My question really is: If an elderly person's psychiatric records prove (and document) that the person was mentally ill and/or delusional at the time that they changed their estate plan, can the changes to the estate plan be invalidated upon proof, even after the elderly person has passed away? What is the process to get the proof and then have the changes invalidated? My severely mentally ill and delusional dad changed his part of my parents' long-standing estate plan. Because the standards in his state for proving mental competence are very low (does the person know their name, address, phone number, have a sense of time and place--- basically a mini-mental test), his estate atty did no more than this cursory check, which he passed. His atty was unaware that my dad was under psychiatric care at the VA in his city. Had she legally been required to also have 2 drs certify his mental competence, in addition to the mini mental test, and/or to have him seen by a Psychiatrist to assess his mental functioning or checked with his Psychiatrist, I believe that my dad's atty would never have allowed him to change his part of my parents' estate plan. He unsuccessfully tried to change my mom's part of the trust, but legally couldn't because she had already passed away (and even if she had been alive, she had dementia and wouldn't have been competent to agree to the change). My dad has been very successfully able to hide his long-standing mental illness and fairly recent delusional behavior from non-family members. His atty remembered him from 8 years previous when my parents had changed their estate plan and when my dad wasn't delusional. Even at that time, he had hidden his severe mental illness from her. So, she appears to have just gone on what she knew about him before. Given his pathological lying and his ability to manipulate and blindside people, it appears that he did this with his atty and she allowed him to change his estate plan. In my opinion, when someone in their 90s suddenly decides to change their estate plan, this should raise all sorts of red flags in an estate atty's mind. And, whether or not it's required by law to do so, the estate atty should do more than just a cursory mini-mental test and should be go the extra mile to contact the elderly person's drs to certify the person's competence and should also seek to find out if the person is currently or has been under psychiatric care. If not, the atty should request that a psychiatric evaluation to determine mental competence be done. Until drs and a psychiatric eval have certified an elderly person's mental competence, the estate atty should allow no changes to the estate plan to be made.
After years of hurt and frustration, I no longer care. I keep my distance and carry on. You see, Narcissistic, mentally unbalanced people see things through a distorted window. There is little you can do, especially with the narcissistic behavior.
I think you have to step back and remember, these are material possessions and it is the loss of a loving father that is the true tragedy here.
Perhaps venting here is helping you deal with being so angry and upset. If so, glad we could help. If venting here is not sufficient relief, I hope you will see a therapist and get back the calm and serenity you deserve in your life.
Have you offered to buy the items of sentimental value to you?
9. I was treated as if I was a criminal and not even part of my own family. Your other statements imply to me that you may think that I did something wrong and that the assistant AG was justified in threatening me. Or, that my dad had reasons other than mental illness to betray me. First of all, as stated previously, my dad had an obsessive need for pity, praise, and attention (his NPD). He also didn't want anyone to think that he was mentally incapable and incapable of taking on his responsibility to my mom--- he had acknowledged of his own volition without my saying a word or prompting him that he felt incapable. Believe me, living 1200 miles away, I didn't want the responsibility, but because he had been mentally and verbally abusing my demented mom and there were indications that it was going to escalate to physical abuse, I couldn't stand idly by. I engaged and tried to keep my dad involved in all decisions relative to my mom (his wife), but he refused telling me he wasn't interested. This was his usual MO (even in my mom's good days-- she told me several times in the years before she became demented)--- let everyone else take on his responsibilities, take the credit when things were going well, but when things went bad, so quickly point the finger of blame and use people as scapegoats with him always looking like the innocent. It was a consistent pattern with many others--- I'm told by several others who associated with him over many years that he alienated many people in his community and started many fights, slandered many, and used many as his scapegoats. When he made his betraying remarks about me to the legal authorities, the reason was that he didn't want to be seen as being incompetent and he need to have a scapegoat-- I was that scapegoat. The biggest thing I did wrong in all of this was to even ever get involved at any level (but, I just couldn't turn my back on my mom). It was difficult from 1200 miles away, but my dad manipulated me and I kept getting dragged into it by the professional involved in my mom's care. It was a no-win situation from the beginning for both my mom and me. I was damned if I did, damned if I didn't. My dad's accusations of meddling were based on his crying poverty and trying to manipulate me into paying all of my mom's care expenses which I knew he could afford. Each time he did this, I reported it to his financial adviser who was managing his money for him. My dad didn't like this because he knew he couldn't manipulate me and this pissed him off. Also, I was patient, kind, and respectful with my dad, even when he pissed me off with his horrible behaviors. I never threatened him or yelled at him. And, I never coerced him into handing over my mom's medical POA. In fact, I told him that living so far away it would be difficult to take on that responsibility, but that I would be a team player with him and act in a consulting/sounding board capacity. Unfortunately, I didn't stick to that because of how he was treating my mom. The assistant AG had nothing on me and I think she knew it, but chose to believe my dad because she had to win her case and keep me out of the picture in order to do so. And, her bullying, intimidation, and threats of criminal prosecution let her successfully reach her goal of keeping me out of the picture. I was so traumatized for over a year after the incident and am now only just getting over it. Her blatant abuse of power over me was criminal and totally inappropriate and , without my being able to be there for my mom, she was traumatized and ultimately gave up and starved herself to death (she willfully did this by refusing to eat or open her mouth when being fed). My mom became as much a victim of the assistant AG as she did to any alleged abuse. And, I also became a victim of the assistant AG. My mom became the innocent pawn in this just for the sake of this evil witch trying to promote her own career.
