Originally Posted by Brainiac
I don't think we read the same article. The family opposed the forced removal of this couple from their home, and the neighbors agreed with the family.
The bureaucrat had ONE conversation with her and concluded that she couldn't carry on a conversation and has been senile since 2007.
I stand by my original suggestion: get a second opinion. If the family had agreed with the bureaucrat's decision, it would be a totally different situation. But they don't agree. That's a problem.
First I'd like to point out that you are assuming this person is a bureaucrat. That his only goal is to remove people from homes. This has not been the case as stated here:
In each of the past three years, the Office of Aging investigated an average of 1,300 reports of suspected abuse, neglect or financial exploitation. About 640 of those cases had merit, and the office each year sought guardianship in about 70 cases.
Second, leaving them there to fend for themselves when the.y are incapable of doing so is just like child abuse. They felt they were in danger and made a move. How would you feel if they investigated, didn't make a move, and suddenly everything went to hell? Would it still be there fault?
Third, like I said. There's no mention of not being allowed to get a second opinion.