"It often took several days for relatives to realize what had happened. When they tried to contest the guardianship or become guardians themselves, they were dismissed as unsuitable, and disparaged in court records as being neglectful, or as drug addicts, gamblers, and exploiters. (Belshe was described by Parks as a “reported addict” who “has no contact with the proposed ward,” an allegation that Belshe didn’t see until it was too late to challenge.) Family who lived out of state were disqualified from serving as guardians, because the law prohibited the appointment of anyone who didn’t live in Nevada.

Once the court approved the guardianship, the wards were often removed from their homes, which were eventually sold. Terry Williams, whose father’s estate was taken over by strangers even though he’d named her the executor of his will, has spent years combing through guardianship, probate, and real-estate records in Clark County. “I kept researching, because I was so fascinated that these people could literally take over the lives and assets of people under color of law, in less than ten minutes, and nobody was asking questions,” she told me. “These people spent their lives accumulating wealth and, in a blink of an eye, it was someone else’s."

"The opinions of wards were also disregarded. In 2010, Guadalupe Olvera, a ninety-year-old veteran of the Second World War, repeatedly asked that his daughter and not Shafer be appointed his guardian. “The ward is not to go to court,” Shafer instructed his assistants. When Olvera was finally permitted to attend a hearing, nearly a year after becoming a ward, he expressed his desire to live with his daughter in California, rather than under Shafer’s care. “Why is everybody against that?” he asked Norheim. “I don’t need that man.” Although Nevada’s guardianship law requires that courts favor relatives over professionals, Norheim continued the guardianship, saying, “The priority ship sailed.” When Olvera’s daughter eventually defied the court’s orders and took her father to live at her seaside home in Northern California, Norheim’s supervisor, Judge Charles Hoskin, issued an arrest warrant for her “immediate arrest and incarceration” without bail. The warrant was for contempt of court, but Norheim said at least five times from the bench that she had “kidnapped” Olvera. At a hearing, Norheim acknowledged that he wasn’t able to send an officer across state lines to arrest the daughter. Shafer said, “Maybe I can.”"

This is approximately an equivalent of "because they can". There must be a deeper explanation, or a history of the law which can give us a better understanding.

The law was written by the people who use it to exploit the elderly. This is just another case of endemic US corruption that sits behind a polite facade.

> This is just another case of endemic US corruption that sits behind a polite facade.

Everything that happened in that case was a function of state, not federal, law.

US government is in no way limited to the federal government. State and local governments tend to be more corrupt not less.

Gerrymandering + loss of local news coverage = incredible levels of corruption get baked into the system.

> State and local governments tend to be more corrupt not less.

That's true, but the point is that a retiree can choose where they retire to within the United States. Informing oneself about the legal risks associated with guardianship abuse in a given jurisdiction seems every bit as worthwhile as a state's tax laws or weather, topics which retirees certainly tend to take an interest in.

> Gerrymandering + loss of local news coverage = incredible levels of corruption get baked into the system.

Dammit, we've only got an inch of topsoil left!

I really don't understand what you're saying - legalised theft is OK because people can choose to retire in a different state?

I cannot imagine how you got that out of my comment. I think people ought to educate themselves about the laws and customs of their state and avoid the places where this stuff takes place like the plague. Or, failing that, get a really good lawyer.

The federal government tends to be corrupt in ways less "shallow" and outrageous, but on a much more enormous breadth and scale.

This is the most terrifying part! What would prevent some calculating third party from doing this to my parents? Is it solely down to whether or not the children have the ability to pay costly legal bills?

I dearly, dearly hope that there was something I missed, and that it isn't just a case of bureaucratic maneuvering to deprive that couple of everything they owned.

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.

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.

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...).

At least five guardians are in legal trouble now over this, four of them (including Parks) for running a racket (http://www.ktnv.com/news/contact-13/guardianship-crimes-occu...). Another guardian was arrested for stealing from a client in 2013 (http://www.fox5vegas.com/story/23641602/court-appointed-guar...).

Of course, at a government level, all that happens is career shuffling...

Re your point #4: From the article:

"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.

Only one thing: they should not live in such a terrible jurisdiction!

Who's writing the laws you have to not get caught not following is a highly underrated contributor/detractor to one's quality of life.

Its not a matter of the laws, its a matter of who is making the rulings. In this case, the issue with the jurisdiction was Jon Norheim, the Clark County guardianship commissioner. He seemed to rubber stamp whatever the predatory guardians put before him.

I guess so. Hmm... well I sure hope we get a more developed awareness of the issue so we can plan accordingly for ourselves.

I think there's a couple preventative measures. First, don't go into things like nursing homes, elderly living communities, etc. Those are prime targets.

Second, if you have wealth, give it to someone you trust, or put it into a trust. If you don't have wealth, well, there's not much for them to try to take from you.

It seems like they were able to take "the relatives are just after the money" argument to an absurd level where any form of control over the estate was simply not possible for family members or relatives.