Report On Legal Guardianships In The State Of Missouri (2021) Revised Edition

REPORT ON LEGAL GUARDIANSHIPS
IN THE STATE OF MISSOURI (2021)
(Revised Edition)
An examination of legal guardianships in Missouri,
the existential need for broad extensive research on guardianships,
the development of the Commission on Disabilities & Guardianships
under the auspices of the Office of State Courts Administrator, the
ongoing systemic efforts to erode and eliminate guardianships by the
Missouri Interdisciplinary Network Guardianship Stakeholders (MO WINGS)
government and quasi-government group, and the number of incidents of
abuse, neglect, and deaths occurring among people with severe disabilities.
Written By
Christopher Cross, M.A., D.S.P., C.M.A. (ret.)
duly court appointed legal guardian & federally appointed payee
Legal_Guardian77@yahoo.com
(Revised September 16, 2021)

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Author’s Comments……………………………………………………………………. i
Executive Summary……………………………………………………………………. ii
Table of Authorities……………………………………………………………………... iii – vii
Adjudication of Incapacity or Disability………………………………………………..1
Guardianship Classifications………………………………………………………….. 4
Missouri Protection & Advocacy Services, Inc………………………………………. 10
Unresolved Conflicts…………….……………………………………………………... 13
Public Administrator Guardians……………………………………………………….. 23
Private Guardians………………………………………………………………………. 29
Statistical Information………………………………………………………………….. 36
Commission on Disability & Guardianships…………………………………………. 45
Pattern or Practice Conduct…………………………………………………………… 46
Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………. 47

AUTHOR’S COMMENTS
Unlike children, who have a plethora of people, agencies, advocates, and organizations
to advocate for them, and unlike all other special interest groups that engage in a wide array of
public demonstrations and political speech to advocate their issues, people with disabilities are
the single most class of vulnerable people in our society because of the stigmas attached and the
customary indifferences from Legislators and government officials, and society.
Therefore, it is particularly important that when advocates, organizations, and government
agencies engage in political actions to amend statutory laws and Act’s, affecting the civil rights of
people with disabilities, that they include the voices of this class and those most closely involved
with them, to ensure even the most inadvertent harm is not inflicted on them. There is, perhaps,
no greater area of concern than when legislation is filed to amend guardianships laws because of
the far-reaching impacts such amendments have on the civil rights of people with disabilities.
Moreover, that when a political agenda is pushed to use legislative bills to erode and/or to
abolish guardianships, people with disabilities having a guardian are not forced into situations or
circumstances that subject or cause them to be subjected to abuse, neglect, exploitation, suicides,
or homicides resulting from the guardian being prevented from discharging duties.
Furthermore, it is no less important that any person acting in concert with others to push
the political agenda of eroding and/or eliminating guardianships, be held strictly accountable when
he or she engages in conduct that contributes to or causes his or her ward to be abused,
neglected, exploited, killed, or committing suicide, as a direct or proximate result of the political
agenda to erode and/or eliminate guardianships.
Likewise, there is an essential need for proponents of and Legislators involved with bills
filed, to listen carefully and proactively to and include the voice of opponents who raise alarms of
inherent dangers that a legislative bill creates.
This report shows just how utterly disastrous and deliberately indifferent those involved in
the MO WINGS political agenda have acted that it raises serious questions of whether wards and
guardians have been subjected or caused to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment and
the deprivation of due process, free speech, and association civil rights, by government officials
and state actors acting in concert with government, in violation of the First, Fifth, Eighth and/or
Fourteenth Amendment(s) to the United States Constitution.
The author of this report is not an attorney and the opinions contained in this report should
not be construed to and are not intended to constitute legal advice. However, it is a settled legal
principle that everyone is presumed to know the law, Atkins v. Parker, 105 S. Ct. 2520, 2529
(1985), and the Missouri Appellate Court points out that guardians are required to know the law
governing them in the exercise and discharge of their duties. See In re Estate of Pittman, 16
S.W.3d 639, 643 (Mo. App. W.D. 2000) (“Gerald Pittman's testimony exhibited some confusion
concerning his precise . . . duties as guardian . . . He complained that no one informed him of his
legal duties, but this did not relieve him of those duties. This is not want of `knowledge of a fact'
but a self-professed lack of understanding of the law's requirement, which could have been as-
certained from a reading of the statutes and pertinent cases. Persons are conclusively presumed
to know the law." See Missouri Highway and Transportation Commission v. Myers, 785
S.W.2d 70, 75 (Mo. banc 1990).
i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report examines public and private guardianships in Missouri, the existential need for
broad extensive research on both types of guardianships and the development of the Commission
on Disabilities & Guardianships under the Missouri Office of State Courts Administrator. And the
ongoing systemic efforts of the Missouri Interdisciplinary Network Guardianship Stakeholders
(MO WINGS) government and quasi-government group, to erode and eliminate guardianships.
Additionally, this report identifies specific types of guardianships in Missouri based upon a
realistic application of real-life guardianships, issues within the Departments of Social Services,
and Mental Health, the state courts, downfalls of guardianships held by public administrators, the
intentional exclusion of broad-based stakeholder voices, discriminatory aspects imposed, and the
adverse impacts these things inflict on wards and guardians.
The necessity for this report arises by the ongoing systemic efforts of MO WINGS to erode
and eliminate guardianships in Missouri based on a purely one-sided disgruntled agenda, and its
intent to dictate private guardianships based on what public administrators and state departments
with a conflict of interest, want, by excluding the voice of all guardianship stakeholders. Moreover,
the habitual systemic failures or refusals of Legislators in Missouri to properly debate the issues
when considering proposed legislation filed, and their overt unwillingness to listen to anyone other
than those in government. And the substantial deficits of the Missouri court system that invariably
and habitually deprives due process, equal protection of law, and equal access to the courts for
wards of guardianship and their guardians.
Although Clair McCaskill previously pointed out the inadequacies existing to protect people
with severe disabilities, when she was the Missouri State Auditor (Report No. 2005-62), an article
was published in the Columbian Missourian, on June 9, 2021, which was written by reporter
William Skipworth, and is entitled Missouri fails to adequately protect those with developmental
disabilities from abuse, neglect. While the foundation is abuse, neglect, and the eventual death
of Mr. Carl DeBrodie, who had developmental disabilities, the article is relevant in other aspects.
According to Mr. Skipworth’s article, between January 1, 2019 to April 22, 2021, individuals
with disabilities housed in state contracted private provider housing programs died at a rate of 22%
by undetermined causes, 7% accidental causes, 1% homicide causes, 1% suicide causes, and
69% natural causes. Moreover, during the same time period, individuals in these state contracted
private housing programs suffered verbal abuse in a rate of 10%, both physical and verbal abuse
combined 10%, sexual abuse 7%, physical abuse by itself 36%, neglect 18%, and misuse of both
or either property / money at 19%.
Based on the professional experience of the author of this report, the vast majority of those
in state contracted private housing programs have a public administrator as guardian. This begs
the question of exactly why it is that the MO WINGS group, which consists of public administrators,
among other state and county officials, are over-zealous to erode and eliminate guardian duties,
and thereby forcibly leave individuals with severe disabilities to fend for themselves, or have the
private service provider making decisions, in spite of the conflicts of interests existing and history
of private service providers failing or refusing to report abuse, neglect, and exploitation.
ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Websites
American Bar Association, Wards of the State: A National
Study of Public Guardianship
https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/law_
aging/wardofstatefinal.pdf
American Bar Association, WINGS program
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/law_aging/resources/wings-
court-stakeholder-partnerships0/
Association of Retarded Citizens (The ARC)
‘People with Intellectual Disabilities and Sexual Offenses’
https://thearc.org/wp-content/uploads/forchapters/Sexual%20Offenses.pdf
Columbia Missouri, June 9, 2021, news article:
‘Missouri Fails to adequate protect those
with developmental disabilities from abuse,
neglect’
https://www.columbiamissourian.com/news/state_news/missouri-
fails-to-adequately-protect-those-with-developmental-disabilities-
from-abuse-neglect/article_801622c6-b0e2-11eb-
b5f1-bb2940fd4ef4.html
Corporate Finance Institute
What is a Stakeholder?
https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/
finance/stakeholder/
Joplin Globe, Class-action lawsuit filed against public administrator
https://www.joplinglobe.com/news/local_news/class-action-lawsuit-filed-
against-public-administrator/article_51eb8610-6d5b-572d-98ce-
3af4b592177c.html
Journal of Psychiatric Practice
‘The DSM-5 and Forensic Psychiatry
https://journals.lww.com/practicalpsychiatry/Abstract/2013/05000/
The_DSM_5_and_Forensic_Psychiatry.8.aspx
Missouri Department of Mental Health publication
of the 2020 ‘Missouri Public Guardianship Report’
https://dmh.mo.gov/media/pdf/missouri-public-guardianship-report
Missouri Developmental Disabilities Council position
on guardianships
https://moddcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/SES-Missouri-
DD-Council-Guardianship-Paper-FINAL.pdf
Missouri House Judiciary Committee
Summary on HB 1553 (2018) and testimony given
https://house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills181/sumpdf/HB1553C.pdf
iii

Missouri Secretary of State
‘1930 – 1950: Treatments’
https://www.sos.mo.gov/archives/exhibits/quest/
treatment/1930-1950
Missouri State Auditor Report No 2005-62
‘State mental health clients not fully protected from abuse
and neglect due to problems with incident investigations
and abusive workers still employed’
https://auditor.mo.gov/Repository/Press/2005-62.htm
Missouri State Auditor Report No. 2016-13
‘Findings in the audit of Dunklin County Public Administrator’
https://auditor.mo.gov/AuditReport/CitzSummary?id=454
Missouri State Auditor Report No. 2016-141
Summary of County Audit Findings - Public Administrator
https://auditor.mo.gov/AuditReport/CitzSummary?id=542
Missouri Supreme Court’s Established Commissions
https://www.courts.mo.gov/page.jsp?id=612
Missouri Supreme Court’s Commission on Racial & Ethic Fairness
https://www.courts.mo.gov/page.jsp?id=95153
Missouri Working Interdisciplinary
Network of Guardianship Stakeholders
(2021) Membership Roster List
https://www.mo-wings.org/add-3rd-tab-update-members-tab/
National Guardianship Association, Standards of Practice
Fourth Edition (2013)
https://www.guardianship.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/NGA-
Standards-with-Summit-Revisions-2017.pdf
People First of Missouri, Semi-Annual
Self-Advocacy Conference, Newsletter
https://www.missouripeoplefirst.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/PFMO-
Conference-2021-Program_Final-2.0-2.pdf
Prison Legal News, Vigilantes Assault, Rob and Murder Registered
Sex Offenders
https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2017/may/5/vigilantes-assault-
rob-and-murder-registered-sex-offenders/
St. Louis Post-Dispatch
‘Public can comment on proposed changes to Missouri’s
guardianship law’
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/public-
can-comment-on-proposed-changes-to-missouris-guardianship-
law/article_994ef605-5720-50f9-9499-a68ea93bfcda.html
iv

