Texas is an attractive state in which to live. Unfortunately, with our growing population, increasing life expectancy as well as Baby Boomers being on the brink as our largest senior population bloc to date, a new, insidious threat is emerging in which Texans increasingly find their civil liberties and property rights hijacked through probate venues and/or probate instruments including guardianships.

Guardianships can be instituted by an individual or by government. Growing evidence suggests that this instrument can be misused and ultimately cause great abuse of a ward whose welfare it was theoretically enacted to protect.

As background, unanticipated circumstances led me to begin researching probate venues and probate instruments as avenues for abuse and corruption. My initial focus was on wills and trusts and the opportunity that estate administration offers for diverting assets from intended beneficiaries. In learning about probate, it didn't take long for guardianships to surface as another instrument available for use not only in stripping a person of assets, but also in stripping their basic civil rights. I saw the administrative ease and casualness of process impacting Texans of all ages to be both mind-boggling and an incredible threat to an unsuspecting public.

During this time, I also was producer of a Texas-based talk radio program. My daily responsibilities included researching issues and scheduling guests on a wide array of topics important to our audience - individual freedom, civil liberties, property rights, wealth redistribution and the hazards of "big government." Examples of people using public policy and process to fulfill targeted goals - goals which sometimes benefitted a few at the expense of many - were readily identifiable. It didn't take long for my probate findings to gel into an issue I call an Involuntary Redistribution of Assets (IRA) which simply put is the use of probate venues and/or probate instruments (wills, trusts, guardianships, powers of attorney) to loot assets of the dead, disabled or incapacitated. This also resulted in my development of a web site, www.EstateofDenial.com, with its tag line "shining light on the dark side of estate management."

I was born and raised here in Austin. I've lived in Texas all my life and can't see ever relocating elsewhere. I love this city, I love my state and I'm horrified to see my fellow Texans' freedom, lifelong accumulation of assets or sometimes both be hijacked and plundered. Let me quickly tell you what I've learned about guardianships. My intention is to provide general context to the specific stories you have heard and will continue hearing today. The case patterns here in Texas sadly reflect trends seen across the country.

When today’s charge seeks to determine if Departments of Aging and Disabilities (DADS) or Adult Protective Services (APS)-initiated guardianships adequately protect clients and assets, I would say "not necessarily" and, along with Americans for Prosperity, share concern regarding the lack of recourse for those questionable cases.

As guardianship disputes are part of the “pay-to-play” civil court system, challenges of government-initiated actions are expensive and, for many families, simply cost prohibitive. Families may have resources to start proceedings, but tactical delays and other ploys can quickly force an abandonment of efforts - even with the most legitimate of cases.

The legal industry including lawyers, judges and other court-appointed personnel as well as those involved with social services and related networks are regular participants in these actions. They benefit from familiarity with the system and decision-making parties. Families or others disputing government guardianship actions instead face dependency on legal practitioners whose long-term professional (and financial) welfare is, in actuality, more contingent upon positive relations with court personnel and opposing counsel than with their own clients.

The pursuit of assets is an obvious motivation for abusive guardianships. Additional research, however, suggests that prospective wards can have "headcount value" as participants for the rolls of taxpayer-funded programs. Stories exist - many documented - in which APS employees, professional guardians, other social workers, medical personnel responsible for evaluations (physical and psychological) and proprietors of facilities that house incapacitated or disabled individuals involve themselves in questionable guardianship cases. The case of Michael and Eugenia Kidd, the Richardson couple held involuntarily over the course of nearly a year, is one such example. Please refer to the following articles: Is Texas ready to address guardianships and other probate abuse? & Estate looting, probate abuse “stimulus”.

I am not before you here today to say that all guardianships are bad or abusive. Sometimes they are needed. However, whether initiated by public or private entities, hijacking the personal liberty and/or property of any Texas citizen for some self-enriching purpose is wrong. Motives may be direct financial gain through "spending-down" the ward's assets, indirect gain by adding them to an institutional headcount eligible for taxpayer-funded subsidization or a combination of both. In any case, it's time for real dialogue to address naming all the true culprits, exposing the lack of recourse experienced by caring, responsible families, acknowledging the civil and property rights violations that occur and recognizing how these victims can end up a burden on honest, hard-working Texans as they are unnecessarily shifted into taxpayer-funded programs.

Your time today is appreciated. If I can be of assistance in working with the Committee to address this issue or provide additional information, please feel free to contact me.