Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Name Jeff Dye, Pt·esident & CEO, NMHA
Date July 12, 2017
Phone 505-343-0010
Email [email protected]
Enter Comment
Comment attached
ClEDVIE
JUL 1 2 2017
TI lE©EO'V~ '-='
~ JUL 1 2 2017 ~
To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
New Mexico Hospita l Assodation
New Mexico Supreme Court Adult Guardianship Study Commission
New Mexico Hospital Association
July 12, 2017
Recommendations for Improving Guardianship Capacity
On behalf of the New Mexico Hospital Association and our members who care for patients in psychiatric beds, please accept our recommendations to the New Mexico Supreme Court's Adult Guardianship Study Commission for strengthening New Mexico's Guardianship capacity.
The New Mexico Hospital Association operates an internal Behavioral Health Task Force (BHTF). Comprised of interested hospital members, the Task Force focuses on identifying and resolving behavioral health issues affecting hospitals. In our recently board-approved Strategic Plan, one of the five activities before the BHTF is to "reduce delays in accessing Guardians."
The experience of Gerald Champion Regional Medical Center in Otero County, submitted separately and again in our comments, is not isolated. Several of our member hospitals report similar challenges. CHRISTUS St. Vincent Hospital recently reported holding a patient for several months until a Guardian could be appointed to oversee and make care decisions on the individual's behalf.
Holding patients for days, weeks, or months past their discharge readiness day creates a burden on the individual and the hospital. For the individual, the extended stay denies them access to a more appropriate care setting and a more appropriate therapeutic environment. For the hospital, holding the patient results in that bed not being available for individuals who truly need it. New Mexico struggles with a significant shortage of psychiatric beds; people are transported across the state In search of an open bed, and often wait for days in an Emergency Department waiting for a bed to become available anywhere in the state. Individuals awaiting discharge due to Guardianship delays further exacerbates the problem. While our foremost focus Is on the health of patients, the financial implications of such delays in Guardianship appointment on patients and hospitals cannot be ignored.
Based on discussions of NMHA's BHTF and internal analyses, we offer the following recommendations to the New Mexico Supreme Court's Adult Guardianship Study Commission:
1. We support the creation of a "limited financial conservator" with court authority to investigate and research a patient's financial affairs. Such conservators would not have the power to act on or access the patient's assets. This "limited conservator" would then be able to converse with the appropriate personnel-hospital. financial institutions, and nursing facility- to assist in arranging for placement pending a hearing on the conservatorship. This could significantly
.,
~~-fiiYJhrQlOll ~ 1\U L_~_iUI NewMexico ~ f Hospital Association L..a....-----reduce-ihEM:lnne~sary hospital days in the locked psychiatric unit with the attendant and
significant economic hardship for hospitals; reduce the stress and deterioration of patients' health-both mental and physical; and create greater access to care for the large number of mental health patients who need mental health services.
2. We recommend that the Commission examine whether Medicaid dollars may be used to offset legal expenses. Identifying a permanent, reliable and dedicated funding source for use in the Guardianship I Conservator process should also be a critical component in any comprehensive reform plan. The legal costs, Including the temporary guardian fees, hospitals incur related to petitioning for guardianships and conservatorships for so many of their patients is burdensome at best. Medicaid matching dollars may be employed for temporary guardian fees when the beneficiary qualifies for Medicaid.
3. We recommend that all guardians and conservators be certified. Guardians funded by the Office of Guardianship are required to be certified, but not others. A consistent certification process would help ensure that guardians are educated and well-informed about their duties and responsibilities to the protected person and the court. While we understand that some professional guardians and conservators are not certified, these are people who have many years of associated training, education and experience. For others-such as family members or friends-it often seems to be a daunting and overwhelming experience. Such training could be provided before or after appointment.
Thank you for your consideration. To discuss any of our recommendations further, please contact our Director of Policy, Beth Landon, at [email protected] or 505-343-0010.
Sincerely,
Jeff Dye President & CEO
l))~©ffi:O\f.!E ~ rl JUL 1 4 2017
~
Good Morning! Madam Chair, Commission Me1nbers,
My name is Lorraine Mendiola and I have an adult son who has a mental illness.