Springfield News-Leader
‘Missouri guardianship law could change, public can comment
though October’
https://www.news-leader.com/story/news/local/ozarks/2015/07/19/
missouri-guardianship-law-change-public-can-comment-october/
30397427/
University of Missouri – Kansas City
Institute on Human Development
Missouri Guardianship Project
https://ihd.umkc.edu/missouri-guardianship-project/
State Legislation:
Missouri House Bill 1553 (2018), Original Filed
https://house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills181/hlrbillspdf/4096H.01I.pdf
Missouri House Bill 978 (2021), Originally Filed
https://house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills211/hlrbillspdf/2132H.01I.pdf
State Laws
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 115.195.3 (2002)
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 217.535 (1982)
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 484.010 (1939)
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 473.140
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 473.153.7 (1989)
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 473.730.3
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 473.742.1 (2010)
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 473.760 (1983)
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 475.010(8) (2018)
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 475.020 (1983)
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 475.010(11) (2018)
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 475.046 (2009)
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 475.050.4 (2018)
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 475.074.13(4) (2018)
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 475.078.2 and 3 (2018)
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 475.080 (1983)
v

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 475.083.4 (2018)
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 475.110.1 (2001)
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 475.120.2 (2018)
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 475.120.3 (2018)
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 475.120.3 (2021)
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 475.120.4 (2018)
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 475.343.1 (2018)
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 475.361.2 (2018)
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 475.370.1 (1983)
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 507.040 (2019)
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 507.090 (1943)
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 507.100 (1983)
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 544.170.2 (2005)
Missouri Constitution:
Mo. Const. Art. VI, § 9
Mo. Const. Art. VIII, § 2
Code of Federal Regulations:
20 CFR 404.2035
United States Code:
42 U. S. C. § 407(a).
U.S. Constitution:
First Amendment
Fifth Amendment
Eighth Amendment
Fourteenth Amendment
Missouri Supreme Court Rules of Civil Procedure:
Rule 52.02(k)
vi

Rule 52.04
Rule 52.12
Rule 52.13
Case Laws
Aallen v. Martin, 400 S.W.3d 881, 883 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013)
Atkins v. Parker, 105 S. Ct. 2520, 2529 (1985)
In re Estate of Vester, 4 S.W.3d 575, 577 576 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999)
In re Estate of Pittman, 16 S.W.3d 639, 643 (Mo. App. W.D. 2000)
Janson v. Legalzoom.com, Inc., 802 F.Supp.2d 1053,
1058-59 (Dist Ct. Mo., W.D., 2011)
Matter of Warren, 858 S.W.2d 263, 265 (Mo. App. W.D. 1993)
Mikesic v. Trinity Lutheran Hosp., 980 S.W.2d 68, 72, 74
(Mo. App. W.D. 1998)
Preston v. State, 33 S.W.3d 574, 580 (Mo. App. W.D. 2000)
Scaletty et al., v. Carnahan, 499 F.3d 803, 809 (8th Cir. 2007)
State v. Newton, 925 S.W.2d 468, 471 (Mo. App. E.D. 1996)
Strong v. Gilster Mary Lee Corp., 23 S.W.3d 234, 241
(Mo. App. E.D. (2000)
Szramkowski v. Szramkowski, 2010 Mo. App. E.D. LEXIS 784
(Mo. App. 2010)
Washington State Dept. of Social and Health Servs., v.
Guardianship Estate of Keffeler, 537, U.S. 371, (2003)
vii

ADJUDICATION OF INCAPACITY OR DISABILITY
To determine whether a person is incapacitated for purposes of appointing a guardian, Mo.
Rev. Stat. § 475.010(11) (2018), defines the term incapacitated to be:
. . . one who is unable by reason of any physical, mental, or cognitive
condition to receive and evaluate information or to communicate
decisions to such an extent that the person, even with appropriate
services and assistive technology, lacks capacity to manage the
person's essential requirements for food, clothing, shelter, safety or
other care such that serious physical injury, illness, or disease is likely
to occur. The term incapacitated person as used in this chapter includes
the term partially incapacitated person unless otherwise specified or
apparent from the context;
To determine whether a person is disabled for purposes of appointing a guardian, Mo. Rev.
Stat. § 475.010(6) (2018), defines the term disabled to be:
(a) Unable by reason of any physical, mental, or cognitive condition to receive and evalu-
ate information or to communicate decisions to such an extent that the person lacks
ability to manage the person's financial resources; or
(b) The term disabled or disabled person, as used in this chapter includes the terms par-
tially disabled or partially disabled person unless otherwise specified or apparent from
the context;
“An adjudication of incapacity or disability does operate to impose upon the ward or
protectee all legal disabilities provided by law, except to the extent specified in the order of
adjudication or otherwise in this chapter.” Mo. Rev. Stat. § 475.078.2 (2018).
“A person who has been adjudicated incapacitated or disabled or both shall be presumed
to be incompetent, except as otherwise specified in this chapter. A person who has been
adjudicated partially incapacitated or partially disabled or both shall be presumed to be
competent. The court at any time after a hearing on the question may determine that an
incapacitated, disabled, or partially incapacitated or partially disabled person is incompetent for
some purposes and competent for other purposes.” Mo. Rev. Stat. § 475.078.3 (2018).
When a court adjudicates a ward either partially or totally incapacitated and/or disabled,
the court is required to notify the Missouri Secretary of State, Mo. Rev. Stat. § 115.195.3, who, in
turn, then notifies local county election officials. The reason for this is that while citizens have the
right to vote, Mo. Const. Art. VIII, 2 stipulates, “[p]rovided however, no person who has a guardian
of his or her estate or person by reason of mental incapacity, appointed by a court of competent
jurisdiction” may vote.”
That said, the three-judge panel for the Eighth Circuit Court ruled that while Missouri law
generally prohibits incapacitated people voting, the ban on voting is not absolute because probate
courts have explicitly ruled that incapacitated people can vote, see Scaletty et al., v. Carnahan,
499 F.3d 803, 809 (8th Cir. 2007). The Court also did not agree with the argument made by the
Missouri Protection & Advocacy Services, Inc., that Mo. Const. Art. VIII, § 2, disenfranchises
people assigned a full guardianship. Id.
1

The court also pointed out that the distinction between partially and totally incapacitated
is “significant”, Id., at 806, because “[a]n adjudication of partial incapacity imposes only those
legal disabilities “specified in the order of adjudication” § 475.078.1, whereas an adjudication of
full incapacity imposes “all legal disabilities provided by law, except to the extent specified in the
order of adjudication,” § 475.078.2.” Id.
While the adjudication, whether appointing a limited or full guardianship, is required to be
the least restrictive to “impos[e] only such restraint as is necessary to prevent [the ward] from
injuring himself or others and to provide him with such care, habilitation and treatment as are
appropriate for him considering his physical and mental condition and financial means” Id., at 806,
807, if the adjudication order does not specify any exceptions to the state of incapacity, then the
ward has all legal rights of disabilities because no limitations to those rights are imposed.
The importance of this is that in HB 978 (2021) amending Mo. Rev. Stat. § 475.120.3, such
now holds:
Except as otherwise limited by the court, a guardian shall make
decisions regarding the adult ward's support, care, education,
health, and welfare. A guardian shall exercise authority only as
necessitated by the adult ward's limitations and, to the extent
possible, shall encourage the adult ward to participate in decisions,
act on the adult ward's own behalf, and develop or regain the capacity
to manage the adult ward's personal affairs.
Originally, the core duty of guardians was defined to be, “[t]he general powers and duties
of a guardian of an incapacitated person shall be to take charge of the person of the ward and to
provide for the ward's care, treatment, habilitation, education, support and maintenance. . .” Mo.
Rev. Stat. § 475.120.3 (2018). This is wholly consistent with the definition of incapacitated, which
is defined in Mo. Rev. Stat. § 475.010(11) in that the ward is incapable providing for one or more
of his or her major life activities because of disability, that he or she requires someone to act for
and on his or her behalf to do the same.
Thus, the distinction between “provide for” and that of “make decisions regarding” is both
significant and self-serving.
First, the only entity testifying before the House Judiciary Committee hearing conducted
on February 24, 2021, was the Missouri Association of Public Administrators by and through its
lobbyist. The Committee summary on that testimony holds:
PROPONENTS: Supporters say that this is a clarification of
responsibilities of guardians. Current statute says that guardians
provide for their wards but that sometimes is taken to mean that
they have to take care of them financially (personally), so this
makes it clear that the guardian makes personal decisions for the
ward, but does not take care of them financially. This takes a more
client-centric approach to providing guardianship.
The argument that the term “provide for” in § 475.120.3 (2018) means that guardians are
required to use their own financial resources to pay for the ward’s support is moot, frivolous and
false because the immunities in § 475.120.4 (2018) and § 475.343,1 (2018) shield all guardians
from having to do such. Moreover, the immunity given to public administrators in § 473.730.3 also
gives public administrators immunity from being sued if they do not use their own financial
resources because for public administrators, discharging duties under § 475.120, is discretionary.
2

