Guardianship

 I'm kicking myself for not taking a screen capture of our Zoom court date today.  That said, that's probably illegal for all sorts of reasons, so maybe it's not so bad.  Anyway, allow me to explain:

The court date took place this morning and involved me, Jami, Frederick, Thomas and our (and Frederick's) doctor Tejal Joseph, along with the judge and a couple of lawyers (one, actually in court with the judge, who was representing Frederick's interests - to avoid any Britney Spears shenanigans, and the other, on Zoom with us, who represented us), that granted us joint guardianship of Frederick.  This had to be done for various reasons (if he's in an accident, we can make medical decisions for him, which technically we haven't been able to do since his 18th birthday), but it also means we can proceed with trying to get Social Security for him.

The judge was VERY nice (and overlooked a couple of missing items that would have been impossible for us to get - like detailed school reports), and that's been hanging over our heads for a LONG time.  (Jami was "getting sick" in the bathroom literally minutes before the court session started.  This is one occasion when I am VERY thankful for the pandemic - doing that in court would have been SO much more of a palaver.)

Jami expands:

The judge wasn't so soft on our lawyer.  Maybe Simon didn't pick up on that, but the judge basically told the lawyer that the lawyer fucked up royally (our case rested on a medical generalist--which is all our insurance covers--rather than a psychological specialist--which would have cost thousands to visit and we would have had to pay at LEAST $1000 to attend the court process today) and the judge told her in no uncertain terms that such a fuck up would never appear in HER court again.

The application form asks for a "medical expert."  The lawyer knew that meant "psychologist" when the disability in question is cognitive/intellectual.  However, she preferred to read it literally and allow us to rely on our general physician, who has treated all of us and appeared in court today for no fee at all, just because she wants this to work for Frederick.  And though our GP is perfectly capable of asserting as a medical expert that Frederick is incapable of living independently, the court really would have been happier (i's dotted, t's crossed kind of a thing) if she had had a PhD in psychology, not medicine.

The judge said, "I won't put the family through the process again, but...." which means she COULD have put us through the process but wants us to believe she is just too damn KIND not to.  But if the lawyer tries that move again with the next family, they will not be so lucky.

I've seen this sort of power play between judges and lawyers discussed in my law classes often.  Some lawyers want to get close to a judge and so require their clients jump through all the hoops--that keeps the lawyers on good terms with the judges and so the lawyers win more cases, though their clients end up hating them/the process.  But, from the lawyer's point of view, that's no loss because those people are unlikely to be clients ever again.  Other lawyers view judges as the enemy and their clients as someone they will fight to the end for--that's the lawyer we had.  (I didn't know that when I hired her, but it became pretty clear after I met with her a few times--she's really anti-judge/pro-client.)  Those lawyers see every judge's rule as an obstacle to destroy, not work around.  These clients love their lawyers and will go back for repeat business---which we will, because the next stage is setting up a special needs trust fund which is DEFINITELY not something someone should attempt on their own.

What I have learned from 28 months of law school: Hire a lawyer; never attempt DIY.

 

Tejal added background on the judge: I’ve worked with judge Barkey in the past. I was over the moon that she was the one handling Frederick’s case. She truly is a gift to the county!!

 

[I second that.  So... phew!]