Yeah, so I'm angry and upset and think I have some justification here. I told my dad what had happened and he minimized it, even while acknowledging it. When I detached from him on the strong advice of my attorney, he didn't even reach out ot me to ask me why I wasn't calling him on the phone anymore. Knowing him as well as I did, I'm certain that he knew what he had done to me with his betrayal and was very ashamed. And, given that he could never admit to being wrong and always had to portray himself as the victim, it became very clear to me at his recent funeral that he leveraged my detachment in many ways, including leading people to believe that he was my victim, rather than vice versa.
6. Re: your statement about my mom wanting me to have the heirlooms and expressing it to me: I agree that it would be very hard to prove. But, she also wasn't one to have given me all of those items (she gave me a few items while she was alive and mentally with it) because she was still enjoying them and displaying them in her home. Yes, you'd think that if she really wanted me to have the items she would have given them to me gradually over the years, just as my mother-in-law did to nieces/nephews/my sister-in-law/me over several years. However, my mom didn't think along those lines. Her thing was that I would get these items after she was gone and that given that they're covered in the tangible property list, that was sufficient. There's no way I can prove any of this unless a bill of sales can be found proving that the items on the list are part of the larger family trust. So far, it appears that the bill of sales has not been located. And, that's what makes this so maddening and makes me so angry. As long as a certain thing doesn't take place, I very likely won't challenge my dad's changed estate plan and will just let it go because I need to move on with my life and deal with the emotional damage he caused.
7. And yes, I'm angry that he left family heirlooms to non-family because of the place that these things hold in my family's history. In terms of the lithograph and the authenticity certificate: I Googled the piece of art and it's maximum value is $650. None of the other pieces have authenticity certificates with them, but it's doubtful that they're museum pieces valued at tens of thousands of dollars, but rather worth no more than a few thousand dollars each maximum. Right now, because of a situation that I'm not at liberty to discuss here and on my atty's advice, I'm letting the art pieces go. However, if a certain situation arises, my atty will take further legal actions which could result in my getting both the lithograph, given that I have the authenticity certificate that shows it's in my mom's name, and also several of the other pieces of art.