One of the items on today's agenda states that some commissioners would like to hear about the guardianship's effect on the mentally ill.
Well, that's precisely the reason I've submitted fou;r testimonies and am here in person to provide the fifth testimony.
If you've read all my testimonies you have a very clear picture of my son's horrific experiences the last 6 years under a Corporate Guardianship. He's been physically assaulted(HIT IN THE FACE & HEAD AREA 4 TIMES) with no medical treatment provided by the Guardian after the assault, lived in a ))ed-bug infestation, smoked marijuna(15 +residents with vecy little supervision), and offered heroin.
At a home in Albuq. he lived in an illegal, incomplete garage conversion. I have documentation from the Albuq. Bldg. Code Dept. that states that the owner never applied for a permit therefore, the stn~cture was uninhabitable. By the way, the owner failed to appear in Metro Court on two separate occassions and has a warrant for his arrest.
It's obvious that this Guardian/Conservator does not inspect boarding homes before placing a client.
He has been incarcerated twice and been hospitalized many, many times at the state hospital in Las Vegas, Anna Kaseman in Albuq., and Christus St. Vincent in Santa Fe.
Each time he's merely stabilized, discharged, returned to the community and placed by his Guardian in another boarding home with horrific living conditions!
-1-
t ' .......... - .. __ ......... - • - .-... .. - ••
! ....... ~ ., • rt • · .. - ·"" 'I ' , •• ~I •-:;:".'' J •. .\ I (( · t I l ... '1 • •t • ' ~ ' 11/fl;o ...; '- :_ ~. ··1· )i 1:1 '!\ 1'\'' 1· ·r I} t rq' I t p, ! I ; '\ 'I ~ I .
~ · . .:. .One thing-he Iia·s. not eA')lerienced; however, is the opportunity and right to learn how to deal with his mental illness and anger - . . . .
through individual therapy. His Corporate Guardian bas failed in their fiduciary duty to provide such crucial and necessary assistance for the last 6 years.
Before the Court appointed this Guardian/ConseiVator my son was attending all monthly pyschiattic and medical appointInents at a local facility, and taldng classes at the local community college.
The system has failed him at evecy level-the legal system through incarceration, the judicial systemaby not listening to my testimony with documentation provided against the Corporate Guardian, and the DDPC-OOG by violating their own rules and regulations policy by not investigating my allegations against this Corporate Guardian.
What do I want this commission to do? I'm requesting that this commission recommend the following actions in your report to the Supreme Court justices:
1. Create a designated authority to investigate allegations against a corporate guardian or family guardian with the power to enforce criminal penalties. Another idea could be to have this designated authority assist the AG's Office with investigations since the AG ·s Office already has the power to enforce. If the AG and his office need further statutes to provide more enforcement, then propose a new statute. DO WHATEVER IT TAKES TO PROTECT THE INCAPACITATED INDIVIDUAL!
2. Follow the existing laws that are in place such as the recent decision to make the "incapacitated individual's" name and docket information available to the public.
3. Create new laws that ensure that ~~incapacitated individuals" are protected against negligence, fraud, abuse of any kind, and embezzlement by a Corporate Guardian,trustee, GALs, Visitors, attorneys, judges, (anyone involved in the guardianship system) with CRIMINAL CHARGES attached if viola~ tions occur. EVERYONE INVOLVED IN THE GUARDIANSHIP PROCESS MUST BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE!
4. Training for District Judges related to guardianship and mental health issues with emphasis on "listening to family members" who present concerns with documentation against the corporate guardian.
The judge's job is to listen to both sides, peruse the provided documentation~ and at a later date give the final unbiased deter .. mination. Hearings are rushed and the guardian's testimony always has the power over the petitioning family member.
At one hearing the judge told me to stop talking and to sit down. Her behavior and attitude were unnecessary, unacceptable~ and very unprofessional!
In conclusion I want you to consider the following questions:
1. Would YOU want a loved one or good friend to experience the devastating events my son has with no recourse to resolve the injustices?
