Sonoma County CA Separates Elderly Gay Couple & Sells All Their Possessions
 

If anyone believes the war for our equality is anywhere close to being over, this should prove otherwise. From Seattlepi.com:

Sonoma County CA separates elderly gay couple and sells all their possessions

Posted by Joe Mirabella at April 18, 2010 12:24 p.m.

There is nothing more personal than how we wish to spend our final years. After decades with our loved ones there should be no dispute that we should get to spend our final moments together. Unfortunately Sonoma County, CA treated Harold and Clay as if they were strangers.

Harold was 88 and Clay was 77 when their 20 year relationship was assaulted by Sonoma County. Harold's time here was coming to an end. He was ill and life was further complicated when he took a tumble down the stairs of their home. Harold was taken to the hospital.

Like most same sex couples who are committed to taking care of each other in sickness and in health, Harold and Clay set up legal documents prior to their personal crisis that were supposed to tell authorities to honor their relationship. Clay should have been able to visit Harold in the hospital and make decisions about his care. Instead, the county and health care professionals refused to let Clay even visit Harold in the hospital.

Tragic as that was, the county was not done with this family. More brutality than any government should inflict on a family -- they separated Clay and Harold by placing them in different nursing homes. Remember, Clay was in good health. He was involuntarily committed.

Kate Kendell, the National Director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, a national legal organization committed to advancing the legal and human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people wrote for the Bilerico Project:

Ignoring Clay's significant role in Harold's life, the county continued to treat Harold like he had no family and went to court seeking the power to make financial decisions on his behalf. Outrageously, the county represented to the judge that Clay was merely Harold's "roommate." The court denied their efforts, but did grant the county limited access to one of Harold's bank accounts to pay for his care.

What happened next is even more chilling.

Without authority, without determining the value of Clay and Harold's possessions accumulated over the course of their 20 years together or making any effort to determine which items belonged to whom, the county took everything Harold and Clay owned and auctioned off all of their belongings. Adding further insult to grave injury, the county removed Clay from his home and confined him to a nursing home against his will. The county workers then terminated Clay and Harold's lease and surrendered the home they had shared for many years to the landlord.

Three months after he was hospitalized, Harold died in the nursing home. Because of the county's actions, Clay missed the final months he should have had with his partner of 20 years. Compounding this tragedy, Clay has literally nothing left of the home he had shared with Harold or the life he was living up until the day that Harold fell, because he has been unable to recover any of his property. The only memento Clay has is a photo album that Harold painstakingly put together for Clay during the last three months of his life.

Clay was eventually released from the nursing home following a lawsuit. A further lawsuit is pending against Sonoma County, the auction company, and the nursing home. A trial date is set for July 16, 2010.

As important as this lawsuit is, there is nothing any government, court, or lawyer can do return the dignity and respect Harold and Clay were deprived. No authority will be able to return the last few months of Harold's life, or the chance for Clay and Harold to embrace each other one last time.

We need full legal recognition for same sex couples -- in name and law -- in every state in this country. We need it now.

For more information about this case visit NCLR's Elder Law Project.

http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/s...ves/202464.asp

So none of the paperwork we have will work I guess. Wills, powers of attourney, hippa forms, all for nothing.

This is so very sad and telling.

If California acts like this, then those of us in way more conservative states are screwed for sure.

And yet, we are supposed to be all happy that the current administration is making a rule that we can visit one another in the hospital.

While that is important,it feels, to me, like its really just "throwing us a bone" so that the bigger issue of equality isn't dealt with...

I can't stop thinking about this story...been sad all morning.

I keep thinking it's unreal...how could this happen?

ugh. so pissed about it.
heartbreaking.

:(

Very Very scary. Melissa is a Brit citizen and we often joke about moving there later in life - national health and civil partnerships. Maybe we shouldn't joke. Maybe this is actually a viable alternative for us. We have all those docs too but what's the point if the county can come in and take over and take everything.

Something we can all do
 

A friend shared this link with me, and it helped with my frustrated feeling that there was nothing I could do about this situation.

Well, actually, there is a little something here we can do. This is what I have done, and you can do it to:

http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/...paign_KEY=2441


Just thought Id share.

I did wonder about that. Will we ever know everything that happened?

We have a bunch of expensive documents too, and have never had any problems here in TN. I wonder if there was family involved?

It makes me pretty nervous.

Agree! All we can do at the moment is to keep protecting ourselves as best as we can.

This may be helpful...

http://gbge.aclu.org/relationships

Does anyone know of a way to find out if the media ommited details?

I am inclined to believe the story in its accuracy. I doubt the NCLR and other attys involved in the upcoming ( ongoing) case would be tossing their names out there if it wasn't a valid case.