Second, the report commissioned by the Missouri Association of Public Administrators and
dated, April 20, 2020, overtly demonstrates a barrage of complaints made by disgruntled public
administrators throughout Missouri. Among them include, but is not limited to, the number and
types of wards public administrators have, the amount of time public administrators are having to
spend working on their cases, the lack of state and community resources, and behaviors making
it more difficult to get wards placed in residential homes or facilities.
Moreover, public administrators assert that probate judges are too quick to appoint public
administrators as guardians instead of using them as the last resort, by probate judges playing
the role of family counselor to mediate and settle family disputes in who is to be guardian. And
public administrators complain the State of Missouri is releasing too many people from state run
institutions, which public administrators blame the State, federal authorities, and federal Acts for
doing.
Thus, the amendment HB 978 made to Mo. Rev. Stat. § 475.120.3 is self-serving to cater
to disgruntled public administrators who want less wards, less work, less responsibility and having
less duties. The amendment permits public administrators to pawn their job off onto someone else
to do for them, by engaging in a full-frontal assault on the core duty of guardians and the very
reason that a person is appointed a guardian. § 475.010(11).
While public administrators zealously embrace this statutory amendment, for those who
are private guardians it will inevitably create substantial chaos, pit wards and guardians against
each other, endanger public safety, a ward’s personal and physical safety, and be used by public
and private service providers and other state officials to unduly interfere in guardianships with the
purpose of making decisions for the ward, or coercing, luring, intimidating or threatening wards to
make decisions the service providers want made.
One area of particular concern is that the amended provision of § 475.120.3 can and in all
probability will, create a substantial legal nightmare for both wards and private guardians. Private
guardians are extremely knowledgeable about their respective wards given the relationship and
length such has existed, that private guardians are also far more knowledgeable about the ward’s
limitations because of disabilities.
The state departments and divisions most likely to interfere and cause substantial legal
nightmares is the Missouri Department of Social Services, Division of Family Support and the MO
HealthNet Division. Prior to the HB 978 amending § 475.120.3, department / division employees
commonly permitted wards to fill out legal documents under penalty of perjury, for food stamps
and Medicaid knowing the individual has a guardian, but in reckless disregard for such. However,
with § 475.120.3 being amended, it will inevitably become a custom, pattern, or practice without
regard to whether the court imposed limitations on disability, to permit the ward to do such.
The ultimate intent and design of the amendment to § 475.120.3 is to erode guardianship
duties to effectively downgrade such to a power of attorney or a standby guardian where the only
help given is when the ward cannot act for and on behalf of himself or herself. Theoretically this
is fine, but practically and realistically, it sets the ward up to fail, especially wards who already do
not believe they need a guardian despite their qualified disabilities and histories proving otherwise.
For forensic guardianships, the amendment is especially problematic to endanger public
safety and puts wards at substantial risk to be incarcerated. Forensic guardianships require more
supervision and structure, than a general guardianship, as not only are there disability factors that
are involved, but also, there is an added element of the ward having a history of or substantially
being at risk of becoming involved with law enforcement and the criminal justice system because
of disability and/or diagnosed behavioral conditions.
3

GUARDIANSHIP CLASSIFICATIONS
Before we can examine the issues about guardianships purported by the MO WINGS and
its members, we must begin first with understanding the basic aspects of guardianships based on
the classifications of guardianships.
(A). Statutory Classifications:
No person who is capable of providing for his or her own needs such that he or she does
not fit the definition of Mo. Rev. Stat. § 475.010(11) (2018), should ever be appointed a guardian
of any type. Rather, powers of attorney are more than sufficient to provide for the person’s medical,
financial, and legal needs, wants, and wishes, on an as-needed basis.
However, when a person is “ . . . unable by reason of any physical, mental, or cognitive
condition to receive and evaluate information or to communicate decisions to such an extent that
the person, even with appropriate services and assistive technology, lacks capacity to manage
the person’s essential requirements for food, clothing, shelter, safety or other care such that
serious physical injury, illness, or disease is likely to occur. The term incapacitated person as
used in this chapter includes the term partially incapacitated person unless otherwise specified or
apparent from the context,” Mo. Rev. Stat. § 475.010(11) (2018), then appointing a guardian may
be appropriate depending on the individual’s circumstances and mental or physical condition.
The Revised Statutes of Missouri (2018) assert that there are three types of guardianships,
i.e., full, limited, and standby, for which the probate court can award the petitioner.
A full guardian is “one appointed by a court to have the care and custody of the person of
a minor or of an incapacitated person. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 475.010(8) (2018). Full guardianships give
the guardian statutory right and duty to make any and all decisions for and on behalf of the ward.
See Preston v. State, 33 S.W.3d 574, 580 (Mo. App. W.D. 2000) (explaining that a guardian has
the “duty and responsibility to make any and all decisions” regarding important aspects of his or
her ward’s life).
A limited guardian is “one whose duties or powers are limited” by the courts’ order. See
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 475.010(8) (2018). This type of guardianship exists when the ward is capable of
making decisions to provide for himself or herself in one or more major life activity, but incapable
of doing so in all life activities, that he or she needs a guardian. By statutory definition, “[t]he order
of appointment shall specify the powers and duties of the limited guardian so as to permit the
partially incapacitated ward to care for himself commensurate with his ability to do so and shall
also specify the legal disabilities to which the ward is subject.” Mo. Rev. Stat. § 475.080 (1983).
In the 2018 legislative session, MO WINGS had the statutory definition of what a limited
guardian entails changed, to now include, “[i]n establishing a limited guardianship, the court shall
impose only such legal disabilities and restraints on personal liberty as are necessary to promote
and protect the well-being of the individual and shall design the guardianship so as to encourage
the development of maximum self-reliance and independence in the individual.”
A standby guardian is “one approved by the court to temporarily assume the duties of
guardian of a minor or of an incapacitated person under section 475.046.” Id. However, while Mo.
Rev. Stat. § 475.046, allows a custodial parent to nominate a standby guardian, this statute does
not afford either a full or limited guardian the same statutory rights, and MO WINGS did not include
this provision when it convinced Legislators to amend the Guardianship Code in Missouri, in 2018.
4

(B). Actual Classifications:
Current state law describes only two classes of guardianships, i.e., minor and adult. While
this itself is fine, current state law does not define guardianships by their appropriate classification,
i.e., general, specialize, and forensic. This is important because current law erroneously asserts
every guardianship and every ward, fit into one glass bottle. This practice manifests bias/prejudice
against wards because of disabilities, endangers public safety, deprives civil rights, sets wards up
to fail and then punishes them for failing, is severely and pervasively shortsighted and fails or it
refuses to customize guardianships according to the specific ward in order to actually achieve the
client-centered approach that MO WINGS members falsely claim they want to achieve.
The necessity to separate classifications of guardianships into three categories is simple
enough: It ensures guardianships and laws existing are target specific, and not stereotyping any
and all wards, guardians, and guardianships into a one size fits all class bubble. Moreover, it also
serves to ensure wards requiring heightened supports, supervision, and structure are not treated
as wards who require less, and thereby setting wards up to fail, endangering personal/physical
safety of wards and the public, and depriving civil rights. Finely, reduces or eliminates confusion
about why a ward needs less or more supports, supervision, and structure, so health care staff
and public and private service providers understand why certain services are necessary.
For all practical purposes in what realistically and actually exists in guardianship classes,
there are three classifications of guardianships, i.e., general, specialized, and forensic, which far
more accurately describe a ward’s needs, limitations, and strengths, and better identify situations
and circumstances a probate court would need to consider, when determining whether to grant a
petition for guardianship, and who to appoint as guardian.
(1). General Guardianships:
This class entails a run of the mill guardianship. This classification involves typical government
services such as for public benefits and involves wards who require the least amount of support,
supervision, structure based on the ward’s age, personal and health needs, disability limitations,
skill level, and other related factors. This classification does not include those falling into one or
both of the other two classifications.
(2). Specialized Guardianships:
This class involves a ward with specialized care and treatment needs and that without it,
the ward’s life, health, safety, or welfare would be in substantial imminent danger. The key element
is that the ward has qualifying disabilities to have a guardian plus a physical or medical condition
that requires specialized care and treatment services. For example, but not limited to, the person
having severe traumatic brain injury plus cancer, so that specialized care and treatment services
are required. Another example is a person with severe developmental disability plus quadriplegia
that requires specialized care and treatment services.
(3). Forensic Guardianships:
Although the author of this report coined the term “forensic guardianships” in 2017, for his
testimony on HB 1553, it was not until the 2020 report commissioned by the Missouri Association
of Public Administrators, that public administrators finely and publicly conceded there is a class
of guardianships that entails wards with serious mental illness, developmental disabilities and/or
intellectual disabilities who engage in violent behaviors, have histories of substance abuse, are a
convicted sex offender or have histories of sexual misconduct, and/or have a history of other types
of criminal convictions, that the guardianship can reasonably be classified a forensic guardianship.
5