2. Would YOU want to experience these events time after time with no assistance from any state source?
If this commission and the Supreme Court Justices are sincerely interested in changing the guardianship system in New Mexico the "incapacitated individual's" health~ safety~ and welfare must be the top priority!
The state of New Mexico MUST respect and protect its most vulnerable citizens I Anything less is unacceptable I
Thank you.
Name Robert de Sigello
Date 8/112017
Phone 505 277 Olll
Email [email protected]·g
Enter Comment See attached PDF
TI IE©~ 0'¥7~"" ~ AUG - 1 1017 ~
- . lY)
Nc'v lVIc:rico Courts Cnsc Lookup
:JU fU SUL IS f Ollfln. 1'1.:1 t,SJ I HV £J1HliU-fll Sh'\lt("ll <.llllf lUI\.
Rctum --------~----~----------------------------------------------~
@ 2007 Ne\V Mexico COUILS
Guardianship Study Commission Message #14 by Robert deSigello on July 27. 2017
Dear Guardianship Study Commission Members, News Media Professionals, and others:
Today starts a new series of weekly posts, covering statistical analysis ofNew Mexico's courts' administration of the guardianship cases that come before their judges.
While this post is long, we guarantee it will "blow your mind" while shining (smne) light on the secretive process of guardianship, as well as expose how District Courts are 'disappearing' certain guardianship cases from every type of record-keeping - including budgets and annual reports- that might allow the public to monitor the courts, much less provide accurate financial reporting, legal case management, or allow the Legis lature and/or the Govemor's office to conduct meaningful oversight.
Overview: Since we are members of the public, we only have access to guardianship and conservatorship information the AOC (Administrative Office of the Comts) first made available to the public on May 29, 2017, even though statutes and rul.es have existed for years that allowed the pubJjc access to certain information about guardianship and conservatorship cases.
On May 29, 2017, the AOC instJucted its IT division to belatedly begin to confom1 to New Mexico statutes (NMSA45-5-303 CD; NMSA45-5-407(M)) and Rules ofCourt Procedure (NMRA 1-079CD) .Q.1.(2J; NMRA 12- 314CC)f9).CI2)).
For the fll'St time- at least only on-line, so far- the public is finally allowed to access the information that by Legislative Statutes and state Supreme Courts Rules should have been available to the public, without any restrictions, all along, including:
( I) docket entries; (2) date of the proceeding, appointment and termination;
ilij( ;'. -~-:J::jl_,:li -~l ~~; · I (3) dumtion 1f{il~ iguardianship; and ~~~~e : ame ~icJLo.ther information necessary to identify the alleged incapacitated person.
---~Q4olse.th~~i.t.Jthe free time we have to devote to pro bono research into the courts' accurate reporting on itself, we chose four District Courts divisions out ofNew Mexico's 13 Judicial Districts, to focus on:
1. Santa Fe - 1st Judicial District - Code ' 1 01'
2. Albuquerque- znd Judicial District - Code '202'
3. Las Cruses - 3rd Judicial District- Code '307'
4. Bernalillo- 13Lh Judicial District - Code ' 1329'
Trend Analysis of annual new guardianship cases: From the newly-available case docket entries, graphs were created showing the number of new guardiansbips created annually in each of the four District Courts from Jan l , 1998 to June 30, 2017, with the exception of the 3rd Judicial District, Las Cruses, Court Code 307, whose publicly available data begins Jan 1, 2000.
These charts do not reflect whether or not the guardianship or conservatorship was granted or denied, only the number of new cases filed annually in each district. (We will be discussing the rates ofjudges approving or denying petitions for guardianship in a future article, as that is an important metric that should already be tracked and made public by the AOC.)
