COFAR blog

Janet had always had a close relationship with her son Frankie, who has autism. (We are using pseudonyms for the mother and son to protect their identities.)

For years, Janet said, things had gone smoothly with the Department of Developmental Services (DDS), which had provided services to her son while he lived at home with her.

But at the age of 27, Frankie wanted independence, and Janet arranged with his clinicians to let him have his own apartment in November 2023. Frankie had a girlfriend who moved in with him, and that’s when things started to go south, according to Janet.

Janet said the girlfriend arranged for Frankie to be represented by a state-funded attorney, and Janet suddenly found herself accused by the attorney of being “emotionally unstable,” of “terrorizing” her son, and of refusing services for him. She said she was even accused at the time by the girlfriend of stealing her son’s car, when in fact, she owned the car.

The attorney sought to remove Janet’s guardianship of her son, and Janet is now also separately facing criminal charges in this matter of assault and trespassing. We are advocating for Janet in probate court, and are hoping the criminal charges are dropped.

Frankie has aphasia, a disorder that impedes language comprehension, and has anxiety and difficulty managing stress. Janet said Frankie is also susceptible to manipulation by people who may not have his best interests at heart.

Janet said that while Frankie lived with her, she had a good relationship with the DDS area office that served him.

But the area office changed in March of last year, a few months after Frankie moved into his own apartment in a new DDS district. The change of the office was completed roughly at the same time that Frankie’s girlfriend moved in with him.

In an arrangement planned in conjunction with Frankie’s clinicians, Janet moved into an apartment in the same building, two floors below Frankie’s apartment. They no longer lived together, but Janet said she was still able to help her son and be his “safety net,” as of one of his clinicians had recommended.

Janet initially helped Frankie’s girlfriend, who had reportedly been in danger of homelessness, and even reluctantly had the girlfriend’s name added to the lease for Frankie’s apartment. She said she assisted the girlfriend with applications for housing, transportation services, health insurance, ensuring medical appointments, and Social Security benefits.

But Janet said the girlfriend, in return, was far from grateful, and began to try to separate her from her son. She said the girlfriend then helped Frankie file the paperwork for the state-funded attorney to represent him in order to seek Janet’s removal by the court as his guardian. “She (the girlfriend) told me I was the competition,” Janet said.

As noted, Janet found herself suddenly accused in May of last year of terrorizing her son, refusing services for him and stealing his car.

Janet said there was no precedent or evidence for these accusations, yet the state-funded attorney used the accusations as a basis for a motion in probate court for Janet’s removal and the appointment of a new guardian.

The day before the attorney filed the motion, Janet said, she had entered Frankie’s apartment to find Frankie and his girlfriend meeting there with the attorney and with two care workers from the new DDS area office. At that time, Frankie told her the meeting was about removing her as his guardian. She said Frankie said he had been told by one of the DDS workers that he could not continue to receive DDS services if his mother continued to be his guardian.

The court did order Janet’s suspension as guardian in August, and appointed a new state-funded guardian who had never known or met Frankie. Janet was then forbidden from talking to her son’s doctors, and even from entering her son’s apartment after her son and his girlfriend obtained a no-trespass order against her last September.

Janet maintains that none of these things fit her son’s personality. She contends he was totally under the control of his girlfriend. 

Then, after the removal of her guardianship, Janet was accused by the girlfriend of having assaulted her, which Janet denies, and with violating the no-trespass order. Janet now found herself facing criminal assault and trespassing charges.

By way of disclosure, I am acting as Janet’s advocate in her ongoing guardianship case in probate court. She also has an attorney in that case and a court-appointed attorney in the criminal trespass and assault case. COFAR does not charge for advocacy services.

As part of her effort to defend herself in probate court, Janet submitted glowing testimonials from friends and colleagues, describing her as a committed mother and advocate for her son.

We have researched and analyzed many guardianship cases involving persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities for many years. Janet’s case appears to fit a pattern in which DDS and its service providers blame parents and other family members and guardians for problems that arise when the care process breaks down (See our blog post last week).