8. Re: my Sept, 2014 post: It was an assistant atty general (AG), not a district attorney, who got involved and the involvement was not with me personally, but occurred as a result of alleged abuse on my mom by her care manager. A police dept elder abuse detective initially did the investigation and felt there was enough evidence to involve an assistant AG. I guess that's the way they operate with elder abuse cases in that state. As mentioned in my 9/2014 post, I was never a suspect in my mom's abuse case and, in fact, was told by the elder abuse detective that I was as much a victim of her alleged abuser as she was. And, I agree with you that coercion, meddling, manipulation happen frequently and aren't illegal. However and unfortunately, the assistant AG was hellbent on winning her case at all costs, realized that her case was week because nobody had personally witnessed the abuse, and because I hadn't jumped on her bandwagon on this basis because I was concerned that false accusations and assumptions would unnecessarily traumatize my mom, she apparently feared that if I testified my testimony would point up this fact and she'd lose her case. Obviously, if she had any critical thinking skill abilities, she would have realized that with my living 1200 miles away I wouldn't be a strong witness by virtue of distance and not being there to personally witness thing related to my mom's care. So, when my dad made the whole conversation with the assistant AG, police detective, APS person, and other members of that state's atty general's office about himself, and realizing that he had a captive audience, he leveraged his obsessive need for pity and portraying himself as the victim and portrayed me as a coercer, etc. The assistant AG preyed on my ignorance of the law and used that to bully and intimidate me with her threats of criminal prosecution and her false accusations. Basically, this is a case of blatant abuse of power, something which my atty told another assistant AG in that office when she had occasion to talk to that person. That assistant AG was totally appalled and angry and stated to my atty that that not only was inappropriate but also not something that her office would do to a family member. My atty demanded that this assistant AG she talked to escalate my situation right up the supervisory ladder to the AG himself. Unfortunately, when a judge threw the whole case out based on nobody having personally witnessed the alleged abuse and some very strong and compelling evidence of the lying and a financial motive on the parts of the two caregivers who had reported the alleged abuse, the assistant AG my atty talked to dropped the ball and the other assistant AG's abuse of power have never been revealed. The judge also apparently very clearly expressed his disgust and anger at the assistant AG's arrogance and the incompetence with which the investigation had been conducted. I doubt that what this assistant AG did to my mom and me ever will be exposed. From my perspective, she should be removed from her job and be disciplined. But, I feel that I have no way of doing this without some retribution from that state's AG office and the police in that city. I intend never to go back to that city again. However, the emotional toll on me has been enormous in knowing that my mom was traumatized by the incompetence of an investigation, by someone in a position of authority abusing her power for the sake of promoting her own career, and not able to set aside her own issues with me to respect the sanctity of a mother-daughter relationship to contact me or have facility staff contact me to tell me that my mom was on her deathbed.
1. My sister, my only sibling, passed away 22 years ago.
2. My father has now also recently passed away, leaving me as sole survivor since my mom passed away 2 years ago. Before my dad passed away, I had found out that he had changed his part of my parents' estate plan, disinheriting me. I had hoped that the non-family beneficiary group would be understanding of the fact of my being sole survivor and would have been willing to give me some items I had requested. Unfortunately, that hasn't happened.
3. Re: your comments about an estate atty not having to know their client or do more than a minimal test of mental competence: I agree. However, my dad's NPD and BPD along with what appears to be some early dementia impaired his decision making abilities. But, he was also very good at hiding all of this from non-family members, having had years of practice since he was mentally ill for many, many years. He was very frightened of losing his independence or being declared mentally incompetent that he found ways in his later years to hide it from those he didn't know him well. It was when he was with family members that he could let down his mask and it became very apparent that his thinking was becoming more and more clouded. And yes, he often reacted in anger without thinking of the consequences to his targets, but also acknowledged that he knew he was hurting people but simply didn't care. So yes, based on the legal test of mental competence, my dad easily passed that because he had the minimum required capabilities (i.e, knew his name, address, phone number, had a concept of time and place). But, he was delusional but his NPD and BPD led him to be able to manipulate people into his delusions, something my family and I personally witnessed many times. Unfortunately, the legal tests of mental competence don't cover delusional behavior.
4. Re: your statements about knowing whether or not my dad was incompetent and his Psychiatrist deeming him so and it being my opinion: You're right. Not having access to his records I don't know that his Psychiatrist declared him mentally incompetent. But, he was being seen by this Psychiatrist for his mental illness. And yes, his mental illness maybe didn't make him mentally incompetent, but from my own and several others' observations, I strongly suspect that it impaired his decision making ability and clouded his perceptions/distorted his view of reality (i.e., in the form of delusional behavior). This was quite evident not only to me, but to several others who dealt with my dad and expressed a concern about it to me.
5. There is also some hint that there may have been undue influence involved, but also hard to prove. There were a number of my dad's associates who, based on my own observations over a number of years and things my dad told me, were interested in his assets. One particular person pulled a few things that I categorize as sleazy that my dad fell for. But, because my dad would not have cooperated in stating that this person had exploited him, nothing would have come of it if I had decided to pursue exploitation.
Re: your antique furniture: Do you have nieces or nephews who are interested in antiques? Otherwise, if your granddaughters don't want it, maybe an antique store or consignment shop would be interested in it. That gives it less of a chance to be used as firewood. I agree with you about hating to see this furniture destroyed. I have some antique pieces that hopefully one of my adult kids will want. Right now, I'm starting a tangible property list that I'll eventually get notarized. And, in the making of this list, I plan to talk to my 3 kids when everyone is here for Christmas and see who's interested in which items.