The term, forensic guardianship, is mirrored after the clinical definition of forensic client, in
that the person is involved with or is at substantial risk of becoming involved with the criminal
justice system that greater than average supervision, structure, treatment and care is needed not
only to protect the person from himself or herself, but also to protect public safety.
Forensic guardianships are the most dangerous, complex, difficult, and economically and
non-economically costly, but they are also the least restrictive in contrast to alternatives commonly
applied by criminal courts by incarceration. And forensic guardianships can exist with or without
the ward actively being on probation or parole or incarcerated in jail or in prison. However, sufficive
to say, if the ward is in jail or prison, it is the most difficult and burdensome guardianship existing.
A common erroneous belief among law enforcement personnel, correctional personnel,
medical staff operating in jails and prisons, and even among guardians is that the guardianship
dissolves upon a ward being incarcerated. The working erroneous theory is that because custody
of the ward transfers to the State by and through the Department of Corrections, it means that the
ward becomes a ward of the state.
However, Mo. Rev. Stat. § 217.535 (1982) says otherwise as Article IV, subsection (i) holds,
“[t]he parent, guardian, trustee, or other person or persons entitled under the laws of the sending
state to act for, advise, or otherwise function with respect to any inmate shall not be deprived of
or restricted in his exercise of any power in respect of any inmate confined pursuant to the terms
of this compact.” And under Mo. Const. Art., Article I, § 10, where a foreign guardianship is held,
statutorily, to be fully recognized and complied with, it is a deprivation of due process of law and
of equal protection of law, to fail or refuse to do the same with a native guardianship.
Likewise, Mo. Rev. Stat. § 544.170.2 (2005) holds that, “[i]n any confinement to which the
provisions of this section apply, the confinee shall be permitted at any reasonable time to consult
with counsel or other persons acting on the confinee's behalf (emphasis added). Therefore, when
a ward is confined in any jail, prison segregation cell or other place, and under the provisions of
§ 544.170.2, the ward has the statutory right to confer with his guardian, in private, for the guardian
to determine the ward’s status and whether to invoke the ward’s Fifth Amendment rights, whether
the guardian is a public administrator or private guardian. Failure or refusal to comply, is grounds
to prevent statements, confessions, and other tangible things being used as evidence.
Similarly, while Mo. Rev. Stat. § 491.060(1) prohibits a ward of guardianship adjudicated
mentally incapacitated from testifying as a witness, “[d]etermination of competency of a witness
to give testimony is for the discretion of the trial court. . .” State v. Newton, 925 S.W.2d 468, 471
(Mo. App. E.D. 1996) (citing State v. Robinson, 835 S.W.2d 303, 307 (Mo. banc 1992). The fact
a ward is adjudicated mentally incapacitated does not automatically mean he or she is prohibited
from testifying. See State v. Newton, at 471 citing Robinson at 307, which creates a four-prong
balancing test to determine if a mentally incapacitated person can testify in judicial proceedings.
The court in Newton points out that “[a] witness is competent to testify if the witness shows:
1) a present understanding of, or the ability to understand upon instruction, the obligation to speak
the truth; 2) the capacity to observe the occurrence about which testimony is sought; 3) the
capacity to remember the occurrence about which testimony is sought; and 4) the capacity to
translate the occurrence into words.” Id. Therefore, a guardian must zealously advocate for his or
her ward to jealously protect the ward’s rights.
Not only are law enforcement encounters with a mentally incapacitated person a concern
because the potential exists for the encounter to end disastrously, but also that correctional staff,
police, and probation/parole officials do not and are not required to receive any specific education
and training about guardianship laws, in Missouri, that they are ignorant of applicable laws.
6

While historically, forensic clients have been regulated to the lowest level of the totem pole,
in their importance, receiving services needed, and in acceptance even among individuals having
disabilities, when done right, forensic guardianships can be successful in integrating a ward back
into society from jail or prison, on a procovery, pro-social, and crime free basis. It is not that their
disabilities are suddenly cured, but that the ward receives proper levels of supervision, structure,
support, services, and care by a team approach, in conducive ways appropriate for the ward.
Forensic guardianships are far more common than MO WINGS would disclose when its
members are advocating Legislators pass their one size fits all statutory laws, to place everyone
in one glass bubble. However, The ARC organization, which provides services to individuals with
developmental disabilities, published, People with Intellectual Disabilities and Sexual Offenses,
in 2005, which holds in relevant part:
One comprehensive review of sex offenders found that approximately
10% to 15% of all sexual offenses are committed by people with
intellectual disabilities, which is only slightly higher than the general
population (around 9%) (Murphy et al., 1983). Another study found that
almost 50% of incarcerated offenders with intellectual disabilities and
34% of those living in the community had been convicted of sex offenses
(Gross, 1985). Research from Day (1997) found sex offenses to be the
second most common crime among people with intellectual disabilities
and that sex offenses are crimes for which most offenders with
intellectual disabilities are incarcerated.
The most frequent sexual offenses reported in one study were indecent
exposure, other minor offenses, and sexual assault of young girls (Day,
1997). Another nationwide study that surveyed 243 community agencies
found the most common sexual offenses were inappropriate sexual
behavior in public (62.2%), sexual behaviors and stimulation that
inappropriately involved others (42.6%), sexual activity involving minors
(42.6%) and assaultive/nonconsensual sexual activity not involving minors
(34.5%) (Ward et al, 2001). Another study found the most common sexual
behaviors are those seen among people without intellectual disabilities –
offenses against children, genital exposure and rape (Murphy, et al., 1983).
Although sexual offenses are certainly a major concern of society, forensic guardianships
also entail other types of crimes such as, but not limited to, theft, illicit drug use, violent behaviors
resulting in property damage, physical assault, harassment, domestic violence on family members
or spouses, as well as crimes such as fraud and threats, and it is not uncommon for wards in this
category, with serious mental illness, to also have a history of alcohol substance abuse.
While racial/ethnic injustices are widely known to occur in our criminal justice system, and
among law enforcement encounters, that even the Missouri Supreme Court decided to create the
Commission on Racial & Ethic Fairness, to try to ensure these classes are treated fairly within the
state court system, there remains to be large disparities in our state court system in the means
and manner people with serious disabilities are treated, in spite of many counties having mental
health courts to divert this class away from jails and prisons.
Namely, this occurs because in spite of a body of studies showing people with debilitating
disabilities of serious nature, encounter judicial barriers that discriminate against them, courts and
society remain unwilling to create an even playing field for this class of people within the criminal
and civil state court systems.
7

Illustrating this point is that Dr. Hal Wortzel, who is an associate professor of Psychiatry,
Neurology, and Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation at the University of Colorado, points out in
the Journal of Psychiatric Practice, The DSM-5 and Forensic Psychiatry, that, “[t]he philosophy
of innovation behind the DSM-5, and the attendant changes, could lead to some unintended
consequences, particularly in medicolegal settings”, Journal of Psychiatric Practice 2013;19:238–
241, moreover, that “[f]orensic psychiatrists may enhance their credibility and the strength of the
opinions they offer by proactively illustrating how nuances in diagnosis do not change legally
defined constructs such as insanity or incompetence.” Id.
The reluctance of our judicial system to concede serious disabilities can be the basis that
crimes are committed, without having such a high bar in the burden of proof to establish such, is
setting this class of people up to be incarcerated. Moreover, it is indicative of the overt continued
unwillingness of our judicial system to ensure that the disability itself is not being criminalized, as
the criminalization of mental illness is a systemic issue plaguing our civil and criminal judicial
systems and deprives equal access to the courts, equal protection of law, and due process.
Therefore, it is especially important for guardians involved in forensic guardianships to not
only be proactive in discharging their duties to protect their respective wards, but also to jealously
safeguard their rights in the entire criminal justice system. Without doing so, this class of people
become easy targets for abuses of power, corruption, criminal acts inflicted against them, threats,
coercion, and intimidation to elicit false confessions to crimes, and the systemic discrimination to
silence this class and all but eliminate their existence.
When dealing with forensic guardianships, one successful formula, as outlined below, has
the ward and guardian walking side-by-side, throughout the entire processes of procovery, which
is a strategy the Missouri Department of Mental Health endorses, whereby the person’s treatment
is based not on where they were in the past, but where they are at the present, and going on from
there. And the necessity is not only for the ward and guardian to build trust with each other, but
also to ensure the ward knows his or her boundaries with his or her guardian, and that there is an
open line of communication between all team members.
WARD & GUARDIAN
Psychiatrist Psychologist
Medication Behavior
Procovery Treatment Strategies
Services Supports Supervision
Client Centered Social/Family Client Centered
disability related Employment related to disability
& Government & behaviors
Community Integration
8

The fact this section in guardianship classifications, is the longest, illustrates why forensic
guardianships are the most dangerous, complex, economically and non-economically costly, and
difficult when proper supports, supervision, and structure do not exist, as appropriate for the ward.
If the Missouri Guardianship Code is to be predicated on a “client centered” approach, as
MO WINGS members purport, to get legislation enacted into law, then statutory laws must reflect
the truth and the legitimacy of this by separating the different classes of guardianships from each
other and create necessary appropriate laws for each class instead of habitually using the status
quo of the one size fits all glass bubble.
The author of this report has been guardian in a forensic guardianship for nearly 12 years,
and since taking guardianship, his ward has been crime free, because of the supports, structure,
supervision, and treatment the ward receives to address not only his qualified disabilities but also
his behavioral conditions. Thus, the author of this report knows firsthand from direct experiences
that forensic guardianships can be successful on a multi-tiered level.
In the report commissioned by the Missouri Association of Public Administrators it reports
that in the 115 Missouri counties, public administrators account for an estimated 11,000 wards of
guardianship across the state. In 2018, the MO WINGS estimated there is 50,000 guardianships
existing across the entire state. Each guardianship has one ward and a minimum of one guardian
and thus, a combined total of two people in each guardianship. Using this equation then, public
guardianships account for a combined total of 22,000 people in guardianship. On the other hand,
private guardianships account for a combined total of 78,000 people in guardianship.
It is unconscionable 115 public administrators should be dictating rights (HB 978 (2018))
for 11,000 of their own wards, 39,000 wards in private guardianships plus the 39,000 private
guardians and thus, a grand combined total of 89,000 people. Think about it, 115 people dictating
the civil rights of 89,000 people without ever asking them what they want or need. And not one
single legislative member of the House Judiciary Committee bothered to ask why. Rather, they
simply just rubberstamped what those in government dictate is going to happen regardless of the
damages inflicted on civil rights, lives, health, welfare, and individual personal/physical safety.
While the Missouri Association of Public Administrators admitting in its so-called study,
that public administrators across Missouri have a sizable number of wards who would fall in the
category of a forensic guardianships, is a positive sign of growth and supports the 2018 testimony
of this author in opposition to HB 1553 (2018), public administrators have not achieved the growth
needed by advocating for actual sensible laws, in part, that separates classes of guardianships.
Ignoring the needs and difficulties that wards have, who fit the classification of a forensic
guardianship, is counterproductive not only to their successful growth and personal achievements,
but also, the needs of society. It is shortsighted because it misses the positive quality of life these
wards can otherwise have but for being faced with discriminatory barriers, disgruntled guardians,
i.e., public administrators, obtuse and callus legislators, abusive service providers, deliberately
indifferent state officials, and a judicial system that habitually uses prisons and jails to warehouse
them because community services for them, are virtually nonexistent.
And now, according to the Fulton Sun news article (discussed later in this report) the public
administrator, Karen Digh-Allen, for Callaway County, Missouri, is working on legislation that will
further chill civil liberties and rights, by state action, of any and every ward with a criminal history.
Contrary to popular agendas, these wards are not creating the problems – collectively, we
are creating the problems for wards, for society, and for ourselves. But, by God, we sure do blame
the wards, so we do not have to take an ounce of responsibility for what we are doing to them.
9

