Public Trustee vs Vet

Hi People,

This story has come up in the Winnipeg Sun online a couple or so times recently ... is anyone else familiar with this story?

Its sounds absolutely outrageous (but I don't know all the details obviously ... but still dammit ...) :

Karmen

Sat, August 20, 2005
Injustice continues
Public Trustee keeps grip on veteran's private affairs

By TOM BRODBECK

It's been almost three months since the government took over the life of Thomas Hanaway, 80, and there's still no sign it's prepared to give the Second World War veteran his freedom back.

Manitoba's Public Trustee, who took over Hanaway's life on June 6, continues to confiscate Hanaway's pension cheques, open his mail and pay his bills.

Hanaway, who lives with his wife and son in the North End home where he was born, is not allowed out of the city without permission from the Public Trustee.

And if he requires any medical attention, it must be approved by the Public Trustee.

"This is bullshit," said a frustrated Thomas Hanaway, whom I visited yesterday. "This is causing a lot of hardship around here."

No doubt. How would you like to have your life taken over by the government and told whether you can leave town?

How would you like the government to confiscate your mail and open it?

SEIZING AND OPENING MAIL

It even seizes copies of Hanaway's Legion magazine, which he gets in the mail.

His son, Tom Hanaway Jr., has to drive to the Public Trustee office downtown to pick up the mail when they call.

And because he has the same name as his father, it's been seizing and opening his mail, too.

"What they can do is just unreal," said Grace Hanaway. "I don't know where all this is going to end up."

Justice Minister Gord Mackintosh said on June 30 that the Hanaway case would be reviewed and completed within a month.

Nearly two months later, nothing has happened.

A letter sent to Grace Hanaway this week from deputy justice minister Bruce MacFarlane said the investigation of their case is still ongoing.

The government is alleging Hanaway's money is not being handled properly.

It's accusing the family of mismanaging his affairs, although its correspondence doesn't specifically state how.

"There is concern, as you have been told, that significant sums of money have been expended without authorization from your husband's estate," wrote MacFarlane.

What estate? Hanaway's not dead. And he shares his assets, like most married couples, with his wife.

Her money is his money, and his money is hers. They raised a family together, ran a business together and own a home together.

If the government has some allegations against the Hanaways it feels gives them the right to revoke Grace Hanaway's power of attorney, it should have to prove that in a court of law first.

You can't just arbitrarily suspend someone's civil liberties on allegations of financial mismanagement.

The Hanaways acknowledge they've blown all their money over the years and that their son, who's unemployed, has spent some money, too.

But it's their money and their decision. I don't see how that's any of the government's business -- a government that, by the way, urges people to go to casinos and gamble their money away.

MacFarlane says in his letter that the Public Trustee may take the Hanaway case to court and let a judge decide if Grace should have her power of attorney re-instated, which was suspended by government.

He says if that happens, she can hire a lawyer to represent her, which costs at least $3,000 to $4,000 -- money she doesn't have.

So much for due process.

So much for freedom.

[cliff]

sounds to me that if the wife has power of atterney over Tom senior then he is not capable of managing affairs for himself. If this is so she could have been spending his money elsewhere in inappropreate ways and not looking after him properly. For all we know she gives it to the son who spends it at the Casino.

If this was reported in a newspaper then well over half the story has not been told, the bit that would explain what she was doing with the cash maybe?

cheers
Cliff

[Jon Skagfeld]

All the more reason that married couples should entertain the thought of:

activating a living will

designating power of attorney

ensuring that one's will is up to date.

If you don't do the above, the bureaucratic bastards will seize and distribute your estate assets as they see fit, not as you (now deceased) wanted.

Transfer of real assets to siblings should also be considered since probate fees will not accrue to that transaction.

If one doesn't get on track with managing their after life assets, the government will step in. (See above).

It is, unfortunately, a well known fact that Veterans Affairs Canada has mis managed veterans vested assets, which were supposed to be held in trust, or escrow, for family dispersal.

VAC has been most obdurate in even replying to ATIs or RFIs WRT family requests for such dispersal of funds.

Disgraceful...

Originally posted by cliff
sounds to me that if the wife has power of atterney over Tom senior then he is not capable of managing affairs for himself. If this is so she could have been spending his money elsewhere in inappropreate ways and not looking after him properly. For all we know she gives it to the son who spends it at the Casino.

If this was reported in a newspaper then well over half the story has not been told, the bit that would explain what she was doing with the cash maybe?

cheers
Cliff

Hi Chris ... thanks for replying to this post. I really don't know the story behind why wifey had power of attorney, and why Trustees stepped in. I an't judge, but my immediate reaction was that I hope to heck someone else is mediating for the Vet.