My sig other's grade school grand-daughters I will give them my coin collection and stamp books to enjoy now instead of years down the line. I have some really nice antique furniture, not sure what I do with those, I don't want anyone to chop them up to use as fire wood. I will just have to wait and see if his grand-daughters show any interest in old stuff, besides me :P
The absolute truth of the matter is an attorney has no duty to do any sort of mental evaluations on any of their clients, unless they present to them & are obviously out of it & not with the program. Attorneys don't have to "know them that well"----their duty is not to be their friend. It is to carry out the legal stuff in the courts. Unless someone has done a tremendous amount of business with an attorney or law firm, there is no way for an attorney to "know them". That's not in their job description.
Something I caught in your post is that you say you are the "sole survivor". But in the last part of that post you say that you look at your father with only hatred & disdain for his mental abuse of your mother & sister over many years. What happened to your sister? Is she still alive?
Unfortunately, for you, narcissistic personality disorder & borderline personality disorder do not affect someone's competence. They may affect relationships & cause heartache among those they know, which is common, but they know exactly what they're doing. A mental illness that would affect competence is schizophrenia, where a person is unmanageable, is actively hallucinating & not medically managed.
I read your other post from September, 2014. What I don't understand is how, at 1,200 miles away, any sort of charges against you for being an elder abuser could have been made. Meddling, coercing, manipulating----these are not illegal. It happens within families all the time. And how on earth an assistant district attorney got involved is beyond my realm of thinking. I can't imagine an ADA "threatening" you with criminal prosecution. By the time an ADA is involved, there are formal charges & the ADA is already prosecuting the charges. An ADA doesn't get involved until the police have filed formal charges against you, the investigation gets done & there is evidence to bring a case against you & it gets handed over to the DA to prosecute. Furthermore, an ADA knows better than to have any conversation with you that was not on the record (formally recorded & put into a transcript by a court reporter). If you had an attorney, it would be illegal for the ADA to talk directly to you in an informal setting as well. As soon as you retain an attorney, all communication goes through your attorney. If you hadn't done anything, why did you get a lawyer?
It is also not illegal to lie, manipulate & blind side people. It's done all the time. Our government does it to us on a daily basis. People do it to each other all the time. The truth is that many top level executives have NPD & BPD-----they're pros at lying & manipulating to get whatever they want. If it were illegal, we wouldn't have enough jails to house everyone that lied, manipulated & blind sided other people.
What I am gathering from this post is much of what you are saying is speculation. You suspect that someone drove your father to the attorney's office, you don't know who but you're speculating that it was a business associate. You have no idea. He could have taken a taxi or the attorney could have gone to him. How could your attorney claim undue influence if you don't even know who he was talking to at that time? He may very well have done this all on his own volition.
You have to seriously consider what you're looking at to challenge this. If you're going to fight until the death just to get some "family heirlooms", (which I suspect are more than just family heirlooms---I think there is quite a bit of money/assets involved here) you're going to spend a heck of a lot of money on legal fees. The court's job is not to "be sensitive to the fact that you're the sole survivor"----it's job is to carry out the estate according to the law. Your father changed his half of the estate plan. To try to prove that he was incompetent at the time he changed it is going to be a difficult legal battle, especially if you've had no contact with any of your father's psychiatrists/counselors/therapists over the years, don't have access to his medical/psych records, you have been 1,200 miles away & your father changed it because he got mad at you. It is not against the law for a person, even someone that is 90 years old, to change their will & leave nothing to the sole surviving child. People can do whatever they want to do with their assets---parents get mad at their kids all the time & write them out of their wills.
Making an argument that your mother wanted all of the heirlooms to be passed to you is going to be exceedingly difficult----damn near impossible. If your mother wanted all those things to go to you, she would have given them to you when she was alive. Or she would have made specific statements about the items in the will. That's the argument the court is going to make.