We think that is because family members and guardians have the least power and ability to contest that blame.

Testimonials

Janet submitted six references to the probate court from friends and professionals who vouched for her character and her efforts and value as a mother to Frankie.  At least three of the individuals who provided references expressed concerns that Frankie was being manipulated by his girlfriend into turning against his mother. Three of the references were affidavits signed under the pains and penalties of perjury.

One of the references was from Frankie’s church youth group leader, who described Janet as “a phenomenal mother. A rock and an advocate for him.”

A longtime friend of Janet’s stated that should Janet be permanently removed as her son’s legal guardian, “it would be detrimental to his health and safety. He would be lost.”

Another longtime friend wrote that Janet “has persevered to always be there for her son…, and literally showered him with love, respect, patience, and a desire for him to lead as normal a life as possible.”

A former neighbor of Janet’s wrote that Janet “demonstrated patience like no other mother I’ve seen… There is no doubt (Frankie) still requires (Janet’s) guidance. To remove her from this role would be an injustice to (Frankie) after all she has done for him throughout his life and continues to guide him with love and his best interest at heart.”

Mother pushed out of the picture

For the foreseeable future, Janet remains isolated from her son, and is tormented by the conviction that he is regressing into poor behaviors and habits. The state-funded guardian, she believes, is letting this all happen.

“She (the guardian) ignores what I’m telling her,” Janet said, and lately has refused to respond to Janet’s calls and text messages. Janet said she wants the probate judge in the case to understand that she is the only person in Frankie’s life right now who has his best interest at heart. But she’s not sure that message is getting through to the judge.

The judge has so far denied Janet’s request to be allowed to communicate with Frankie’s doctors. DDS, meanwhile, is seeking to remove her as her son’s representative payee for his Social Security payments.

The state-funded guardian is further opposing Janet’s request that she and Frankie undergo counseling together from Frankie’s clinicians.

“My job is to keep (Frankie) safe at all costs,” Janet said. “This is who he is and this is what he requires —  supervision.”

Driving in unsafe conditions and trying to tip over a casket 

Recently, Janet said, Frankie went out in subfreezing weather at night, with the temperature in single digits, wearing only pajamas and a light jacket, and drove her car to a party. He also drove on another occasion under similar conditions to a mall. “The road conditions were bad,” she said. “There was no reason for him to go. Those things would have never happened under my watch.

“Yet (the state-funded guardian) thinks it was appropriate,” Janet continued. “I had to remind her that was not appropriate given the temperatures that day. What if he were to get a flat tire or had to get out of the car for any reason? That is not appropriate attire and he could freeze”.

In another incident in December, Janet said, Frankie showed up with his girlfriend at a wake for the mother of a friend of Janet’s. Janet, who wasn’t able to attend the wake and didn’t know her son had gone to it, later found out that Frankie had shocked everyone there by trying to tip over the casket while his girlfriend watched. Janet’s friend was furious at her for not having Frankie under her control.

Based on the records we have reviewed and our interviews with Janet, we are concerned that she has been removed as the guardian of her son based on weak or nonexistent evidence. It further appears that a report of a court officer, known as a guardian ad litem, to the judge recommending Janet’s removal was biased against her.

The guardian ad litem appears to have relied on accounts and accusations made by witnesses who are hostile to Janet, and not to have interviewed or else failed to include accounts of witnesses supporting Janet in this dispute. The report even appears to have failed to include Janet’s own rebuttals to the charges against her.

We think that if one considers the entire history of Janet’s care of her son, it is evident that the accusations against her lack credibility. It defies common sense that a mother would care for her son without serious problems or conflicts for 27 years, and then, suddenly become an abuser who “terrorizes” her son and others.

We are working to try to help ensure that justice prevails in this case, and that Janet is reunited with her son and her guardianship is restored. We also hope the criminal charges against her are dropped. This case appears to be a test as to whether the system works even to a minimal degree.