140
120
100 82
80 68
-~ 60 58
1 40 I ~ '15 20 ""
0
93
New Mexico's 1•' Judicial District Courts 101 -Santa Fe District
128
New Guardianship cases created Jan 1, 1998 to June 30, 2017
111
67 59
iliiii iiiili 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Chart created by Wii/PowerNM.org 2017 cases through 6130/2017
f "2 ~ (J
:f i 'l5
*
400
350
New Mexico's 2"d Judicial District Courts
326
New Guardianship cases created Jan 1, 1998 to June 30, 2017
361 340 335 325
281 298
312 285 300
293 300 279
250
200
150
100
50
0
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Z56 255 262
212 219 194 192
141
I 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Clwrt cmaled by W/1/PowerNM.org
70 73
51 47
I I
New Mexico's 3'd Judicial District Courts Las Cruses District
79
New Guardianship eases eteated Jan 1, 2000 to June 30, 2017
105
79 71
60 62 58
104
2017 cases throvg/P f]/3012017
100
82
50 52
I 41
I 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Cl1erl created by WiiiPowerNM.org 2017 cases //Prough 613012017
~ ro ::> c c
"' ll "' ., ;;;
i .i ~ "' ()
""
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
43
36
28 24
I
New Mexico's 13th Judicial District Courts 13~9 ·Bernalillo District
41
New Guardianship cases created Jan 1, 1998 to June 301 2017
57 55
4A 48
38 38 34
29 28 25
i 1 I i_l 11
I 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
C/1arl cteatea /Jy Wii/PowerNM.org 201 7 cases throug/16130/2017
There are statistical anomalies within each graph that require explanation (presumably from the AOC, since the AOC is the state group in charge of, among many tasks, "Collecting and providing information on and for the courts.'') The anomalies to which we refer are different for each graph/District Court:
• Referring to the cha1t above: In the First Judicial District Court, Santa Fe, from 1998 to 2003, there is an increasing number of new guardianship cases created annually, peaking with 128 new cases created in 2002, then dropping precipitously 2003 to 2004 and basically staying relatively flat at about 40 new cases a year, on average, from 2004 to 20 17. Why is there a large change in the number of new guardianship oases created between 1998-2003, versus the much lower amounts 2005-20 17? ls this due to a change in Santa Fe County's population, or a change in the fi·equency of judges conscripting wards into guardianship?
It
• Referring to the chart above: In the Second Judicial District Court, Albuquerque, similar to the 1st Judicial District/Santa Fe, there has been a decline from peak years of 1998-2005, but it is less precipitous and more gradual, until 2013 to present, when the new guardianship cases are about 2/3rds of what they were 1998-2005. Again, why? Is this due to a change in population, change in judges frequency in ordering guardianship, or something else?
• Referring to the chatt above: In the Third Judicial District Court, Las Cruses, what happened in2008, 2012, and 2016 that caused such a dramatic, essentially l-year increase in the number of new guardianship cases created in those years?
• Refening to the chatt above: In the Thirteenth Judicial District Coul't, Bernalillo, greatly resembles its next-door neighbor, the 2nd Judicial District, in that higher number of guardianships in 2001 -2009 have given way to significantly lower numbers ofnew cases since 2010. Why?
Examining annual last-filing dates: The methodology used to acquire data in this analysis was simple and is based on New Mexico courts naming their cases following a consistent pattern. Each District Court starts off each new year, by naming cases according to convention, part of which is the current year, and then sequentially increasing numbers are assigned to each new, successive guardianship petition filed with the court.
AU ofNew Mexico's cow-ls use the "PQ" case-type code to report guardianship, conservatorship, and adult protective proceeding cases, as well as some child guardianship cases. Using the 2nd Judicial District as an example, the first guardianship case in 2015 would have a case num.ber assigned as "D-202-PQ-2015-00001." To completely explain this system, which all the courts in New Mexico use:
"D" stands for District Court; 40202" is the District Court's code, in this case the 2nd Judicial District Court in Albuquerque; "PQ" indicates that it is a guardianship case; "20 15" is the year the case was initiated; and ''0000 1" is the sequentially-assigned munber for that case.