You state that you have nothing from his psychiatrist with respect to his incompetence & no access to his medical or psychiatric records. If you haven't seen them, how do you know that his psychiatrist deemed him incompetent? What if you see those records & it says the opposite----that despite the NPD & BPD, he was entirely competent & could make decision? It seems that you are making the determination that he was incompetent when he changed the will. It actually appears more like you are angry that he did so because there are some valuable items in the estate. If there is a certificate of authenticity for a lithograph, there is more value to the art than just "family heirlooms". Your statements that he was "delusional" are only opinions. How often did you actually see your mother & father, living 1,200 miles away?
A big question in my mind is why your father would make statements that you were meddling in his finances & affairs. Why would he make a statement like that? You chalk it up to mental illness. It may not be that at all.
You state that a broken water pipe "forced them to move" & all of their stuff had to be put into a storage unit. Where did they move? Didn't they need their stuff when they moved? In your other post you say that your father lived in an independent facility near your mother. So, when they left the place with the broken water pipe, they moved into separate housing? Who packed up all of their things to be put into the storage unit? Why didn't you go to help pack all of their things to be put into the storage unit? When all of your parent's stuff was put into a storage unit, you had an entire year to go through the stuff & sort it out. When you found out that your mother's caregiver was going to be going through the storage unit, why didn't you go to wherever the storage unit was & meet her there to go through your parent's belongings? It appears that there was some sort of separation, for lack of a better word, that your father was trying to maintain between you & their assets.
Besides the art pieces, what other "family heirlooms" do you want? You said in another post that you did receive many of your mother's items, since you already inherited her half of the estate. Do you want just the pieces of art?
I suspect that there is quite a bit of money/assets/art involved in this situation, and that's why you're angry that your father changed his half of the estate. If he is leaving his half to a beneficiary group, there must be some degree of wealth there. And I also suspect that there is more to this story than what we're being told. There's truth in the saying that "There are three sides to every story----my side, your side & the truth."
I think some men don't understand the importance of heirlooms, to them it is just stuff :(
I totally agree with your statement about parents giving their grown children items/heirlooms while they're still clear-minded. This is exactly what my mother-in-law did and I'm so happy she did. Also, several years ago while she was still clear minded, one of my aunts (my mom's sister-in-law) had also given me several things that were hers and her mother-in-law's (i.e., my maternal grandmother's). And, after she and my uncle (my mom's brother) passed away 14 and 10 years ago respectively and my mom, my husband, and I were cleaning out my uncle's place, I was able to take alot of heirlooms that came from both my uncle and aunt and also from my maternal grandparents. Unfortunately, my mom never gave me any of her own heirlooms (antiques, for ex) and only gave me everyday items (for ex, kitchen stuff, a few vases) maybe because she wasn't ready to give them away or never thought about it. Or maybe figured that since they were on a tangible property list in my parents' trust, it didn't matter because those things would be passed down anyway. Definitely a lesson learned for me with my own children and grandchildren. So, I'm fortunate and thankful that I was able to get some items before the situation with my dad. I'm also fortunate and thankful that, in inheriting my mom's half of the estate, I've gotten some very personal items of hers that she used and cherished. My mom and I were very close. So, having these personal items keep her close to my heart and maintain a link to her that transcends death. And, I had also gotten all of the family photo albums and other photos. So, I have some of the items and am thankful for what I've received over the years. It's just this idea that my dad would leave family heirlooms to non-family members. This shows a definite impairment in decision making abilities and is why I question the legality of his having changed my parents' estate plan or why his attorney didn't do a little more digging. But, I also realize that I likely won't get anywhere with this and have to accept that it is what it is.
Re: your comment about obtaining the art work: I had also thought long and hard about that same thing and agree that it could be a reminder of what transpired. But then again, there are some good memories with several of these pieces. So, I'm torn. My husband, attorney, and family and friends have suggested that I just let it go and cut my losses and move on. Getting some of my mom's personal and cherished items, in addition to my maternal aunt, uncle, and grandparents' things, obviously don't serve as reminders of a horrible event. And yes, my husband and I have heirlooms of our own that we'll pass down to our own children and grandchildren..
Your post is a prime example why parents should give to their grown children items, such as art work and antiques, while everyone is still alive and in clear mind.
If you are able to obtain the art work, would you be able to enjoy the pieces, or would they just be a reminder of what had transpired? Or would it be better to just let it go. Create your own heirlooms to pass down to your own children and grandchildren.