My understanding is that there is a kaffuffle ( or so the media puts forth) about the arbitrary powers of "Trustee" and the implication is that Trustees are highhanded and often take over unjustifiably. Again ... I really don't know the realities ...

IF something is amiss for this Vet though, I hope the attention will help others step and and make sure things are 'done right by the Vet" ...

Bottom line, I don't know the facts. But i also don't have faith in many who hold arbitrary power over others lives that they always really do do whats "right" by the "client".

I posted this in the hopes of others replying and putting in their two cents worth.

Thanks .. Karmen

Hi Carmen, as you know I am sort of at the beginning of this process with my wife. I have her sign all documents concerning her care etc even though the facilities we are dealing with would prefer that I would do the signing. In Ontario having power of attorney does not necessarily mean you have power of attorney, a Doctor must first declare that the person for which you have power of attorney is not competant to make a decision on his/her own. In my experience Doctors are reluctant to make this judgement.
So far it has worked out well for us, we have worked with the Community Care Access units in our community and they have been very helpful.

Originally posted by Art Johnson
Hi Carmen, as you know I am sort of at the beginning of this process with my wife. I have her sign all documents concerning her care etc even though the facilities we are dealing with would prefer that I would do the signing. In Ontario having power of attorney does not necessarily mean you have power of attorney, a Doctor must first declare that the person for which you have power of attorney is not competant to make a decision on his/her own. In my experience Doctors are reluctant to make this judgement.
So far it has worked out well for us, we have worked with the Community Care Access units in our community and they have been very helpful.

Hi Art,

For starters, thank you a whole bunch for replying to me in this Art. This stuff, well ... it just really pushes all of my buttons of concern. Times have changed so much ,,, where family used to automatically fill roles, the impersonal government and others step in these days ... and they can't always know whats best for the individuals involved because, bottom line, they don't really know them in a day in and out way ... ( my biggest fears for myself are to ever get to the point of physical dependency on other people, which is a potentially realistic concern of mine, even at age 51 ... my life experiences have not inspired trust that my needs, or even limits, will be considered)

Should there ever come a time in you and Catherine's time if you feel you need someone to "run things by", or ??? ... well ... please DO think of us in MLU. Maybe we can give you options to consider or ... I dunno ...

I mean that from the heart Art ...

On a lighter note ... here is a link for you Art ... do you recognize or even like this lady and song?
http://www.kittywells.com/

Also ... please do explain to me your comment about what you called "Jamesons" when I said I liked it in my coffee LOL ... (Irish Whiskey for those who don't know ... and I know, I was a rare drinker until ... now I rather enjoy the fire water ... it ain't Drambuie but it works )

Karmen

Karmen, it's all a matter of taste.

Art

(Who loves you baby)

[cmperry4]

The suggestion that the trustee may have become involved because the son is tapping into dad's cash via the mom has put a new wrinkle on this story, but Tom has yet to winkle that out . Trustee isn't telling.

He still finds it appalling that every piece of mail addressed to Hanaway is intercepted and opened by some bureaucrat. The minister promised to deal with this case, and still hasn't.

Originally posted by cmperry4
The suggestion that the trustee may have become involved because the son is tapping into dad's cash via the mom has put a new wrinkle on this story, but Tom has yet to winkle that out . Trustee isn't telling.

He still finds it appalling that every piece of mail addressed to Hanaway is intercepted and opened by some bureaucrat. The minister promised to deal with this case, and still hasn't.

Thanks for the update, as you know it so far, Mark.

If the son was working Mom to get at Dad's money, and she gave in to sons quilt trips, I can see where a little intervention to manage this gentlemans money would be good to do, if the gentleman really needs others to act on his behalf to begin with. Someone supervising the "Trustees" would be good too, as far as I'm concerned. Misuse of powers isn't always intentional ... but it happens, as does deliberate, at times.

Whatever is going on, in the end, I hope it's all doing right by Mister Hanaway's needs.

Karmen

Originally posted by Art Johnson
Karmen, it's all a matter of taste.

Art

(Who loves you baby)

Hi Art,

My relationship with Jamesons goes back to a small unlicenced coffeehouse in Gastown, Vancouver, that I started to work in about 1978, and part-time/off and on for about 12 years. The establishment served "Dark Coffee" (or orange juice, tea, whatever) "under the table" ... my long time addiction to coffee meant I chose the Dark Coffee and got to like the taste of the shots of Jamesons

That same coffee house is where I met and know Gavin from, (Smokey Smith's son-inlaw) who played Saxophone there every week for all of its years pretty much. I waitressed and/or did the door ... and it is thanks to Gavin that I met John, my youngest daughters father ... he and Gavin are long time good friends.

I agree with you, its all a matter of taste ... and there's no accounting for tastes

Karmen