Appearance alert: on TS Radio
Coz and I discuss my recent investigation of Pulaski County, Missouri Public Administrator, Loretta Rouse, and is Missouri a model for the rest of the US on guardianship.
I was back on with Coz on TS Radio to talk about my recent investigation of Loretta Rouse, the former Public Administrator for Pulaski County, Missouri.
Rouse is officially the former Public Administrator as of January 4, 2024.
The resignation took the local county board by surprise, and it came after a series of my articles pointed out that Rouse often helped put people into guardianship for specious reasons, sold real estate under marker value, while acting in a non-transparent manner.
Most troubling is that the hearings to determine guardianship were perfunctory with Rouse wearing numerous and conflicting hats.
We also discussed the model that Missouri has created for guardianship. Is this a model other states should adopt?
In Missouri, each county elects a Public Administrator to represent that county in probate and guardianship matters.
The Public Administrator's Office was actually established in 1880 by the General Assembly, State of Missouri, as an elective office, such election to be held every four years. The Office follows the statues in the Probate Code, to carry out the duties and responsibilities of the office. The Association of Public Administrators was later established in March, 1981.
Rouse abused her powers. Often, she would petition the court to have an individual- like Chad Muxlow- put into guardianship while being the sole expert witness arguing for him to be in guardianship.
It would be like if a prosecutor called themselves as an expert witness in a criminal case.
Still, if there is an elected official to handle guardianship matters, they would be answerable to the public. They could be voted out.
That assumes there is an engaged public. With a Public Administrator, a small minority have direct contact with Rouse, while every registered voter can vote.
That’s probably why those trapped in the guardianship system didn’t care for her, but she continued to win elections.
Whether this is a good idea depends on if you think the guardianship system needs to be reformed or abolished.
I am in the abolished camp. Guardianship is a system which determines if someone no longer has the capacity to care for themselves. If not, that person no longer has access to their money; they don’t decide where they live, who they can see, and how their money is spent.
This is affront to the virtues of liberty upon which this country was founded.
Brittney Spears was trapped for more than a decade in this system. Spears may indeed have all sorts of issues and those issues could even lead to her squandering her fortune, but it’s her fortune.
No one should have the power to determine for Spears how the money she earned is spent. Yet, that’s what our current system allows.
Having a Public Administrator means you are inherently recognizing that probate is necessary. It is not.
As such, I am against the Missouri model.
Share your thoughts in the comments.
{Check out my email to the US Senate Committee on Aging, which is investigating the guardianship racket. In the email, I go through the many issues with the system.}
In my mind you need to add every states "Department of Child Services", whatever a state calls it. The department, that in so many cases, forges or allows children to be mistakenly sent to either Foster Care (Foster abusive Care in many cases) or to abusive parents (typically the one with a bottomless pit of money).