Originally Posted by J Diddy
There are 5 pages to this article. Only the first being shown here. It does mention that the children stated they weren't allowed the option to move in but in regarding specific to her dementia the bureaucrat stated "The agency's court petition said Mrs. Highberg was 'so confused she could not even sustain a conversation. She repeatedly asked the caseworker who she was and made references to visiting the mountains."
Read more: http://lancasteronline.com/article/l...#ixzz2Cm8PY7OL
The other four pages of the article support the argument that the Office of Aging made an arbitrary decision that went AGAINST the wishes of the family.
I really don't understand why anyone would defend this decision. It sounds pretty ****ed up to me.