As our clients know, a conservatorship is a court process that takes away an adult person’s legal right to manage her own affairs and gives that right to a conservator appointed by the court. This firm regularly seeks and obtains conservatorships over developmentally disabled and incapacitated adults on behalf of their parents and others who care about them.

The Los Angeles Times investigation has discovered, however, that many conservatorships do not follow this thoughtful and caring model. Most alarming, total strangers are being appointed conservator over adults who are not told about the proceedings until after their legal rights have been curtailed.

A few examples:

• One man first learned he was “conserved” when his credit card was denied at lunch.
• A disabled man’s food allowance was withheld, forcing his to rely on handouts for survival.
• One conservator bought her conservatee’s home cheap and then resold it for a profit of three times.

Even people who had nominated loved ones to act as Conservator found themselves under conservatorships established by strangers. Fortunately, these conservatorships can be overturned but only at great expense.

The Times investigation also noted that many private conservators are caring ethical people who take care of elderly or incapacitated people who desperately need help.

The Times’ advice? Establish a power of attorney, an advance healthcare directive, a nomination of conservator and a revocable trust. Good advice.

I read a lot of books.

I read a lot of books about parenting.

My favorite parenting books do one of two things. Some, like Haim Ginott’s Between Parent and Child, reinforce wisdom I had forgotten to act on (I first learned Dr. Ginott’s powerful and now classic ideas in How to Talk so Kids Will Listen and Listen So Kids will Talk, which is about so much more than communication). My other favorites open my eyes to a new way of seeing my children.

I just started reading How to Discipline Your Six to Twelve Year Old Without Losing Your Mind by Jerry Wycoff and Barbara Unell. The reviews on Amazon persuaded me this book would give me some constructive ways to deal with conflicts between my first-grader twins and me, without resorting to harsh punishments. I know I made a good choice. In the first page of the Introduction, they’ve opened my eyes to who my kids are now.

No longer “preschoolers” or extra-big babies, six-to-twelve-year olds are “childolescents.” They are struggling with issues that dependent and inexperienced under-sixes don’t face. My twins are faced with more expectations than ever before — at school, on the playground, and in social settings. When these expectations seem overwhelming, the childolescent rebels, declaring war on “this world that is, in their view, making excessive demands.”

It is no longer enough to kiss boo boos and murmur gently when a playground game gets too rough. Childolescents, while they need parental comfort as much as ever, also need to grow up and away. They need to challenge and understand the reasoning behind rules. Some authors say this is especially true of boys.

I always understood, on an intellectual level, that childhood is about growing competence and independence. I knew that teenagers strive to create separate identities. I knew that if I did a good job as a parent, my children would leave the nest and create independent lives.

I just didn’t know it would start so soon.

Every so often, Congress changes the rules of Medicaid (know in California as Medi-Cal) eligibility for nursing home coverage. In recent years, the federal law has been fairly stable, wtih no modifications since 1993. But in February, Congress enacted and President Bush signed the ‘Deficit Reduction Act of 2005,” which includes new rules governing Medicaid’s treatment of asset transfers made on or after the date of enactment.

To understand the changes, you will need some familiarity with Medicaid’s basic eligibility rules. Read on…

(“Home Sweet Home” available at Shelly Rasche.

Nursing home residents much pay their own way until they run out of savings, at which point they can qualify for Medi-Cal to cover their cost of care. The general rule is that to qualify for Medi-Cal, the nursing home resident may have only a small amount of “countable” assets ($2,000). Medi-Cal applicants who have given away assets in order to reduce them are penalized by a period of ineligibility for benefits.

The penalty period is calculated by dividing the amount transferred by what Medi-Cal determines is the average private pay cost of a nursing home in the state. In California, the average cost is $5,031. A senior who gives away $50,310 will have a penalty — a period of ineligibility for benefits — of 10 months.

The new rules make this penalty more punitive by delaying its start. Under the old law, the penalty period would begin as soon as the assets were transferred. Under the new law, the penalty period stays the same, but does not begin until the senior has entered a nursing home and is otherwise eligible for Medicaid coverage, in other words, is practically out of money.

While the federal law applies to all transfers made on or after February 8, 2006, states have several months to enact their own compliant laws. It is unclear what will happen for transfers made after February 8 but before California comes into compliance. Commentators suggest that it depends upon when the application is filed. If the application is filed under old state laws, those will apply. If the state has enacted new laws, those will apply.

In addition to changing the transfer rules, the new legislation also limits protections for homes. Under current law, if a nursing home resident intends to return home or has a likelihood of returning home, the house is exempt from the limit on countable assets.

Under the new law, the equity that is exempt is capped between $500,000 and $750,000. California will choose its number within that range. There are exceptions to this cap: if the spouse or the nursing home resident or a disabled or minor child is living in the house, the cap does not apply.

It is unclear whether current Medicaid recipients will have their eligibilty reassessed in consideration of their home’s current market value and equity.

– Adapted from ElderLaw News, Spring 2006