By proceeding, I agree that I understand the following disclosures:
I. How We Work in Washington. Based on your preferences, we provide you with information about one or more of our contracted senior living providers ("Participating Communities") and provide your Senior Living Care Information to Participating Communities. The Participating Communities may contact you directly regarding their services. APFM does not endorse or recommend any provider. It is your sole responsibility to select the appropriate care for yourself or your loved one. We work with both you and the Participating Communities in your search. We do not permit our Advisors to have an ownership interest in Participating Communities.
II. How We Are Paid. We do not charge you any fee – we are paid by the Participating Communities. Some Participating Communities pay us a percentage of the first month's standard rate for the rent and care services you select. We invoice these fees after the senior moves in.
III. When We Tour. APFM tours certain Participating Communities in Washington (typically more in metropolitan areas than in rural areas.) During the 12 month period prior to December 31, 2017, we toured 86.2% of Participating Communities with capacity for 20 or more residents.
IV. No Obligation or Commitment. You have no obligation to use or to continue to use our services. Because you pay no fee to us, you will never need to ask for a refund.
V. Complaints. Please contact our Family Feedback Line at (866) 584-7340 or
[email protected] to report any complaint. Consumers have many avenues to address a dispute with any referral service company, including the right to file a complaint with the Attorney General's office at: Consumer Protection Division, 800 5th Avenue, Ste. 2000, Seattle, 98104 or 800-551-4636.
VI. No Waiver of Your Rights. APFM does not (and may not) require or even ask consumers seeking senior housing or care services in Washington State to sign waivers of liability for losses of personal property or injury or to sign waivers of any rights established under law.I agree that: A.I authorize A Place For Mom ("APFM") to collect certain personal and contact detail information, as well as relevant health care information about me or from me about the senior family member or relative I am assisting ("Senior Living Care Information"). B.APFM may provide information to me electronically. My electronic signature on agreements and documents has the same effect as if I signed them in ink. C.APFM may send all communications to me electronically via e-mail or by access to an APFM web site. D.If I want a paper copy, I can print a copy of the Disclosures or download the Disclosures for my records. E.This E-Sign Acknowledgement and Authorization applies to these Disclosures and all future Disclosures related to APFM's services, unless I revoke my authorization. You may revoke this authorization in writing at any time (except where we have already disclosed information before receiving your revocation.) This authorization will expire after one year. F.You consent to APFM's reaching out to you using a phone system than can auto-dial numbers (we miss rotary phones, too!), but this consent is not required to use our service.
*If I am consenting on behalf of someone else, I have the proper authorization to do so. By clicking Get My Results, you agree to our
Privacy Policy. You also consent to receive calls and texts, which may be autodialed, from us and our customer communities. Your consent is not a condition to using our service. Please visit our
Terms of Use. for information about our privacy practices.
Her situation was one of a controlling father who was also happy to be on the chow wagon. She never came across as particularly mentally healthy and the fact couldn't even retain custody of her kids shows she did indeed have a lot of issues.
Also--how much of what you see on the 'news' do you take with a huge grain of salt? Esp when the 'news' is fed to the press from the star's own publicist.
What happens in LaLa Land is NOT precedent for the real world.
It could be time consuming, or it can be quick and easy but always costly when attorney's are involved, it depends on the individual situation and the factual mental state of the individual facing losing their autonomy.
Brittany Spears had a very public nervous breakdown and a scuzzy daddy, both worked against her to her detriment. She wasn't allowed to hire her own counsel and that IMO, is the true issue with this case, which isn't representative of the average Joe case of seeking guardianship.
There is interest in this here in Oz, but my own work experience has been limited to issues relating to young women with intellectual disabilities being stopped from pregnancy. Tubal ligation has been ordered as requested by parents when young women couldn’t cope with hygiene for menstruation. Court litigation about the best interests and rights of adult and child has occurred when a young woman wanted a baby but did not appear to be capable of caring adequately for a child.
My question was whether the site comments are really the way it is with elderly parents? I’ve repeated the site's ‘difficult and expensive’ line in replies to posters, and don’t want to do it again if it’s not correct.
I can easily see BS goes through her fortune quickly and easily ending up destitute. We see that with professional athletes way too often.
Court documents revealed by the New York Times in June showed the star was given an allowance of $2,000 per week, while her father's salary as conservator was about $16,000 per month, plus money for office space rental and a percentage of various deals signed for his daughter.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53494405
The news must be messing with us.
Wouldn't it be nice if Brittany Spears could now have some privacy, that is if she wants it. And if anything should be public, it could be her work in the entertainment industry. But then, she could retire with millions.
(as I understand it, but did not follow it from a fan viewpoint).
As Cwillie pointed out, it should have been for a time, limited, or reviewed.
She must have had the wrong doctor(s) and lawyers.
Even a person in jail has rights to a review by a parole board.
It must have had a lot to do with the stigma attached to mental illness.
Just speculation, from MSM, not to be taken as truth.
What do you know about the specifics under which Ms. Spear's Dad got conservatorship? Just curious Margaret, as it isn't a case I ever followed then or now. So are you familiar with her case, and with the court records?
As with all other conservancies there must be some proof of a person being a danger to self or others due to incompetency in order for another to get right of Conservatorship over affairs. I don't personally know any of the legalities or diagnoses involved with Ms. Spear's case, nor the circumstances under which her father applied for conservatorship in court due to Ms Spears apparent (in his opinion) inability to act in her own protection some time ago due to her mental illness.
It's my personal opinion that often, in the case of mental illness, this is "protection" is too often given, and not often enough reviewed, but that would all be guesswork and conjecture on my own part and my own personal opinion. It is said that it is not against the law to be mentally ill nor financially irresponsible, and it isn't.
Emergency guardianship is easier got than permanent (which Ms. Spear's Dad had--the permanent). Britney could well afford Lawyers to represent her during the original court case, though that doesn't mean she had good lawyers at the time. And "good" is subjective opinion.
It may be VERY expensive to get guardianship IF a person has to fight either the person who is ill, or other family. But not especially expensive if say an elder or mentally ill family member is shown to be demented and unable to act for his or herself and there is a family member ready willing and able to act in his or her own behalf.
It apparently has taken the court of law some time to work through this case and its complexities. I sure hope Ms. Spears is well, and stays well, and hope for the very best for her.
Apparently the media will have more entertainment to come, as this suit against her father and the ways in which he spent her money is apparently going to continue into the future.
Problem in the medical community with those who suffer not dementia, but mental illness, is that they are often easily stabilized with medications. When they will TAKE them, as many prefer their mental illness manifestations over what we consider "normal" life. So once out of the hospital they stop their medications. I have a neighbor who has had problems with a schizophrenic son, and guardianship, for many decades. Very tough and sad life for all the family concerned even with great emotional support and lots of love until his death in his late 50s, perhaps accidental overdose, perhaps purposeful. Just a lot of suffering all the way around.
Afraid no easy answers on any of this. And often on no single case even when we KNOW all the facts, let alone when we can't know them. Just really sad.