MISSOURI PROTECTION & ADVOCACY SERVICES, INC.
In the case of Scaletty et al., v. Carnahan, 499 F.3d 803, 809 (8th Cir. 2007), the Missouri
Protection & Advocacy Services, Inc., was a party plaintiff. The court pointed out that, “MOPAS is
a private entity designated by Missouri to advocate for those with mental disabilities, as required
by the Protection and Advocacy for Mentally Ill Individuals Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. §§ 10801 et
seq., and the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. §§
15001 et seq.” Id., at 809.
The court went on to point out, Id., that, “[t]he Fifth Circuit has held that a federally funded
advocacy organization lacked standing to assert associational claims on behalf of disabled
individuals because the organization "bears no relationship to traditional membership groups
because most of its `clients' . . . are unable to participate in and guide the organization's efforts."
Ass'n for Retarded Citizens of Dallas v. Dallas County Mental Health Mental Retardation Ctr. Bd.
of Trustees, 19 F.3d 241. 244 (5th Cir.1994).”
Furthermore, the court pointed out, Id., at 809, 810, that, “[a]n association has standing to
bring suit on behalf of its members if "(a) its members would otherwise have standing to sue in
their own right; (b) the interests it seeks to protect are germane to the organization's purpose; and
(c) neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation of individual
members in the lawsuit." Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Adver. Comm'n, 432 U.S. 333, 343, 97 S.Ct.
2434, 53 L.Ed.2d 383 (1977). The third requirement is a prudential limitation on standing that may
be abrogated by Congress, not an element of the case or controversy limitation on federal judicial
power contained in Article III of the Constitution. United Food Commercial Workers Union Local
751 v. Brown Group, Inc., 517 U.S. 544, 557, 116 S.Ct. 1529, 134 L.Ed.2d 788 (1996).”
The MO WINGS identifies the Missouri Protection & Advocacy Services, Inc., as a member
with its managing attorney, Susan Eckles, representing the corporation. In 2018, Susan Eckles
also testified in support of the MO WINGS drafted/filed legislation, HB 1553, and thereby shows
Missouri Protection & Advocacy Services, Inc., is not an impartial observer. Rather, it is an active
participant and in being such, the Missouri Protection & Advocacy Services, Inc., loses credibility
and creates its own severe and pervasive conflict of interest, that it is prohibited from suing anyone
directly or indirectly involved in drafting legislation to amend the Missouri Guardianship Code
because the Missouri Protection & Advocacy Services, Inc., is a co-conspirator in such activity.
This creates and inflicts catastrophic consequences on people with developmental, mental
and intellectual disabilities who have or may suffer injuries-in-fact and sustain damages resulting
from the amendments HB 1553 made, and what may yet to come by the amendments HB 978
made. The lobbyist representing the Missouri Association of Public Administrators, testified before
the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives, that HB 978 is a continued effort of the
WINGS agenda to amend the Missouri Guardianship Code.
In 2011, the MO WINGS was created. In 2015, the author of this report discovered that it
existed with purpose to amend the state Guardianship Code. The Missouri Protection & Advocacy
Services, Inc., was an active member at that time and actively participating in the political agenda
of the MO WINGS.
St. Louis County Public Administrator Tom Arras is quoted in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch
(March 12, 2915) as saying, “proposals to update the guardianship law could pit the ward and
guardian against each other. Reforms are going to make it harder for guardians to perform their
function.”
10

Despite this, and despite what this author staid to the Springfield News-Leader, in its article
dated July 19, 2015, in which this author discussed the inherent dangers amending the Missouri
Guardianship Code would bring on wards, guardians, and the public, members of the MO WINGS
simply did not care what anyone in opposition to their polarized political agenda had to say. They
were, as the saying goes, hell bent to do as they please, regardless of the dangers, damages, or
irreparable harms others were sounding the alarms about.
On April 17, 2017, Carl DeBrodie was reported missing. According to media reports, Mr.
DeBrodie had developmental disabilities. The remains of Mr. DeBrodie were found six days later
entombed in concreate, inside a storage unit, located in Fulton, Missouri. But it was discovered
later that Mr. DeBrodie actually died sometime back in 2016.
Missouri Case Net (Case No. 07CW-PR00138) shows that in December 2007, the Division
of Disability and Senior Services of the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services, filed
its petition with the probate court for Mr. DeBrodie to be appointed a legal guardian.
Court records show guardianship was appointed on January 8, 2008. The court appointed
Callaway County public administrator, Karen Digh-Allen. The guardianship was terminated on
February 1, 2018, by operation of law because Mr. DeBrodie had died.
Despite the Fulton Son reporting on May 8, 2021, that Karen Digh-Allen “was” active in
the MO WINGS, according to the most current published MO WINGS member roster, she remains
to be an active member.
Missouri Case Net (Case No. 18CW-CV00087-01) also shows Karen Digh-Allen is named
as a defendant in the wrongful death suit filed by Mr. DeBrodie’s mother, Carolyn Summers, and
his aunt. According to the News Tribune article, April 3, 2019, the case was settled in October
(2018) with the terms finalized in December (2018), and Carolyn Summers, and Mr. DeBrodie’s
aunt, receiving an undisclosed amount of money.
Likewise, both the Missouri Department of Mental Health and its Director, Mark Stringer,
and its Division of Developmental Disabilities, are all named defendants in that civil wrongful death
suit. The Missouri Department of Mental Health and its Division of Developmental Disabilities are
identified as active members of the MO WINGS, to erode and eliminate guardianships in Missouri.
The story of Mr. DeBrodie is a horrifying nightmare, to say the least. But what is extremely
mindboggling is that according to the June 9, 2021, Columbia Missourian article, while living in
the Second Chance Homes, “[t]wo caretakers at that facility, Sherry Paulo and Anthony Flores,
were charged and convicted on civil rights and obstruction charges in connection with DeBrodie's
death. They forced DeBrodie to come to their home multiple times to do chores, fight another
Second Chance Homes resident for their entertainment and sleep on their basement floor,
according to court documents in a wrongful death lawsuit filed by DeBrodie's family. The two also
admitted watching DeBrodie's health deteriorate, but they still removed him from his prescribed
medical regiment.”
A reasonable opinion can be drawn that when those in positions of power, sit as members
of the MO WINGS, to ramrod a polarized political agenda, to erode and eliminate guardianships,
under the pretext of so-called client supportive decision-making claims, and by excluding voices
of wards and private guardians not predisposed to their political agenda, it creates a sharp belief
system and mentality of significant proportions, among the members, that is transferred to clients
whom they are supposed to serve and to protect – removing them out of any degree of rationality
and the realms of being advocates, to become self-appointed and barbaric dictators instead.
11

One cannot help but ask the rhetorical opinion questions begging to be recognized, in that
where was the Missouri Protection & Advocacy Services, Inc., when Mr. DeBrodie was being
abused, neglected, exploited, and murdered – playing the role of dictator with the members of
MO WINGS, to erode and eliminate guardianships. Where exactly is its degree accountability in
creating what is tantamount to being “The Butcher’s Bill”, when members of the MO WINGS are
co-conspirators in committing crimes against humanity. And what trust and confidence can the
public, moreover, the entire disability community have, in the Missouri Protection & Advocacy
Services, Inc., since it has crossed the red line of acceptable behavior that it has lost credibility
and created a severe and pervasive conflict of interest in performing its statutory duties.
Moreover, where has the Missouri Protection & Advocacy Services, Inc., been for the past
decade to address and resolve the habitual and systemic failures or refusals of the state and
private service providers, to protect the very clients whom they are legally charged with protecting
and serving. See Missouri State Audit No. 2005-62; see also Columbia Missourian June 9, 2021,
news article. Are these human beings deemed unworthy to be protected because they were given
a guardian – many if not most having a public administrator? Are these human beings deemed
unworthy because they are labeled as inconsequential lab rats whom the state and private service
providers can do as they please with them? When exactly does human life matter to the Missouri
Protection & Advocacy Services, Inc., when, in the process of it playing dictator to erode and
eliminate guardianships, these human beings are abused, neglected, exploited, and killed – many
if not most of whom have disgruntled public administrator guardians.
Despite being a private corporation, the Missouri Protection & Advocacy Services, Inc., is
answerable to the people of Missouri, most of all, to the entire disability community including, but
not limited to those involved in private guardianships, by virtue of and because it operates under
federal statutory laws and is explicitly paid public tax revenue specifically to discharge its duties
and jealously protect people with disabilities from being abused, neglected, exploited, and killed,
even if it means suing the State of Missouri, the Missouri Association of Public Administrators and
every private service provider to achieve these ends. But instead, it chooses to zealously attack
guardianships by a polarized political agenda and a one size fits all glass bubble method, under
the pretext of calling it supportive decision-making strategies.
The irony existing is that HB 1553 (2018) did not amend Mo. Rev. Stat. § 475.075.13(4) in
keeping with the so-called supported decision-making strategies, but to permit public and private
service providers to be de facto guardians instead, under the provision that permits “agreements”
to be made in who makes decisions for and on behalf of the incapacitated person, to effectively
cancel out the prohibition in Mo. Rev. Stat. § 475.055.2, which bars service providers becoming
a guardian of their own clients. This is done and achieved by not calling public and private service
providers “guardians” even though they will serve this role under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 475.075.13(4).
In short, HB 1553 as codified in Mo. Rev. Stat. § 475.075.13(4), is a financial profiteering scam to
benefit public (the state) and private service providers, which may very well fall under the federal
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) of 1970.
12