My dad went around telling people that he had disowned me for being friends with my mom's care manager (totally untrue and he wouldn't listen to me when I told him that we had nothing more than a working relationship focused on my mom's needs). He eventually deluded himself into believing this and in apparent anger at my having detached from him, went to his estate atty and changed his part of my parents' estate plan. He tried to change my mom's half, but couldn't legally do it. Granted, NPD and BPD may not affect a person's mental competence, but delusions and early dementia can. Unfortunately, I don't have any certification from his Psychiatrist or other doctors indicating mental incompetence, and I don't have access to my dad's medical or Psychiatric records. So, he chose to leave his half to a beneficiary group that he's had a long-standing relationship with.. This is his prerogative to do so and I'm OK with that part of it. I'm left my mom's half of the inheritance, and according to the family trust, my dad could only take his share of the community property and not my mom's. But, I suspect that he convinced the attorney to pour even my mom's share of that community property into his pour over will. This seems illegal to me since my mom was dead at the time he changed the trust and my dad's pour over will is controlled by the stipulations in the family trust. Problem is that several of the tangible items that are left to my dad's beneficiary group are art pieces that, while not of museum quality and not worth tons of money, have a significance to me in my family history and provide a link to my family as its sole survivor. I don't care about the money part of the inheritance, just those tangible items that are so important to me as my family's sole survivor. If I were given those pieces, I have no intention of selling them because of their significance and place in my family history, but rather would pass them down to my kids and my grandkids. But, I'm told that even though I have an authenticity certificate in my mom's name for one of the pieces (a lithograph) and even though those art pieces and other items were also my mom's, I won't get these items. It would seem to me that if items were shared community property they should be split in half, with half considered as my mom's and going to me since I'm left with her half of the estate and the other half going to my dad's beneficiary group. I found a tangible property list that both of my parents signed about 23 years ago (art pieces are included in that list along with several other items). And, the family trust states that the survivor (I.e, my dad) can take his share of the property-- this means only his share. However, my attorney told me that there would have to be a bill of sales attached to the family trust showing that those items are actually part of the family trust. Without that, it appears that my dad could simply move them to his trust because they would be considered assets not covered/claimed in the family trust. There's an implication in the copy of the family trust I have that there's some sort of attachment related to the tangible property list, but I don't have it. And, I'm not sure that the atty who drew up my parents' original trust would still have it on file after 23 – 24 years. Right now, on my attorney's recommendation, I'm laying low.
Re: whether or not someone accompanied my dad to the meeting with his attorney: I suspect that somebody drove my dad to his attorney's office and likely was in attendance at his meeting with the attorney. But, given that several of his associates have a vested interest (I've dealt with some of them and things they've said to me over the years have pointed in that direction of profiting from an inheritance from him) in this and they're somewhat sleazy but good at pulling the wool over peoples' eyes, whichever one of them may have accompanied my dad could have lied to the attorney and stated that they hadn't unduly influenced my dad when they really had. The attorney would have no way to prove the truthfulness of this person's statements Given how good some of my dad's associates are at making their lies look believable, which I've had personal experience with, it wouldn't surprise me if that person would have come across as so believable that the attorney didn't realize that this person was lying about undue influence-- especially since she probably doesn't know these people very well, if at all. Plus, if my dad went by himself, his pathological lying and delusions are so convincingly truthful to people who don't know him very well, as is the case with his attorney, that he likely convinced her that he had acted of his own accord. My take on this is that once he deluded himself into believing and convincing others that he had disowned me, one of these associates with a vested interest convinced him/put undue influence on my dad to go to change his estate plan and even offered to drive him to the appointment. My attorney has brought up undue influence as a possible way to challenge the changes, and will do so if necessary. She told me that while it's hard to prove undue influence, there are ways to do so--- she has already had success in some other cases. And at the least, she told me that if she investigates on the basis of undue influence, because exploitation laws in my parents' state are very strict, even when there isn't absolute proof beyond a reasonable doubt of undue influence, rattling cages by pursuing undue influence often leads the other party to settle out of court rather than risk something being uncovered. If something is uncovered, they could stand to lose quite a bit. So settling out of court usually has less financial impact for them.
Dad may have cut you out in a snit of temper , but that does not equal incompetence.
Otherwise, a person can change their estate planning as many times as they wish. The changes might not be what the grown children would want to see, but it's not their estate to have a say.
If incompetence can't be shown, you can challenge the changes to the will based on undue influence. You'll have to tell us a bit more about that situation. Depending on what the situation is, this can work either for or against the case you are trying to make.