I received the summons early on a Friday morning. Although I had been involved as a bystander in other sibling disputes, this was the first time I was asked to testify in a custody case for a resident. The young ladies who were named as plaintiffs in the suit were sisters; daughters of a sweet, quiet, resident named Hazel.
Hazel lived at home with a caretaker, until coming to live in our community six months ago. Her mobility and her memory had declined since her husband had died two years earlier. For her safety, her daughters had hired a caretaker to attend to her shopping, bathing, medication, and nutritional needs five days a week from early morning until after dinner.
Not long after her husband’s death, Hazel had been awarded a large sum of money in a legal settlement. The girls judiciously retained an attorney to disperse the money intended to subsidize Hazel’s care. Of course, they were also the beneficiaries, each girl scrutinized how and why every penny was spent.
The sisters had been enemies for years, but they become possessive of Hazel once she became a widow with an inheritance. The argued ferociously and viciously with little or no consideration for the effect it had on their Mother. They hired lawyers to petition for custody, each vying to act as her legal guardian. The daughters spent thousands of dollars on legal fees and thousands of hours attending court hearings. Eventually, an emergency temporary financial guardian had to be appointed from the Department of Elder affairs to protect Hazel during the painful on-going process.
While waiting for the courts to decide Hazel’s future, the younger daughter, who lived in New York decided independently of her sibling that her mother belonged in assisted living. She implied that the current care- taker was stealing the money that was proportioned for Hazel’s incidentals, and she alleged the current arrangement was becoming too expensive. She flew to Florida on the week ends to shop for places in local assisted living communities, and after several visits and numerous phone calls with our sales professionals, she agreed to move her to our community. To save money, she insisted her mother could care for her daily needs, so she refused all services except for assistance with her Mother’s medication.
Rather than move her life-long possessions, Hazel’s daughter from New York purchased all new furniture and accessories to decorate the new apartment. Although seeming to be kind to her mother in public, she verbally bullied her behind closed doors. She ruthlessly screamed at Hazel, not realizing her rants could be heard in the hallways. She obsessively tried to control every aspect of her mother’s care; she badgered my staff daily with long distance phone calls from New York.
The older sister lived locally. She begrudgingly agreed that her mother could try assisted living. Although she did not contribute her time or any furnishings to the move, she criticized everything her sister did from the color of the drapes to the size of the queen bed. She visited infrequently, and made it clear she felt her Mom had been manipulated by her younger sister.
Hazel made small talk in the presence of her daughters. She was in the middle of a family war zone, and she struggled to be impartial as her daughters continued to verbally assault one another. She never seemed to take sides. Occasionally she would visit my office and share her disparity. Her daughters were making her life stressful and she was saddened by the conflict.
When the day came for me to appear at the hearing, I was both angry and nervous. I refused to side with either of the young women; my only concern was for Hazel. She had happily adjusted to the community. She participated in many of the activities, and she had made several friends. The staff appreciated her sweet nature; she soon became one of their favorites. I felt that her continued stay with us depended on which sister won.
The judge (who cleverly deciphered that the money was at the root of the turmoil) postponed his decision until the lawyers provided more financial information. Not long after the hearing, Hazel’s older daughter convinced her mother that she would be happier at home. Hazel left our community sharing tearful “goodbyes” with her new friends and moved back home. The original caretaker was rehired. As usual, Hazel did as she was told.
The last time I saw Hazel I was visiting a sister community not far from the home of her older daughter. I recognized her eating lunch in the dining room. Ironically, her daughter from New York was sitting with her. She explained that Hazel had only been at the new community a couple of days; her older sister’s idea that she return home had been a huge mistake. I smiled, but said not a word. In less than 10 months Hazel had been bounced back and forth three times trying to please her avaricious daughters. I silently wished she would outlive her money, and neither would be compensated for their selfish behavior.
Hazel lived at home with a caretaker, until coming to live in our community six months ago. Her mobility and her memory had declined since her husband had died two years earlier. For her safety, her daughters had hired a caretaker to attend to her shopping, bathing, medication, and nutritional needs five days a week from early morning until after dinner.
Not long after her husband’s death, Hazel had been awarded a large sum of money in a legal settlement. The girls judiciously retained an attorney to disperse the money intended to subsidize Hazel’s care. Of course, they were also the beneficiaries, each girl scrutinized how and why every penny was spent.
The sisters had been enemies for years, but they become possessive of Hazel once she became a widow with an inheritance. The argued ferociously and viciously with little or no consideration for the effect it had on their Mother. They hired lawyers to petition for custody, each vying to act as her legal guardian. The daughters spent thousands of dollars on legal fees and thousands of hours attending court hearings. Eventually, an emergency temporary financial guardian had to be appointed from the Department of Elder affairs to protect Hazel during the painful on-going process.
While waiting for the courts to decide Hazel’s future, the younger daughter, who lived in New York decided independently of her sibling that her mother belonged in assisted living. She implied that the current care- taker was stealing the money that was proportioned for Hazel’s incidentals, and she alleged the current arrangement was becoming too expensive. She flew to Florida on the week ends to shop for places in local assisted living communities, and after several visits and numerous phone calls with our sales professionals, she agreed to move her to our community. To save money, she insisted her mother could care for her daily needs, so she refused all services except for assistance with her Mother’s medication.
Rather than move her life-long possessions, Hazel’s daughter from New York purchased all new furniture and accessories to decorate the new apartment. Although seeming to be kind to her mother in public, she verbally bullied her behind closed doors. She ruthlessly screamed at Hazel, not realizing her rants could be heard in the hallways. She obsessively tried to control every aspect of her mother’s care; she badgered my staff daily with long distance phone calls from New York.
The older sister lived locally. She begrudgingly agreed that her mother could try assisted living. Although she did not contribute her time or any furnishings to the move, she criticized everything her sister did from the color of the drapes to the size of the queen bed. She visited infrequently, and made it clear she felt her Mom had been manipulated by her younger sister.
Hazel made small talk in the presence of her daughters. She was in the middle of a family war zone, and she struggled to be impartial as her daughters continued to verbally assault one another. She never seemed to take sides. Occasionally she would visit my office and share her disparity. Her daughters were making her life stressful and she was saddened by the conflict.
When the day came for me to appear at the hearing, I was both angry and nervous. I refused to side with either of the young women; my only concern was for Hazel. She had happily adjusted to the community. She participated in many of the activities, and she had made several friends. The staff appreciated her sweet nature; she soon became one of their favorites. I felt that her continued stay with us depended on which sister won.
The judge (who cleverly deciphered that the money was at the root of the turmoil) postponed his decision until the lawyers provided more financial information. Not long after the hearing, Hazel’s older daughter convinced her mother that she would be happier at home. Hazel left our community sharing tearful “goodbyes” with her new friends and moved back home. The original caretaker was rehired. As usual, Hazel did as she was told.
The last time I saw Hazel I was visiting a sister community not far from the home of her older daughter. I recognized her eating lunch in the dining room. Ironically, her daughter from New York was sitting with her. She explained that Hazel had only been at the new community a couple of days; her older sister’s idea that she return home had been a huge mistake. I smiled, but said not a word. In less than 10 months Hazel had been bounced back and forth three times trying to please her avaricious daughters. I silently wished she would outlive her money, and neither would be compensated for their selfish behavior.
No comments:
Post a Comment