More info from NCLR on Elder Rights. This case has brought these issues into light and with a sense of urgency.

http://www.nclrights.org/site/PageSe...issue_elderLaw

It also brings closer to heart the real issues of equality for all of our citizens. From Equality Matters... the 1138 reasons equality matters.

http://www.equalitymatters.org/equal...c/full_reasons

It has a docket number. There are multiple websites discussing the case with different tidbits of information.

"Tenants in common" is not a good choice to protect a couples rights. A home, car or other property owned as tenants in common gives each partner rights to only half of said property. Children or even distant relatives of the deceased or incapacitated partner could force the property into probate. The remainng partner would most likely be forced to sell the property and give half to the suing family member. Any jointly owned property should be titled as "Joint tenants", with the added phrase "with full rights to survivor", which adds further clarity to the intention of the owners.

"Tenants in common" should only be used if either partner has children or other relatives that they wish to have to leave their assets to rather than their partner.

This article makes me so sad, But I add my plea that you not use it as an excuse to avoid obtaining necessary documents to protect your rights. No system is perfect. This is an awful situation, but it could have happened just as easily to a cohabiting elderly straight couple. In Florida, during the last election, when the charming voters of my state decided to eliminate the legal status of "domestic partner", the biggest group lobbying to keep it from being passed was an elder rights group which used only straight couples as spokespeople. The religious right was so anxious to eliminate any possibility that gay folks could establish a legal relationship of any kind, that they through cohabiting straight people under the truck as well.
Sad Smooches,
Keri

Signed and shared.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/di...0&file=260-267

260. Unless the provision or context otherwise requires, the
definitions in this chapter govern the construction of this part.



262. "Beneficiary" means the person entitled, but for the person's
disclaimer, to take an interest.



263. (a) "Creator of the interest" means a person who establishes,
declares, creates, or otherwise brings into existence an interest.
(b) "Creator of the interest" includes, but is not limited to, the
following:
(1) With respect to an interest created by intestate succession,
the person dying intestate.
(2) With respect to an interest created under a will, the
testator.
(3) With respect to an interest created under a trust, the
settlor.
(4) With respect to an interest created by succession to a
disclaimed interest, the disclaimant of the disclaimed interest.
(5) With respect to an interest created by virtue of an election
to take against a will, the testator.
(6) With respect to an interest created by creation of a power of
appointment, the donor.
(7) With respect to an interest created by exercise or nonexercise
of a power of appointment, the donee.
(8) With respect to an interest created by an inter vivos gift,
the donor.
(9) With respect to an interest created by surviving the death of
a depositor of a Totten trust account or P.O.D. account, the deceased
depositor.
(10) With respect to an interest created under an insurance or
annuity contract, the owner, the insured, or the annuitant.
(11) With respect to an interest created by surviving the death of
another joint tenant, the deceased joint tenant.
(12) With respect to an interest created under an employee benefit
plan, the employee or other owner of an interest in the plan.
(13) With respect to an interest created under an individual
retirement account, annuity, or bond, the owner.




264. "Disclaimant" means a beneficiary who executes a disclaimer on
his or her own behalf or a person who executes a disclaimer on
behalf of a beneficiary.


265. "Disclaimer" means any writing which declines, refuses,
renounces, or disclaims any interest that would otherwise be taken by
a beneficiary.


266. "Employee benefit plan" includes, but is not limited to, any
pension, retirement, death benefit, stock bonus, or profit-sharing
plan, system, or trust.


267. (a) "Interest" includes the whole of any property, real or
personal, legal or equitable, or any fractional part, share, or
particular portion or specific assets thereof, or any estate in any
such property, or any power to appoint, consume, apply, or expend
property, or any other right, power, privilege, or immunity relating
to property.
(b) "Interest" includes, but is not limited to, an interest
created in any of the following manners:
(1) By intestate succession.
(2) Under a will.
(3) Under a trust.
(4) By succession to a disclaimed interest.
(5) By virtue of an election to take against a will.
(6) By creation of a power of appointment.
(7) By exercise or nonexercise of a power of appointment.
(8) By an inter vivos gift, whether outright or in trust.
(9) By surviving the death of a depositor of a Totten trust
account or P.O.D. account.
(10) Under an insurance or annuity contract.
(11) By surviving the death of another joint tenant.
(12) Under an employee benefit plan.
(13) Under an individual retirement account, annuity, or bond.
(14) Any other interest created by any testamentary or inter vivos
instrument or by operation of law.

Wow. If you go to page 66 of the first link, the letter to the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors detailing this ordeal is just heartbreaking. I do think that this is a valid story.

I think that part of our wanting to believe that it isnt a full disclosure of the facts is more about us wanting to think that it couldnt happen to us.