Using a methodical approach, the last PQ case of each year, for each District court, can be derived. Plotting these dates of the last PQ case of each year, along with the total number of guardianship cases for that year, results in the following table:
Year pt - 101 211d- 202 yd_307 13th -1329
1998 12/10/1998 - 58 12/3011998- 279 12/16/1998 - 28
1999 12/02/1999 - 68 12/29/1999-293 12/29/1999-24
2000 12/2112000- 82 12/29/2000-300 12/29/2000 - 51 12/19/2000-36
2001 12/14/2001 - 93 12/28/2001 - 326 12/21/200 l - 47 12/14/2001 - 43
2002 12/18/2002- 128 12/31 /2002 - 281 12/30/2002 - 70 12/26/2002 - 4 I
2003 12/29/2003- 111 12/3112003-298 12/24/2003-73 12/30/2003-38
2004 .] 1/03/2004- 67 12/27/2004 - 340 12/28/2004 - 79 12/29/2004 - 38 ---
2005 12/28/2005-40 12/29/2005 - 361 12/19/2005 - 60 12/13/2005-57
2006 12/26/2006-53 12/28/2006-335 1 L/22/2006 - 62 12/27/2006-55
2007 12/26/2007 - 46 12/28/2007-312 12/14/2007 - 58 12/26/2007 - 29
2008 12/17/2008-40 12/31/2008 - 285 12/30/2008 - 1 05 12/17/2008 - 48
2009 12/10/2009-49 12/31/2009- 325 12/23/2009-79 12/31/2009 - 48
2010 12/03/2010 - 36 12/29/2010 - 256 12/29/20 10 -61 12/29/2010 - 28
2011 12/06/2011 -59 12/28/2011 - 255 12/28/2011 - 71 12/20/2011 - 34
2012 12/20/2012-39 12/26/2012-262 12112/20 12 - I 04 12/28/20 12 - 23
2013 11119/2013 - 28 12/27/2013 - 194 12/04/2013 - 50 12/30/2013 - 16
2014 12/19/2014-34 12/24/2014-212 12/23/2014-52 ] 2/30/2014- 21
Year pt -101 2"d- 202 3rd- 307 13th- 1329
2015 12/22/2015 - 25 12/3112015- 219 12/ L I /2015 - 82 I 0/23/20 15 - 18
2016 12/28/2016 - 41 12/09/2016 - 192 12/22/2016 - 100 12/23/2016- 25
The cells highlighted in yellow show years in which the date of tiling. of the last case of the year (i.e., the highest-numbered case that year) occurred at an abnon11ally early time~ on a date that is statistically unlikely.
• 1st Judicial District: [s it possible that the last case of2004 occurred as early as Nov 3rll? And in 2013 that the last case occurred a's early as Nov I9lh? Typically in the 1 sl Judicial District the last PQ case of the year was filed in December, usually in the last half of the month.
• 2nd Judicial District: It seems particularly odd that tbe last case of2016 would have been filed as early as December 9111, especially when every other year since 1998 there were enough incapacitated people requiring guardianship that the last case of the year was always filed in the last week of December - for all proceeding 17 years.
• 3rd Judicial District: 2006 is a stand-out year, with the last case of the year being filed on Nov 22°d, whereas all other years the last case was filed in December, usually during the week of December.
• 13111 Judicial District: 2015 is remarkable for its last guardianship case was filed as early as Oct 23, 2015.
So what types of subcategories of "PQ" cases is the public aware of? The subcategories of "PQ" cases, that the Administrative Qffice ofthe Courts (AOC) provides annual statistics to the state's Supreme Court Justices, who then publish these annually, include:
1. Probate Kinship Guardianship 2. Probate Protective Proceedings (no longer used as of July I, 2011 evidently) 3. Sequestered Probate, Conservatorship Adult 4. Sequestered Probate, Conservatorship Minor 5. Sequestered Probate, Guardianship of a Minor 6. Sequestered Probate, Guardianship of an Adult 7. Sequestered Probate, Conservatorship/Guardianship of Adult 8. Sequestered Probate, Conservatorship/Guardianship ofMinor
Examining the 2nd Judicial District: Looking at just the znd Judicial District, Albuquerque court, it is curious that the last day a guardianship case was filed in 2016 was as early as Dec 9, 2016, when during the previous 17 years the last guardianship case ofthc year was usually filed sometime in the last week ofDecember, Dec 24-31 .