UNRESOLVED CONFLICTS
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 475.120.2 (2018) mandates that, “[a] guardian or limited guardian of an
incapacitated person shall act in the best interest of the ward.”
(A). Specific Issues of Concern:
Specific issues of concern exist in all levels and aspects of Missouri guardianships that
have tangible adverse impacts on all stakeholders, including the definition of stakeholder.
(1). Definition of Stakeholder:
Based on publications by the MO WINGS and the 2020 published study commissioned by
the Missouri Association of Public Administrators, the term stakeholder is defined to be inclusive
of professional guardians, attorneys, professionals in developmental disability and mental health
fields, and advocates. The term does not include wards of guardianship nor private guardians.
According to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch article, May 12, 2015, there were 30,000 adult
wards with another 23,000 wards who are minors as of 2015. Moreover, the article points out that
in 2001, there were 21,356 adult wards in Missouri, and in 2014 there were 49,908. In 2018, the
MO WINGS members reported to the House Judiciary Committee there was an estimated 50,000
adult wards in Missouri. However, by now, it is reasonable to believe well over 50,000 adult wards
exist in Missouri, with the overwhelming vast majority having a private guardian.
According to the 2013, Standards of Practice, by the National Guardianship Association,
guardians are separated by classes in that of “professional” and “family members” to denote that
family members are unequal to professional guardians, in qualifications, positions and duties.
On February 24, 2021, Missouri State Representative David Evans, who is a now former
presiding judge of Missouri’s 37th Judicial Circuit Court and was the 2021 legislative session
Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, which heard HB 978 (2018), is on record stating,
“[w]ords have meaning. Legal meaning. And they can sometimes have ordinary meaning. The
best legal guardian public administrator, I might define as a caring, compassionate, professional
in their job and in their duties. And not a parent or spouse of the ward or the person they are
caring for.” See House video archives on the February 24, 2021, Judiciary Committee hearing.
Representative Evans’ statement grossly belittles, demeans, and substantially devalues
private guardians and the work they do for and on behalf of their wards. It presupposes private
guardians have nothing to contribute to political discussions and efforts to amend the Missouri
Guardianship Code, because individuals like Representative Evens do not look at, believe or even
remotely consider private guardians to be qualified to participate in such discussions. Rather, only
so-called “professionals” get to decide what rights wards and private guardians will have.
This definition presupposes wards of guardianships and private guardians lack sufficient
intelligence, experience, and insight to have anything of value to contribute to discussions about
guardianships. The irony of Representative Evans’ on-record statement is that completely strips
away the notion of private parties having a seat at the table to decide for themselves what they
want done to and for them – the notion MO WINGS members sell as a bill of goods to amend the
Missouri Guardianship Code – a notion that in reality is a pretext.
13

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 473.730 et seq., does not require public administrators to have any degree
of formal or even informal education, work-related experience, or have any degree of insight about
what it is to be a guardian, to qualify to be a public administrator guardian. The 2005, national
study on public guardianships, reported by the American Bar Association, points this fact out, and
that it creates an uneven balance for wards to receive competent public administrator guardians.
And the 2020, so-called study commissioned by the Missouri Association of Public Administrators
also points these things out.
So, how is it that public administrators are deemed stakeholders when they are equal to
private guardians in required qualifications to be guardian? If it is based on being paid for services
rendered, private guardians can also receive financial compensation for services rendered. Mo.
Rev. Stat. § 475.265 (1983). This not only includes being paid for performing actual guardianship
duties, but also being paid for performing duties not expected of guardians to perform.
Sufficive to say, it is more likely than not, that the definition of “stakeholder” is based on
public administrators having a government title because this is the only thing separating private
and public guardians from each other. Therefore, perhaps the term “stakeholder” is best described
as feeding ego’s of those with titles, than it has anything to actually do with people being involved
in guardianships.
If, however, the MO WINGS members define the term “stakeholders” to be a government
agenda to benefit public administrators, the state and private service providers, the inherent fatal
flaw in this claim is that when amending the entire Missouri Guardianship Code without decisively
separating public administrators from private guardians, then every amended statute equally
applies to and equally effects private guardians and their wards, that it makes them stakeholders
no less and no differently than public administrators are stakeholders.
Therefore, perhaps the best definition of the term “stakeholder” can be found in how the
Corporate Finance Institute classifies it in that of:
• #1 Customers. Stake: Product/service quality and value. ...
• #2 Employees. Stake: Employment income and safety. ...
• #3 Investors. Stake: Financial returns. ...
• #4 Suppliers and Vendors. Stake: Revenues and safety. ...
• #5 Communities. Stake: Health, safety, economic development. ...
• #6 Governments. Stake: Taxes and GDP.
In terms of applying the definition of stakeholders to guardianships, it would be best described
in order of importance, to be:
• #1 Wards. Stake: Recipients of guardianship duties, scrutinized, laws
• #2 Guardians. Stake: Legal liabilities, responsibilities, duties, laws
• #3 Family. Stake: Family member who has a guardian, laws, vested interest
• #4 General Public. Stake: Taxes, safety, potential to be a ward or guardian
• #5 Providers. Stake: Services provided, regulations, laws, liabilities
• #6 Government. Stake: Taxes, GDP, services, oversight, laws
• #7 Org Advocates. Stake: Grants, taxes, regulations, laws, safety of wards/public
However, as long as the term continues to exclude the voices of all stakeholders to ensure
that only cherry-picked individuals and organizations have a voice, then the guaranteed result will
be inevitable disasters, and it is not entirely inconceivable that we would revert back to conducting
medical experiments on people with serious disabilities such as systemic use of shock treatment
and widespread use of lobotomies. After all, mankind is known to be intolerant of disabilities.
14

(2). Public Administrator Study:
In 2020, the Missouri Association of Public Administrators commissioned a study on public
administrator guardianships in Missouri, which is published by the Missouri Department of Mental
Health. Although the report asserts that commissioning the study was unanimous among all 115
county public administrators, only 107 participated and out of them, only 92 completed the online
survey.
Although the report is held out as a study on public guardianships, in reality, it is a barrage
of grievances public administrators have about being a public administrator, the types of wards in
public guardianships, and complaints against state probate court judges, Legislators, wards and
family members, and state and federal authorities making decisions. The primary grievance listed
include:
 Legislators not allocating sufficient funding;
 Inadequate number of staffing in public administrator offices;
 State and federal authorities releasing too many people from state institutions;
 Too many wards with serious mental illness, developmental and intellectual disabilities;
 Wards with severe and violent behaviors, criminal histories, and sex offense risks;
 Probate Court judges using public administrators too easily and frequently;
 Increased number of caseloads that imposes on public administrators;
 Difficult family members who want better care and supports
 Lack of needed community treatment and placement facilities.
The above list of grievances effectively shows the report is an alarm being sounded that the
majority of public administrators present a high risk to cause or substantially contribute to client
abuse, neglect, exploitation, homicides, suicides, and so-called unexplained deaths, due to such
things as, but not limited to:
 Lack of needed state oversight;
 Lack of education, training, and experience to be a public administrator;
 Emotional distress due to excessive case loads and specific ward needs or behaviors;
 Explicit or implicit personal biases or prejudices against specific types of wards;
 Fear of specific types of wards;
 Anger towards difficult wards because of behaviors or sex crime histories; and
 Substantial frustration with the lack of funding, supports, and resources.
Compounding the issues is the lack of accountability that public administrators have when
client abuse, neglect, exploitation, homicides, suicides, and so-called unexplained deaths, occur,
as typically blame is put on the most convenient people, i.e., employees of service providers, and
excludes investigating and holding public administrators accountable where and when necessary.
Moreover, current state law, Mo. Rev. Stat. § 473.730.3, encourages public administrators to
cause or contribute to incidents of client abuse, neglect, exploitation, homicides, suicides, and so-
called unexplained deaths, to occur, and rewarding them when such incidents occur by the lack
of legal accountability.
15

Thus, well-documented and objective evidence has accumulated since 2009, from media
sources, federal agencies, state audits, court records, and statements state officials are on record
making, to warrant the U.S. Department of Justice conducting a pattern or practice investigation
into the severe and pervasive civil rights violations of people with disabilities arising from the
conduct of the public administrator guardianship system, State of Missouri by and through its
respective departments and divisions, and the MO WINGS.
(3). Polarized Political Agendas:
The MO WINGS operates by using state resources, state property, state communications
devices, state funding, state employees paid their normal wages, and federal funding, to engage
in political agendas and legislative processes, under the guise of stakeholders having a voice.
The mission of the MO WINGS is, in part, to erode the duties and authorities of guardians
with intent and purpose of ultimately eliminating guardianships in Missouri.
The 2021, MO WINGS roster, lists a total of 21 members, which consists of the following:
 3 state employees (representing Missouri Department of Mental Health, Missouri
Division of Developmental Disabilities and the Missouri Department of Health and
Senior Services);
 4 county public administrators;
 1 person representing the American Bar Association,
 1 person representing the Brain Injury Association of Missouri,
 1 person representing the People First of Missouri,
 1 person representing Midwest Special Needs Trust, which operates under color
of state law to administer trusts, social security), and Medicaid benefits;
 1 person identified only as a private advocate but is a member of the People First
of Missouri organization, Independence chapter;
 1 attorney who is a Law School Professor and the Missouri Bar Probate & Trust
Committee Chair;
 1 attorney who is in private practice and a member of the National Academy of
Elder Law Attorneys;
 1 attorney representing Missouri Protection & Advocacy;
 1 person who is a Professor of Internal Medicine - Consortium of Missouri Health
Ethics Organizations;
 1 person representing the University of Missouri – Kansas City, Institute of Human
Development;
 1 person representing the Missouri Association of County Developmental Disability
Services,
16

 1 person representing the St. Louis County Special School District;
 1 person representing the Missouri Developmental Disabilities Council; and
 1 person identified as a private advocate whom Missouri Case Net does not show
a guardianship case to currently exist in Missouri.
The above member roster of the MO WINGS does not identify anyone who is an actual
ward of guardianship and does not identify anyone who is a private guardian – the primary people
directly impacted by the tangible effects of amending Missouri guardianship laws.
Moreover, the People First of Missouri organization identifies the University of Missouri –
Kansas City Institute of Human Development and Missouri Developmental Disabilities Council as
sponsors, that People First of Missouri membership on the Mo WINGS is bias and prejudicial.
Furthermore, the People First semiannual self-advocacy conference (June 11 -12, 2021)
identifies both Jelani Logan and Lisa Sutherland who are staff attorneys with Missouri Protection
& Advocacy Services, which itself is a member of the MO WINGS, and three men, Thomas, AJ,
and Mike, who spoke about eliminating guardianships in Missouri. Nothing is shown in the People
First brochure that anyone spoke in favor of guardianships, or that any speaker presented relevant
information on specialized and forensic guardianships.
Thus, the entire makeup of the MO WINGS is an extremely polarized group of people who
are anti-guardianship; ostracize opposing views; refuse membership to primary stakeholders, i.e.,
wards and private guardians not predisposed to eroding and eliminating guardianships; and who
draft and advocate for legislation effecting over 100,000 people in Missouri based on a one-sided,
and one size fits all, glass bubble methodology.
(4). Legislative Defects:
In 2018, the Missouri Guardianship Code was amended by HB 1553. Although the Bill was
filed; assigned to the House Judiciary Committee and voted do pass; and then referred on to the
House Rules – Administrative Oversight Committee, the Bill was never voted on, and while it also
was not voted on, on the House floor, it was nevertheless secretly inserted into another Bill, sent
to the Senate, and thereafter signed into law.
In 2021, Mo. Rev. Stat. § 475.120.3 was amended by HB 978, and also followed the same
legislative procedural defects to circumvent the required and necessary legislative scrutiny, in the
House. It is unknown if the ultimate amendment codified into law was done by the Senate or if it
was done in the House before sending it to the Senate because the amendment approved by the
House Judiciary Committee is not what was ultimately codified into state law.
These procedural defects have far-reaching consequences on over 100,000 people who
are guardianship stakeholders, i.e., wards and guardians. Thus, when state legislative processes
embrace deceptive practices, to conceal what is going on, it erodes public trust and confidence,
and gives the appearance of government corruption.
Moreover, while it is commonly claimed on the House floor that a committee vetted a Bill,
it is equally common that Bills are inappropriately vetted when those testifying on the Bill are given
only a matter of a few minuets to speak. This is particularly problematic for Bills like HB 1553, that
amended the entire Missouri Guardianship Code.
17

