Normally, this is the standard process in most states that I am aware of. So yes, this is a big gap in my mind in the New Yorker article.
Taking Florida's as an example (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Displ...), the state gives strong preference to bloodline or marriage. The court has to declare in writing pretty specific reasons to appoint a professional guardian.
So I wonder how they ended up with a professional guardian / fraudster in the first place. I understand that sometimes this happens due to family disagreements over who should be appointed, or inability to care for one reason or another. Maybe that happened in these cases.
Incidentally, you can also declare, in your will, a medical power of attorney which basically pre-lays out the guardianship lineage in your preferred order. From what I understand, courts tend to use the medical power of attorney preferences well over anything else, so this is probably one of the strongest ways to prevent this sort of situation.
I think the article does in fact explain how this could have happened:
1) The professional guardian moved for an emergency ex parte hearing, without notification to family members, getting to speak to the court first, and unopposed.
2) The professional guardian mentioned the family members in her court filings, and indicated they were unfit for various reasons.
3) The courts didn't really check the professional guardian's claims.
Those seem like facts, assuming the article can be trusted. What follows are my conjectures based on those facts:
4) The judge is in on it, fundamentally. At the very least, he thinks professional guardians are just a better idea than family members, and hence he was just looking for justification to ignore the preference-for-bloodline statute.
5) Item #3 is a consequence of #4 to some extent. The judge has no real incentive to double-check things here, and it's extra work, so why do it? The resulting lack of consequences described in the article indicates that this was a rational call on the judge's part, as far as that goes.
6) Item #2 gives cover to the judge to act on the predisposition I describe in item #4.
Thanks for the information, I believe you are correct.
Further Googling indicated that up until 2015, guardians in Nevada had to be in-state residents. (http://borglawgroup.com/new-adult-guardianship-laws-may-affe...). This is a pretty nasty restriction in my opinion in today's world, and probably accounted for at least some of the "disqualifications". At least Florida law specifically qualifies non-residents that are related!
It seems like this story was pretty big in Las Vegas around 2015, and it did lead to reform attempts at the state level (including the above reform). Obviously you can't change the past, but I'm curious if any of this has done any good for the future. (https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/politics-and-government/n...).
"Parks drove a Pontiac G-6 convertible with a license plate that read “crtgrdn,” for “court guardian.” In the past twelve years, she had been a guardian for some four hundred wards of the court."
...
"Norheim awarded a guardianship to Parks, on average, nearly once a week. She had up to a hundred wards at a time. “I love April Parks,” he said at one hearing"
I would be shocked if this guy isn't getting some kind of payment from Ms. Parks.
I have to agree that my gut feeling is that the judge is on the take here. But there's no really hard evidence for that in the article, and I really hope not in reality, because otherwise just reshuffling the judge around to kids' cases is a complete travesty.
In any case, unfortunately all that's important for my #4 is that the judge be predisposed towards professional guardians, for whatever reason.
The article described how the courts are basically in cahoots with the scammers, bending any possibly argument in favor of the "professional ward."
It's truly awful, but it seems to jibe with the whole prison thing going on in the states. Its all the people who have no means to defend themselves who seem to be the targets of these schemes: poor people, kids, elderly, the disabled.
Taking Florida's as an example (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Displ...), the state gives strong preference to bloodline or marriage. The court has to declare in writing pretty specific reasons to appoint a professional guardian.
Nevada's laws (https://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-159.html), although not as strong as Florida, does seem to indicate preference for bloodline or spouse.
So I wonder how they ended up with a professional guardian / fraudster in the first place. I understand that sometimes this happens due to family disagreements over who should be appointed, or inability to care for one reason or another. Maybe that happened in these cases.
Incidentally, you can also declare, in your will, a medical power of attorney which basically pre-lays out the guardianship lineage in your preferred order. From what I understand, courts tend to use the medical power of attorney preferences well over anything else, so this is probably one of the strongest ways to prevent this sort of situation.