Late 2016 was an important year in this history ofNew Mexico media reporting on guardianship, because from Nov 27th to Dec 4th the Alhuquct·quc .loumal published the g•·oundbreaking series from natiqnalb·:-~ndicated columuist Diane Dimond, entitled 44Who guards the guardians'?" According to Diane in a KOAT-TV video, her mailboxes and those of the Journal " just blew up" ~1s outraged New Mexicans called in to protest what had happened to matriarch- in an over 5 year long guardianship at U1e hands of her court· appointed Conservator and Trustee, attorney-
-https ://youtu.be/fRLNsNv-Nco
So were there actually no new guardianship cases filed in New Mexico's 2nd .Judicial District from Dec 10-31, 2016'? Or were cases filed between those dates 'disappeared'?
Return of the Desaparecidos: Prioa· to the time of the district courts sorta obeying - in a limited, online-access way- state statutes and rules that require the public be granted access to the case docket, and other information, cases wen~ 'disappeared'.
Even if you knew a valid case number, or the name of someone you knew had been conscripted into guardianship, all attempts to find out information that the public is legally entitled to know, was returned with the 111essage encapsulated in this article's header image: No results found.
In previous posts, we referred to this phenomena of the courts ensnaring its victims in guardianship and then removing all public, legal traces of it from any courthouse records, the desqoarecidos. jn IJ.Qnor of the brave Ar~entinian mothers and grandmothers who spoke out against their government's 'disappearing' their children and grandchildren. Just like in Argentina, New Mexico's incapacitated have been taken into guardianship, into a legal black hole, from which no knowledge, no ligbt, and no life ever escaped.
To a certain degree, this lawlessness of the New Mexico courts has been ameliorated- at least if you have access to a computer and the internet- since May 29, 2017, when the courts began on-line compliance with New Mexico statutes (NMSA 45-5-303 Q); NMSA 45-5-407CM)) and Rules of Court Procedure (NMRA l-079CD)(71.(2); NMRA I 2- 314(<;)(9),( 12))
But to this day (Wednesday July 26, 2017) if you call up a district court clerk's office, or show up in person at a courthouse, you will be denied access to public information about guardianship cases you are entitled to see.
The Mystery of the Missing Case Numbers: Due to the methodical nature of how the total number of guardianship cases in the four study district courts were obtained, we were dumbstruck to find that within a valid series of case numbers, several rctmned "No results found."
Here is a table of the case numbers that have effectively disappeared from all traces of information, beginning Jan I , 20 l 0 to June 30, 2017, in our four study district courts:
These findings of 'diS(lppeared' cases ONLY i11clude cases coded "PQ" or 'guardirmship 1 C(lSes, for only the listed district courtS; ror Jan 1 2010 to Jtme 30, 2017.
pt -101 2nd - 202 31"d- 307 lJlh -1329
Case Number Case Number Case Number Case Number
D-101-PQ-2011 00040 D-202-PQ-201000115 D-307 -PQ-20 1200085 D-1329-PQ-20 1200016
D- 101 -PQ-201100050 D-202-PQ-20 1000203 D-307-PQ-20 1300032
D-10 1-PQ-201200001 D-202-PQ-201100080 D-307-PQ-20 13 00041
D-1 0 1-PQ-20 1200013 D-202-PQ-20 1100096 D-307-PQ-20 1400005
D-1 0 1-PQ-20 1300003 D-202-PQ-20 1100155 D-307-PQ-20 1600037
D-1 01-PQ-2013000 10 D-202-PQ-20 1200192 D-307 -PQ-20 1600050
D-101-PQ-2014000 17 D-202-PQ-20 1300036 D-307-PQ-201600077
D-1 0 1-PQ-20 1400029 D-202-PQ-20 1300041 D-307 -PQ-20 1600087
D-101-PQ-201500006 D-202-PQ-201300058 0 -307 -PQ-20 1700002
D-1 0 1-PQ-20 1600037 D-202-PQ-20 1300167
D-101-PQ-201700014 D-202-PQ-20 140020 l
D-1 01-PQ-2017000 15 D-202-PQ-201700035
12 cases 'disappeared' 12 cases 'disappeared' 9 cases ' disappeared' I cases 'disappeared' out out of a total of 279; or out of a total of 1730; or out of a total of 562; or of a total of 176; or a a 4.3% disappearance a 0. 7% disappearance a 1.6(Yo disappearance 0.6% disappear~mce rate rate rate rate
From the chatt above, on a percentage basis, the 1st Judicial District Court in Santa Fe is the worst offender of using desapareci.dos to hide guardianship cases from any budgetary, case management system, or judicial oversight, or basic public knowledge. With a disappearance rate of 4.3% the number of cases disappeared fi·om the 1st Judicial District's official case listing, is bound to have a significant financial impact on the court's budget and resource allocation, to name just two obvious important metrics impacted by the coutts' use of desaparecidos.