(5). Enacted Statutory Laws:
Although HB 1553, created numerous statutory issues, so for purposes of this report and
this section, the focus is on Mo. Rev. Stat. § 475.082, § 475.120.3 and § 475.361.2.
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 475.082 (2018), was amended to create new reporting requirements of a
guardian in his or her annual guardianship status report. However, no reporting requirement was
put in to ensure the voice of wards is heard by the probate court.
The lack of reporting requirements that allow wards of guardianship to have a voice in their
own respective probate courts has a chilling affect on First Amendment rights of free speech and
access to the courts to petition in redress of grievances. Likewise, it deprives probate courts from
learning about any potential issues needing to be addressed; and deprives wards due process of
law. Although the MO WINGS was apprised of these issues before HB 1553 was filed, no action
was ever taken to correct the issues.
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 475.120 to create subdivision 10, which was then amended by HB 978,
to transfer subdivision 10 into subsection 3, in which a guardian is required to, “make decisions
regarding the adult ward’s support, care, education, health, and welfare. A guardian shall
exercise authority only as necessitated by the adult ward’s limitations and, to the extent possible,
shall encourage the adult ward to participate in decisions, act on the adult ward’s own behalf, and
develop or regain the capacity to manage the adult ward’s personal affairs.”
This statutory provision creates a conflict of interest between the ward and guardian that
constantly antagonizes both parties and may very well violate the ward’s and guardian’s civil rights
under the 1st
, 5th
, 8th
and/or 14th
Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Moreover, it gives at the
minimum, the appearance of having abolished full guardianships, to reduce them down to being
only a limited or standby guardianship, without due process of law and in violation of court orders.
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 475.361.2 (2018) was created by HB 1553, to effectively establish a ward
bill of rights. While this statute permits a ward to petition the court, it does not create the pathway
by which this occur, consistent with such Court Rules as, but not limited to, 52.02(k), 52.04, 52.12,
and 52.13, and their statutory counterparts, Mo. Rev. Stat. § 507.040 and § 507.090, § 507.100.
The absence of a statutory pathway for wards to access and petition courts is particularly
problematic because of three conflicting state appellate court rulings.
First, the federal court for the Western District of Missouri, points out that, “[t]he Missouri
Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that the “judicial branch of government has the power
to regulate the practice of law” . . . “[t]hus to apply Missouri’s unauthorized practice of law statute,
this Court must decide whether . . . conduct fits within the Missouri Supreme Court’s definition of
the unauthorized practice of law[]”. See Janson v. Legalzoom.com, Inc., 802 F.Supp.2d 1053,
1058-59 (U.S. Dist Ct. of Missouri, W.D., 2011)
However, the Missouri Supreme Court has never issued any ruling on whether guardians
are to be enjoined, substituted, or to intervene in pending litigation involving his or her ward. As
such, the only available rulings are from the Missouri Appellate Courts.
In Mikesic v. Trinity Lutheran Hosp., 980 S.W.2d 68, 72, 74 (Mo. App. W.D. 1998), the
court rejected the claim that a guardian engages in unauthorized practice of law by filing civil suit
for and on behalf of his or her ward. The court pointed out, “[u]nlike an individual acting under a
durable power of attorney, next friends and guardians . . . are treated like officers of the court
with prescribed rights and duties, (citing State ex rel. Schwarz v. Ryan, 754 S.W.2d 949, 951
(Mo. App. E.D. 1988), See 980 S.W.2d 68 at 74.
18

Moreover, on August 10, 2017, the Missouri Attorney General Office issued its legal
opinion asserting that guardians have statutory authority under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 475.120.3(3),(4)
and (5), citing Matter of Warren, 858 S.W.2d 263, 265 (Mo. App. W.D. 1993).
Likewise, in Strong v. Gilster Mary Lee Corp., 23 S.W.3d 234, 241 (Mo. App. E.D. (2000)
the court endorsed the Mikesic ruling and explained that there are special circumstances that
can exist, to authorize a non-lawyer to represent another person in court, and Mikesic deals with
the right of the guardian to file litigation for and on behalf of her ward.
However, in the case of Preston v. State, 33 S.W.3d 574, 579, 580 (Mo. App. W.D. 2000),
the court held that a guardian is to be enjoined as a necessary party, and guardians have the duty
and responsibility to make any and all decisions for their wards involving important aspect of life.
Moreover, that the courts’ jurisdiction is lost unless the guardian is directly involved. Id., at 577-
78. And that it is only when a guardian refuses to perform his or her job in pending litigation, that
a next friend or guardian ad litem (attorney) is to be appointed to represent the ward in the pending
litigation. Id., at 580-581, adhering to Rule 52.02(k) of Missouri Court Rules of Civil Procedure.
Thus, in the case of Aallen v. Martin, 400 S.W.3d 881, 883 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013) the
guardian filed her objection to the adoption of her adult ward, and requested the court appoint her
ward an attorney (guardian ad litem) because the guardian refused to participate in the litigation
and thus, complying with the court’s ruling in Preston at 580-581, and Rule 52.02(k).
But in the case of Szramkowski v. Szramkowski, 2010 Mo. App. E.D. LEXIS 784 (Mo.
App. 2010), the court asserted that an incapacitated person needs to be substituted by another
person. And where the incapacitated person has a guardian, then Rule 52.02(k) requires that the
guardian represent the ward, See Mikesic at 72, which points out that, “[t]he provisions of Rule
52.02(k) are mandatory. That rule places a burden on the court to inquire as to whether the
individual is capable of "instituting" litigation on his or her behalf where it is "suggested" that the
individual is incapable of protecting his or her own interests.”
The unauthorized practice of law statute, Mo. Rev. Stat. § 484.010, dates back to 1939.
And the Missouri Guardianship Code was originally codified in 1983. As such, when § 484.010
was codified, it did not even remotely contemplate the roles, duties, and authority that § 475.120.3
would give guardians. Realistically, practically everything a guardian does under § 475.120.3, is
of such nature, cause and effect, that it can be fairly said to be practicing law as statutorily defined
in § 484.010. However, without guardians discharging their duties under § 475.120.3, the civil
rights of wards would be nonexistent.
For example, but certainly not limited to, § 484.010 holds that, “[t]he "practice of the
law" is hereby defined to be and is the appearance as an advocate in a representative capacity
or the drawing of papers, pleadings or documents or the performance of any act in such capacity
in connection with proceedings pending or prospective before any court of record, commissioner,
referee or any body, board, committee or commission constituted by law or having authority to
settle controversies.”
This means, under § 484.010 a guardian is prohibited from engaging in an administrative
appeal of the denial of food stamps, Medicaid, and other public benefits; denial of social security
income benefits; filing complaints involving consumer fraud issues; redressing insurance claim
and other health care issues; filing complaints with a city or county landlord-tenant dispute body,
board, commission, or committee; to name only a few of the many duties guardians are charged
with doing under § 475.120.3(1)-(5).
19

Therefore, as a direct or proximate result, § 484.010 is patently in constitutional conflict
with § 475.120.3(1)-(5) under the 1st, 5th, 8th, and/or 14th Amendments and an assortment of
federal Acts. And HB 1553 (2018) did not rectify these conflicts by creating a statutory pathway
by which a ward can access and petition courts.
(6) Guardianship Classifications:
Both HB 1553 (2018) and HB 978 (2021) are predicated on a one size fits all glass bubble
to throw every ward into one guardianship classification, which creates chaos, and may very well
be unconstitutional.
The 2020, Missouri Public Guardianship report, commissioned by the Missouri Association
of Public Administrators, however, explicitly points out that there are wards who would otherwise
fit the definition of being in a forensic guardianship. Moreover, that there are wards who could be
classified as having a specialized guardianship. Therefore, the notion that every guardianship that
exists, should be classified as a general one, is substantially shortsighted to what actually exists.
Not only is it shortsighted, it is inherently dangerous to classify general guardianships and
forensic guardianships as one in the same, when they are completely different classes, with their
own individual needs, requirements, and benefits. For example, as the report points out, a public
administrator can have a senior citizen as a ward, who lives in a nursing home, that a public
administrator does not need to spend a great deal of time working on that case, whereas they are
required to spend an enormous amount of time working on a case where a ward has a serious
mental illness compounded with behavioral issues, a criminal activity, substance abuse issues, or
has a history suicidal ideation or attempts, that more intensive care and treatment is required.
Likewise, as the report commissioned by the Missouri Association of Public Administrators
points out, a ward may be a registered sex offender, or have a history of sexual misconduct
behaviors, which may require the ward to have a higher level of structure and supervision, in order
to comply with the requirements of Mo. Rev. Stat. § 475.120.3(1) that requires the ward reside in
the least restrictive environment, i.e., in a community residential setting rather than a prison, state
institution, or group home, while also and simultaneously ensuring public safety is maintained.
This necessity for higher structure and supervision is supported by the article published in
Prison Legal News, (May 5, 2017), Vigilantes Assault, Rob and Murder Registered Sex Offenders,
which points out that “for over a decade registered sex offenders have been targeted by vigilantes
and assaulted, robbed and murdered due to their past crimes.” And while those in government,
society, and disability organizations may not care, a guardian is nevertheless charged with the
legal duty to “[p]romote and protect the care, comfort, safety, health, and welfare of the ward” and
“to exercise all powers and discharge all duties necessary or proper to implement the provisions
of this section.” See Mo. Rev. Stat. § 475.120.3(3) and (5) (2021).
Therefore, guardianship classes must be separated to give clear statutory distinction, that
ensures the ongoing MO WINGS methodology of the one size fits all glass bubble approach is no
longer being used. It is inherently dangerous, unconscionable, shortsighted, and fails to meet any
test of reasonable commonsense.
(7). State Courts:
In Missouri, there is a total of 46 judicial circuit courts. And as the report commissioned by
the Missouri Association of Public Administrators, points out, there is no consistency in the means
and manner that guardianship laws are interpreted and applied from one circuit probate court to
another.
20

