COFAR blog

The mother of an intellectually disabled man says she is being unfairly accused in probate court of having a conflict of interest in caring for her son, and that the conflict charge is being used to limit and possibly eliminate her co-guardianship rights.

Valerie Loveland said that in an April 19 Barnstable County Probate Court hearing on Zoom, an investigative attorney appointed by the judge presented a report concluding that Valerie had a conflict because she both sells natural medicinal products to customers and provides those products to her son.

Valerie maintains, however, that she derives no material benefit from the arrangement involving her son. She said her son buys the products directly from the company, Young Living Brand. She said his primary medical care provider approves all of his alternative medicines in accordance with his group home’s policy.

Valerie’s 24-year-old son is a resident of a group home on Cape Cod run by the May Institute, a corporate provider to the Department of Developmental Services (DDS). Valerie has asked that her son’s name be kept private.

We have previously reported that Valerie has been fighting both a motion to limit her co-guardianship of her son and a move to evict her from her subsidized apartment due to an alleged technical violation of her lease.

The motion to limit Valerie’s co-guardianship was filed in March by John Cartwright, an attorney who is paid by DDS to serve as Valerie’s son’s other co-guardian. Cartwright’s motion seeks to remove Valerie’s authority to make medical decisions for her son and to transfer her authority as representative payee for her son’s Social Security funds to the May Institute.

(Valerie said yesterday that her housing situation was being resolved favorably for her after discussions with housing officials.)

Health clinic program director approves natural medicines

In an April 27 letter, Gretchen Eckel, a certified physician assistant and a program medical director at Outer Cape Health Services, said Valerie’s son’s natural medicines have been subject to “shared decision making to permit these treatment plans.”

Eckel said she has seen “no harm or risks” to Valerie’s son caused by the use of the alternative medicines. She described Valerie as “a tremendous advocate for (Valerie’s son’s) needs, and I believe she has always had his best interests in mind.”

Valerie says she was not interviewed by guardian ad litem

Valerie contends she is being “railroaded” by Cartwright’s motion and by the report alleging that she has a conflict of interest in providing the natural medicines to her son. The report was writtten by Christopher Lebherz, who was appointed by the court in the case as a guardian ad litem (GAL). In Massachusetts, a GAL is an independent investigative official, often an attorney, who assists the court in guardianship cases.

Valerie said she was neither interviewed by Lebherz for his report, nor was she provided with a copy of the report either before the hearing or since. She was allowed by the judge in the case, Susan Sard Tierney, only to view the report and take notes on it in the courthouse, following the hearing. She was not allowed to make a copy of it.

The GAL’s report has been made available, however, to both Cartwright and to Carol Coyne, a DDS attorney in the case, according to an April 19 order issued by Tierney.

Valerie said the GAL’s report indicates support for the motion by Cartwright to limit her co-guardianship. Due to the GAL report’s confidential nature, COFAR has not been able to obtain a copy of it.

Valerie termed “caring and concerned mother”

In an email in response to a query I sent, Lebherz said he was “concerned about a conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest (on Valerie’s part) regarding rep payee.”

Lebherz also said he “spoke with Valerie and all other interested parties” in the case.  He said he “asked her (Valerie) and others to summarize all of their positions and send it all along to me.”

Lebherz also said he did not recommend that Valerie lose her medical decision making authority. He added that he “reviewed the case history and all filings,” and that he visited the May institute.

Lebherz declined to respond to my follow-up question whether he had found or presented any evidence in his report that Valerie had derived any material financial benefit from providing natural medicines to her son.

He also declined to respond to my follow-up question whether “speaking” with Valerie and asking her to “summarize her positions” constituted an interview, or whether he had specifically asked her about the alleged conflict of interest.

Lebherz, nevertheless, said, “All parties agree Valerie is a caring concerned mother. These are difficult issues and situations and we all try to do our best.”

While Lebherz said he didn’t recommend that Valerie lose her medical decision making authority, Valerie said that Lebherz stated in his report that he agreed with Cartwright’s motion that her medical decision making be limited to consenting to medical treatments directed by others.

“I raised (her son) completely alone,” Valerie said. “I worked where I could, managed his money and medical appointments, all of it for 18 years, below the poverty line. Now they’re trying to take everything away. What have I done?  I’ve never heard of anyone doing everything right and being treated so badly.”

Guardian ad litem standards require an interview and detailed fact finding

Under Massachusetts standards for guardians ad litem, the GAL must “provide each party with a separate interview so that each party may speak with candor.” (Section 4.4)

The GAL must also “conduct  the investigation in a fair and balanced manner”(6), and the GAL’s report “should provide accurate, detailed and balanced information about the parties and their children.”(8)

In addition, the GAL report should include “all relevant facts collected from all sources, including facts that are consistent and inconsistent with other reported facts.”(8.2). Further, the report must “set forth the connection between the facts and the conclusions or recommendations.”(8.5)

If Lebherz’s report concluded that Valerie has a conflict of interest, the GAL standards would appear to require that the report include relevant facts that support that conclusion, such as the extent of any financial benefit that Valerie received as a result of the alleged conflict.

No material benefit from providing natural medicines to son

Valerie said the GAL’s report alleged that she has a conflict of interest because she has provided natural medicines and other products to her son, and that she has a business in which she sells those products. She said that appears to be the primary reason that Lebherz recommended that she be removed as rep payee and that all medical decisions be made solely by Cartwright.

In fact, Valerie said, she has not derived a material financial benefit from her son’s use of the medicines. She said her son purchases the products directly from the company with his own money. She and her son both have accounts with the company and receive points for their purchases.

Valerie said she receives an average of $5 a month in “commissions” from her son’s purchases. “I set it up so that when I died whoever handles his account could continue ordering his supplies for him,” she said.

It doesn’t appear that the fact that Valerie sells natural medicines and has established an account for her son for those products would be a conflict unless she received a material financial benefit from that. As a user and seller of natural medicines, she might naturally be inclined to encourage her son to use them.

Valerie says Cartwright, the DDS co-guardian, has long opposed her efforts to provide natural medicines and essential oils to her son.

In her April 27 letter in support of Valerie, Eckel, the certified physician assistant, said Valerie’s son has been her primary care patient since 2014, and that she last examined him on April 27.

Eckel said Valerie raised her son since birth, and raised him independently since the age of three when his biological father left them. She said that since Valerie was appointed as her son’s co-guardian in 2016, Valerie has attended most of his medical visits “with the exception of a very few visits” when he was attended by staff of the May Institute.

Eckel added that “Valerie has opted for natural treatment options when available and safe for (Valerie’s son’s) ailments over the years, and we have used shared decision making to permit these treatment plans as I have seen no harm or risks to these strategies.”

Valerie said natural or alternative medicines are considered complementary to, and not a replacement for, western or modern medicines. She said the natural supplements and treatments provided to her son are in addition to his modern medications, and that he is fully vaccinated for COVID and for childhood diseases.

“I had an informed conversation with Gretchen (Eckel) regarding the vaccinations and their effectiveness, side effects, etc., before giving consent to the May to proceed with their vaccination clinics,” she said. She added that “May staff also reports he’s doing great since these changes (use of natural medicines) have been made.”

This is one of several cases on which we’ve reported, which raise questions about the fairness of the DDS and probate court systems, particularly when it comes to family members who lack financial resources or attorneys to represent them.

Our justice system isn’t supposed to function differently for people who lack those resources; but we’ve seen a number of instances (see here and here) in which that has unfortunately been the case.