We decided to investigate the 2nd Judicial Dish-ict cases to determine what had happened to these sequentially valid case numbers about which " No results found'' was all we could fmd online, despite the May 29, 2017 release of all other guardianship case dockets and names of the Wards, in accordance with NMSA 45-5-JQJ (I); NMSA 45-5-407(Ml.
We were told on Wednesday July 26, 2017, when we called the Albuquerque znd Judicial District
Clerk's office, inquiring about the validity of these case numbers that appeared in sequential order for the znd Judicial District, Code 202 (listed in table above) that the numbers appeared to be valid case numbers of sealed guardianship cases.
When we asked the clerk to please provide at least a title to the case, the clerk demanded to that we present the names of the patties to the case. When we said we did not know the parties to the case, the clerk told us that we were not allowed access to ANY information about these 'protected persons' cases. The clerk demanded to know bow we had obtained the numbers to these cases, about which all knowledge appeared to be forbidden to the public . We explained that we had derived the case numbers by sequentially following the case docket numbers. The clerk indicated this was not possible, given that the public was barred from any information at all about guardianship cases.
We attempted to explain to the clerk that their refusal to grant us the four points oflaw to which the public shall have access in guardianship cases, the clerk told us we were wrong; they had worked at the courthouse for "way more than 5 years" and never once was any information ever allowed to be given to any member of the pubUc about any guardianship case. You had to be a party to the case to get inforll1ation about any guardianship case. Period.
Who authorized the desaparecidos? Whoever is responsible for removing these guardianship cases has done a good job of not just removing the cases from the pub He's statutory right-to-know, but they have also remoyed these cases from the Admjnjstratjye Office of th_e Comfs (AOC) annual statistical adcdendum reports published by the Supreme Court for eachfiscal year. beginning J 99&. (Following the foregoing hyperlink, click on the 'Reports' folder in the selection tree, then expand the folder for each Fiscal Year you want to sec the available reports.)
This implies that the annual reporting the state's Supreme Court, in conjunction with the AOC, presented to the Legislature, as well as any relevant budgetary groups like lhe Board of Finance, are incorrect, because they omit a certain percentage of guardianship cases that apparently do exist, and therefore consume budgetary dollars, court time, judicial attention, and court personnel resources- all of which appear to have been sanitized and removed.
Here is WiliPowerNM's cross-referenced reports from the 2nd Judicial District's Fjscal Years 2011-20 16, showing that in FY 2011, 2013, 2014, and 2015 the number of guardianship (PQ) cases reported by the AQC to the Supreme Court each year is missing the desaparecidos cases. We can't explain why the numbers that our research and the statistics presented in FY 20 12 and 20 16 don't match up, but then again, tl1at's not our job.
Fiscal Year # of Desaparecidos AKA "No results found" v. #of Reported cases*
2011 253 new cases in statistical addendum; 256 new case numbers on Collrt's docket, with 3 marked ''No results found"
2.illl 241 new cases in statistical addendum; 241 new case numbers on Cou11's docket, with 1 marked ''No results found"
2013 244 new cases in statistical addendum; 248 uew case numbers on Court's docket, with 4 marked "No results found"
2Qli J 88 new cases iJJ statistical addendum; 189 new case numbers on Court's docket, with I marked ''No results found"
Fiscal Year #of Desaparecidos AKA "No results found" v. #of Rep01·tcd cases*
2Qll 215 new cases in statistical addendum; 216 new case numbers on Cotni's docket, with 1 marked ''No results found"
2.Q1Q 228 new cases in statistical addendum; 227 new case numbers on Comt's docket, with 0 marked "No results found"
* Th1s table only reports a totzll of I 0 desaparecidos as compared to the 12 desapc1recidos reported in the table in "The Mystery of the Missing Case Number," but that is because 2 of the desaparecidos reported in"The Mystery of the Missing Case Number" fall outside the Fiscal Years 201 1-2016.