Unfortunately, IMO, it can.

This is exactly the kind of thing I am frightened of, and I have more paper work than the SCOTUS would need. Legally Married? Check. Living Trust? Check. Advanced Directive? Check. Durable Power of Attorney? Check.

Do NOT let this story keep you from making informed decisions or completing the correct legal paperwork. Let it be a lesson. Give copies of your wishes to your loudest, most vocal loved ones.

The people that will cut a bitch for you if you can't do it yourself.

But do NOT shrug your shoulders and decide WTF why should I bother?

By all means make certain that you let as many people as possible know your wishes. And know the wishes of your loved ones.

This is not just an LGBTQ issue. What happened to this couple can happen to straight couples too. Click on the link - the story has an audio clip from Barbara Coombs Lee that is worth listening too.

From NPR:

Obama Pushes Hospitals To Honor Patients' Choices

By Scott Hensley
April 16, 2010

By ordering hospitals that take Medicare or Medicaid money to allow patients to be visited and helped by whomever they want, President Obama was taking a shot at those that have resisted the wishes often recorded in advance directives.

The presidential memo specifically notes the challenges for gay and lesbian people whose partners have sometimes been unable to act as legal surrogates.

Many hospitals already have broadened the categories of people permitted to visit or aid a hospitalized person. And some states, including North Carolina, have patient bills of rights that give the hospitalized person the power to say who's OK to visit.

But there's also been some backsliding on advance directives, too. Barbara Coombs Lee, president of Compassion & Choices, a patient advocacy group, talked with NPR's Julie Rovner about problems in some states, such as Idaho, where conscience provisions allow health workers who disagree with a patients' treatment choices to ignore them. (Emphasis mine)

Similarly, late last year the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops made the use of feeding tubes for patients nearing the end of their lives more likely, even when people had specified beforehand that they didn't want them.
(Emphasis mine again)

Dr. Jason Schneider, former president of the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association, told NPR's Ari Shapiro that unless a hospital has a formal policy allowing same-sex visitations, gay couples can run into trouble. Same goes when it comes to who can be a surrogate decision maker for an incapacitated person.

The president's order will take time to implement in federal regulations. But advocates hailed the decision. Some say the New York Times' reporting on the case of a same-sex couple in Florida helped push things along. Despite having power of attorney, a woman was unable to see her partner before she died of an aneurysm in 2007.

Similarly, late last year the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops made the use of feeding tubes for patients nearing the end of their lives more likely, even when people had specified beforehand that they didn't want them.

Dr. Jason Schneider, former president of the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association, told NPR's Ari Shapiro that unless a hospital has a formal policy allowing same-sex visitations, gay couples can run into trouble. Same goes when it comes to who can be a surrogate decision maker for an incapacitated person.

The president's order will take time to implement in federal regulations. But advocates hailed the decision. Some say the New York Times' reporting on the case of a same-sex couple in Florida helped push things along. Despite having power of attorney, a woman was unable to see her partner before she died of an aneurysm in 2007.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2010..._ordering.html

Lord, I pity the fool who ever tries to keep the girl out of my room. I also pity the poor bail bondsman she calls later! Busy busy, I tell ya!

it's not a novel, there's bound to be some omitted facts. however, i'm wondering if you think that the omitted facts will lead to an alternate, 'happy ending', one not detailed here? do you think that a gay man doesn't die and his partner doesn't end up losing everything? (i don't)

Yeah, I guess I have this very misguided idea of Californians being wayyy more liberal and cool about things than anyone in TN. But in Nashville I have never had a problem. I give my doctors and hospitals the forms, but they have always indicated Cynthia woudl be able to see me regardless?

Now in a rural TN area? Who knows....though, there seem to be a lot of LBGTQ people in the medical profession.

Either way, its terribly sad.

UPDATE -
 

The "main stream" press is reporting on it now. The local paper here in Sonoma County (Press Democrat) is working on a story, and here's a piece from the NY Times: http://bayarea.blogs.nytimes.com/201...-forced-apart/

Kate Kendell updated her blog at the Bilerico Project: http://www.nclrights.org/site/DocSer...pdf?docID=7461

Hi Kobi -

You can read the complaint that was filed (with all the names, dates, and details) on NCLR's site here: http://www.nclrights.org/site/DocSer...pdf?docID=7461

Check the NCLR site for the legal complaint that was filed:

http://www.nclrights.org/site/DocSer...pdf?docID=7461

Well she didn't look very hard.

http://www.sonoma-county.org/board/m...a_20091103.htm

Read the legal complaint and weep - it's heartbreaking.

http://www.nclrights.org/site/DocSer...pdf?docID=7461