But this is not just confined to probate court judges, as it extends to all state courts when
interpreting and applying state laws involving the civil rights of a ward to petition courts to redress
grievances, as plainly evident by three contradicting Missouri Appellate Courts case laws, and the
Missouri Attorney General’s Office, 2017, legal opinion.
Thus, civil rights are not predicated on matters of law, but a roll of the dice depending on
where a ward resides. The uneven application of the law disenfranchises the disability community
itself, but also deprives individual civil rights, and creates judicial havoc. And while wards having
a public administrator, might be able to redress grievances under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 473.760 (1983),
as such holds, “[t]he public administrator shall institute all manner of suits and prosecutions that
may be necessary to recover the property, debts, papers or other estates of the person deceased,
or of any minor, or disabled person, in his charge or custody” it does not mean it is guaranteed.
While public administrators can act under § 473.760, private guardians do not have a
specific statutory law to rely upon, which disenfranchises this class to a second-class citizenship
to deprive equal rights and due process of law for wards in private guardianships.
Even if a ward is able to access the courts by and through his or her guardian, commonly,
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 473.153.7 (1989) is used to stop the litigation, unless the ward has such financial
means as to retain his or her own attorney, or the guardian waives any and all of their legal rights
of immunity under § 475.120.4 and § 475.343.1 (2018) to pay for the supports of the ward out of
the guardians own financial resources, by statutory tactics of coercion, intimidation, or threats.
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 473.153 pertains to financial compensation out of a ward’s income to pay
for the services of a personal representative, guardian, attorney, or accountant. Section 473.153.7
holds, “[n]o personal representative [or guardian], other than one who is an attorney, may appear
in court except by attorney, and such attorney may not be a salaried employee of the personal
representative, but when the personal representative is an attorney, nothing herein shall prevent
his being represented in court by a partner, associate or employee who is an attorney. Any
personal representative may prepare and file his own inventories and settlements.”
Courts incorrectly presume Mo. Rev. Stat. § 475.020 applies § 473.153 to the duties of a
guardian under § 475.120, to prohibit guardians from petitioning the court for and on behalf of the
ward. Section 475.020 holds in relevant parts:
Where sections in chapter 473 are specifically incorporated by
reference by any provision of sections 475.010 to 475.370, they
shall be applied as if "decedent" or "deceased" read "ward" or
"protectee", "executor" or "administrator" or "personal representative"
read "guardian", "conservator" and the like, as the case may be, as
far as applicable to guardianships and conservatorships and not
inconsistent with the provisions of sections 475.010 to 475.370. In
other cases, where no rule is set forth for guardianships and
conservatorships in sections 475.010 to 475.370, rule regarding
decedents' estates in this law shall likewise apply to guardianships and
conservatorships when applicable thereto and not inconsistent with the
provisions of sections 475.010 to 475.370, unless a contrary rule of court
is duly promulgated or declared; provided that the provisions of sections
473.780 to 473.840, relating to independent administration, shall not apply
to guardianships or conservatorships.
An example of a section of chapter 473 being “specifically incorporated by reference” into
a section of chapter 475, is § 475.110, which specifically incorporates by reference, § 473.140
and thus, by and through § 475.020, section 473.140 applies to guardians.
21

However, nowhere in § 475.120 is any section of chapter 473 “specifically incorporated by
reference” to require the guardian himself or herself to be represented by an attorney to petition
for and on behalf of the ward to redress grievances, and there is no court rule that requires this
to occur and thus, § 473.153 and § 475.020 do not apply.
Second, the application of § 473.153 and § 475.020 is inconsistent with the duties, roles,
and authority arising from § 475.120.3(1)-(5) (2021), that § 473.153 and § 475.020 cannot apply
to require guardians be represented by an attorney, to sue for and on behalf of the ward, which is
filed under the guardian’s name, in his or her capacity as guardian.
Third, the Missouri Supreme Court nor any Missouri Appellate Court has issued any ruling
on whether § 473.153 and § 475.020 would require a guardian to be represented by an attorney.
If anything, the court in Mikesic at 74, rejected this notion. The question before the court was that
of “[w]hether Mrs. Mikesic's actions in filing the petition pro se constituted the unauthorized
practice of law and whether those actions served to invalidate Mr. Mikesic's claim for damages.”
The court pointed out that, “[e]ven assuming, arguendo, that Mrs. Mikesic's filing of the
original petition constituted the unauthorized practice of law to the extent she was
representing her husband, the dismissal of Mr. Mikesic's claims in the amended petition is not
mandated by Risbeck. Unlike an individual acting under a durable power of attorney, next
friends and guardians ad litem are treated like officers of the court with prescribed rights and
duties. State ex rel. Schwarz v. Ryan, 754 S.W.2d 949, 951 (Mo. App. E.D. 1988).”
The guardianship Mrs. Mikesic held was enacted out of the State of Missouri and thus,
was a foreign guardianship, which required Mrs. Mikesic to be appointed next friend by the
trial court in Missouri, to proceed in litigating the case. As such, Mrs. Mikesic acted pursuant
to the capacity of the court’s order appointing her next friend of her husband as Mrs. Mikesic
could not rely upon her foreign guardianship to file suit. Thus, it is only because Mrs. Mikesic’s
guardianship was foreign to Missouri, that she was required to be appointed next friend.
This said, had Mrs. Mikesic’s guardianship been created in Missouri, under the Mikesic
ruling, she would not have had to be appointed next friend to her husband and thus, would have
been permitted to proceed in the litigation in her name and capacity as guardian, under Rule
52.02(k) which the Mikesic court pointed out is mandatory. See 980 S.W.2d 68 at 72.
But state trial courts will not adhere to the court rules, nor appoint a guardian ad litem to
represent the ward in the pending litigation, and they will not adhere to statutory laws permitting
a guardian to be substituted for the ward, be enjoined in the litigation as a necessary party, or to
intervene in the litigation. As a result, wards with a low-income economic status are routinely and
wholly deprived access to the courts, equal protection of law, and due process of law.
Likewise, state trial courts do not accept a guardian is to be enjoined as a necessary party
to enforce their own guardianship duties and authority when another obstruct or prevents them
from exercising and discharging such. The premise used is that in the guardian enforcing his or
her duties or authority, it is the same as litigating for and on the behalf of the ward, to require the
guardian himself or herself to be represented by an attorney, even though there no state or federal
case law or statutory law exists, to support this misapplied legal theory.
22

PUBLIC ADMINISTROR GUARDIANS
In the only notational study done, the American Bar Association published Wards of the
State: A National Study of Public Guardianship, in 2005, which points out that:
Missouri law provides for an elected county public administrator to serve
as guardian of last resort in each of the state’s 115 jurisdictions. There
is wide variability throughout the state in: the background and experience
of the public administrators, the method of payment, the additional
functions they perform, the caseloads, the extent of support from county
commissioners and judge, and whether the administrators petition for
guardianship cases. This system of public administrators as public
guardians is unique. On the positive side, the system covers the state. On
the negative side, using elected officials to perform this critical role interferes
with continuity – and works against the development of a cadre of qualified,
stable, and experienced surrogate decision-makers. Moreover, funding is
uneven and patently insufficient, resulting in sometimes dangerously high
caseloads.
Elected county public administrators provide guardianship services. Though it
appears a county model, we determined that many public administrators
are housed in the court house and receive county monies rather than a fee for
service, yet they may have both public wards and their own private wards (for
whom they do extract fees). Thus we placed it in a Division of Social Service
Agency, or Conflict of Interest model.
In September 2005, State Auditor, Claire McCaskill, published her audit report (2005-62),
in which gross deficiencies were found in service providers reporting incidents of client abuse and
neglect and contacts with police, involving clients.
This is consistent with the June 9, 2021, article published in the Columbia Tribune, which
points out that Missouri continues to fail to properly protect clients from abuse, neglect, though it
also notes this includes homicides, suicides, and so-called undetermined deaths.
This begs the question of what involvement do public administrators play not only in client
abuse, neglect, exploitation, homicides, suicides, and undetermined deaths occurring, but also in
the reporting of such to the state? Unfortunately, because the involvement of public administrators
is commonly excluded from state investigations, if such occurs, it is an answer that likely will never
be answered.
Nevertheless, as previously noted, the report commissioned by the Missouri Association
of Public Administrators sounds the alarm of the high risks that public administrators have to either
cause or contribute to client abuse, neglect, exploitation, homicides, suicides, and undetermined
deaths occurring.
Notwithstanding the above, on April 14, 2009, the Federal Bureau of Investigations
reported the public administrator for Buchanan County, Missouri was sentenced for embezzling
$119,063.00 from wards out of their federal Social Security income.
On November 6, 2012, the Joplin Globe reported that the public administrator for Jackson
County, Missouri pleaded guilty to Medicaid fraud, by falsifying reports that fraudulently declared
wards were under the $1,000.00 resource limit to retain Medicaid services.
23

Report On Legal Guardianships In The State Of Missouri (2021) Revised Edition

Report On Legal Guardianships In The State Of Missouri (2021) Revised Edition

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from Christopher Cross, M.A., C.M.A., D.S.P. (ret.)

More from Christopher Cross, M.A., C.M.A., D.S.P. (ret.) (15)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Report On Legal Guardianships In The State Of Missouri (2021) Revised Edition