R U Kidding? No, actually, that's the ward's name To wrap all this up and bring it home to how guardianship cases in New Mexi.co lack oversight from the people who have the authority to administer guardianship cases, and those who claim that the system is functioning perfectly and follows state statutes and rules, nol to mention the moral and human rights obligations when removing a person's civil, constitutional, and human rights, thereby consigning them to a lifetime of domination by a court-appointed person - let's consider the case of R U Kidding - and we are not joking - that is the Ward's name.
This is also a situation that reveals not only are guardianship cases 'disappeared' but so are probate cases, and we suspect any type of case that judges and attorneys want to disappear can be made to disappear. So here's what we've uncovered so far about the hapless R U Kidding:
A petition to put R U Kidding under guardianship was filed in New Mexico's 2nd Judicial DislTict on March 24, 2016, Case title "In the Matter ofR U Kidding": Case Number: D-202-PQ-20 1600052. The petition was brought by attorney - represented by his wife, and originally Judge-was given the inilial assignment.
Still on March 241h, in addition to the opening petition, a Motion to Consolidate was filed, a Request for hearing/setting was filed, and there is an Acceptance of Appointment as temporary guardian and conservator, even though there had been no hearing, just the setting for a hearing. The case docket is incomplete and does not state who was awarded the guardianship and the conservatorship, but we believe it likely that as the Petitioner, was given these powerful roles. Thus a temporary guardianship was established without any hearing, notification to the affected parties, or many other parts ofNMSA 45-5-303 and 45-5-407 being obeyed correctly and fully.
On March 25th - the 211d day to put R U Kidding under guardianship - two things happened:
l. The judge assigned to the case was changed from-to- and 2. The case was closed with an Order of Consolidation: "Consolidating case numbers D-202-PB-
2014-00455 and 0-202-PQ-2016-00052 all future pleadings shall be filed in D-202-PB-20 14-00455."
When we went to look up the newly consolidated Probate case munber ("PB" case code) under which R U Kidding's guardianship case was from now onward to be conducted, we were greeted with the ''No results found" message.
We called up the 2nd Judicial District Court and Case number 0 -202-PB-20 I 4-00455 was titled and that the case was sealed.
to a clerk, who was a little helpful. We were told Revocable Trust"
Because the case was sealed, the clerk lold us the public was not allowed to know anything more about
the case (which is not true, but once again, you can't argue with a clerk who's been told a lie by her boss, because her ability to receive a paycheck depends on suppo1ting the boss, not blowing the whistle on them. This is especially tme if your boss is a judge or works in a courthouse.)
Now imagine that! A probateMtrust case involving Judge with a completely (and incorrectly) sequestered court record about which the public is not allowed to even know who the parties are, who their attomeys are, and tlus case involves one of New Mexico's most notorious conservator and trustee who specializes in "disposing" of valuable, high-dollar trusts and estates for far lower values than the estates' and tntsts' assets are worth.
Given Judge ··l·s current mulhMmillion dollar case loads of
l. D-202-CV-201304646 (PR) v LLC et al-a case in which Judge -has just done an abrupt aboutMface and unsealed the case after four years; and
2.
Stay tuned for more - lots more - statistical analysis based on the court's own records and case dockets (for the cases the public is allowed to see.) We will continue to dive deep into the records and report on the continued lack of oversight, malfeasance, and what appears to be downright conuption and Fraud Upon The Court - that the court itself appears to be committing. We don't have any answers as to WHY this may be occurring, other than the usual suspect: money.
WilLPowerNM bas been formed to support and inform each Member of the Commission in their work over the coming weeks and months by preparing and releasing regular email information in a format similar to this weekly message and by establishing and maintaining a publicly accessible and widely promoted web site on the Commission's impo1iant study eff01t.
