Bad, Chicago Tribune (November 19, 2008).

Great PR of sorts for every commentator out there who thinks jail is too nice a deal. As Prof. Groot used to say, "We send people to jail as punishment, not for punishment."

Meanwhile, Britney Spears Calls Her Life Worse Than a Jail Sentence, Monique Jessen, People (November 18, 2008). The Toxic young lady has a point. With jail, there's a beginning, middle, and end. With a more fuzzy situation such as conservatorship or civil commitment, it's not over until They say so.

So who would you rather be -- Kiefer or Britney?

Funding (or Not) Probate Courts

Posted in Probate on Tuesday October 14 2008 @ 6:33am

How are probate courts funded?

Morbid as it sounds, it would seem that as a sizable chunk of the population steps ever-nearer to the grave, probate courts would have no worries. But like everyone else today, probate courts have economic problems, too.

Connecticut, one of the wealthiest states in the Union, is having trouble funding its probate courts. Part of the problem is its scheme. Estate cases from the wealthy suburban courts fund the urban guardianship cases. Sounds like a plan, right?

Not when guardianship cases are through the roof. The estate cases can't keep up with the mental health crisis. The probate court loses $1 million every two months! (Go read that again. We'll wait...)

OK, now that we've recovered from sticker shock, what to do? A new funding system is the most obvious choice. Keeping costs down for guardianship cases would also help. An overall re-assessment of the mental health system couldn't hurt -- why are there so many guardianships needed?

See Report: State's Probate System Loses $20,000 Daily, AP/Newsday (October 9, 2008).

See also the fine work by George Coppolo, Chief Attorney for the OLR: Probate Court--Indigent People (July 25, 2008).

Parity On, Dude!

Posted in Probate on Wednesday September 24 2008 @ 8:35am

Congress, consumers, and the legal and medical communities have been debating parity for decades. When insurance covers physical, but not (often underlying) mental ailments, patients fall through the cracks. The falling causes a ripple effect touching employment, families, education, and neighborhoods -- everything we touch. Law enforcement and the legal system are called on to fix a sinkhole with Silly Putty.

What does this mean for courts? What if parity = beds?

One of the challenges courts face in dealing with parties suffering from substance abuse and/or mental illness is space. Where will people stay? Are there enough beds in a long-term facility or halfway house? Are there enough spaces in an outpatient program? All the least-restrictive alternatives and discharge plans one can imagine don't mean a thing if there's no room for new patients in them.

Money plus demand drives availability of services. If insurers anticipate paying as much for mental health as they do for physical, then it stands to reason (or at least wishful thinking) that more mental health help will become available once parity is established on a broader basis. If nothing else, broad parity laws mean that intellectually we've determined that mental health is as real an issue as its somatic counterpart.

See Congress Passes Mental Health Parity Bill, Jacob Goldstein, WSJ (September 24, 2008), and Congress Approves Mental Health Bill, Lyndsey Layton, Washington Post (September 24, 2008). From court-o-rama's past, see Keeping Score (March 5, 2008), and a discussion of parity and preemption in Medically Necessary (February 29, 2008).

Finding Probate Mediation

Posted in Probate on Friday August 15 2008 @ 7:49pm

We've long bemoaned the lack of ADR cases in probate, despite the surge in programs and a proliferation of rules. Don't people read Rogers & McEwan before committing their final wishes to paper? Or does everyone think their heirs are somehow immune to squabbling?

Elizabeth Kent, director of the Hawai'i State Judiciary's Center for ADR, let us know that they've had probate mediation rules since 1996.

She writes "you hit the nail on the head that often these are very good cases for mediation [...] with the aging of the baby boomers there are bound to be more situations that call for mediation." Elizabeth also noted that ADR is a great forum for adult guardianship issues (and in fact, is recommended by the National Probate Court Standards).

So, where have all the cases gone? No numbers from the island, but cases do exist. How do we get people to mediate probate cases more often? Savvy decedents could consider ADR before croaking. Savvy (if squabbling) heirs could try to insist. Barring those, judges could push parties in the direction of the mediator's office.

In spite of the communal gasping sound we hear from community mediators right now (sorry, Tim!), pushing may be best. It's not paternalistic -- it's staying true to the wishes of the decedent. Nobody, dead or alive, wants fighting children. Being dead, there's simply no way to say "don't make me stop this car!" without court intervention.

Next 10 Posts >>

court-o-rama.org

the least dangerous blog

Categories