Son of elder abuse victims on Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Richard A. Adler failing to protect victims
(Page 3 of 3)
Judge Richard A. Adler fails to issue restraining orders to perpetrators who illegally seized control of conservatorship and kidnapped one of the conservatees
About two months after Robert Sawyer’s second OSC regarding contempt hearing, Robert and some other perpetrators who felt threatened by the conservator began relentlessly attacking the conservator, interfering with the conservatorship, and trying to replace the conservator and seize control of the remaining estate assets. Then about two more months after Robert began attacking the conservator, Robert and the other perpetrators got very desperate when they brazenly nullified Judge Adler’s order appointing David Sawyer as conservator and temporarily seized for themselves the role of conservator of Charles Sawyer.
While being advised by their own elder law attorney, Steven Perkins, the perpetrators engaged in outrageous and unlawful conduct that included, but was not limited to, the following:
- Kidnapping conservatee Charles Sawyer from a locked psychiatric hospital where his geriatric psychiatrist had just placed Charles on a 72-hour hold for involuntary psychiatric evaluation, pursuant to California Welfare and Institutions Code § 5150.
- Illegally discharging and removing conservatee Charles Sawyer from a board and care facility in which the conservator had placed Charles, pursuant to California Probate Code § 2352.
- Illegally admitting conservatee Charles Sawyer (without the conservator’s knowledge or legally required consent) to a grossly negligent board and care facility that had failed to give conservatee Barbara Sawyer proper doses of her vital anticoagulant medication and therefore contributed to Barbara’s severe stroke a few months earlier.
- Taking conservatee Charles Sawyer to unknown medical doctors without the conservator’s knowledge or consent, which is required by the court-ordered conservatorship and Probate Code §§ 1880, 1881, 1890, 2354, 2355, and 2356.5.
- Giving conservatee Charles Sawyer drugs and other medical treatment without the conservator’s knowledge or legally required consent.
- Preventing conservatee Charles Sawyer from receiving required medical and psychiatric treatment prescribed by some of Charles’ doctors, including two leading geriatric psychiatrists.
- Psychologically agitating and disturbing Charles.
- Encouraging the incompetent Charles to spend most of his time, energy, and very limited funds on contesting the conservatorship and preparing to petition the court to replace the conservator with either Robert Sawyer or Sharon Connelly, a co-perpetrator and niece of Charles and Barbara.
As a result, the conservator petitioned Judge Adler to issue restraining orders against elder law attorney Steven Perkins and the perpetrators who were illegally subverting the court-ordered conservatorship and harming Charles Sawyer psychologically, medically, and financially. But, at the hearing for this restraining order petition, Judge Adler appeared to be visibly perturbed that the conservator and his attorney, Michael Bradford, would tie up the court’s calendar with a complicated, contested, time-consuming elder abuse case involving a small or modest estate. Judge Adler made it clear he did not want to get involved in the messy case and spend the time that was necessary to read the evidence and fairly adjudicate the case in the best interests of the conservatees. Instead, abandoning his judicial duties to make decisions that protect the conservatees from harm, Judge Adler directed Mr. Bradford and the conservator to go out of the courtroom with the defiant perpetrators and try to reach an out-of-court settlement.
The following verbatim excerpt from the court transcript of the restraining order hearing (except the true names of the parties) illustrates Judge Richard Adler’s judicial laziness and abdication of his judicial duties:
The Court: Have we all stated our appearance? Okay. There is two ways to handle this. Let me tell you the easy way first. Go out in the hallway and reach some sort of equitable settlement in terms of how we are going to do this. That’s your first choice. Second, I will impose a method. I will do it the best way I can. I probably won’t allow too much in the way of influence. I have my own ideas, but they are my own ideas, and I will just impose them. Otherwise, go out in the hallway. This is the shortest distance between two points is go out in the hallway and reach some sort of equitable solution, or I will impose one. Real easy. I will give you ten minutes. Go out and talk it over, and come back, or I will let you know what is going to happen. [Emphasis added.]
When Mr. Bradford and the conservator obviously could not reach an out-of-court agreement with the contentious, harmful perpetrators, Judge Adler appeared visibly upset with and curt to Mr. Bradford. Judge Adler then perfunctorily gave Mr. Bradford literally two minutes for oral argument of a serious, complicated case obviously requiring more time.
The following verbatim excerpt from the court transcript of the restraining order hearing (except the true names of the parties) exemplifies Judge Richard A. Adler’s annoyance, rudeness, and failure to spend the time that was necessary to fairly adjudicate the case in the best interests of the victimized conservatees:
Mr. Bradford: Your Honor, I want to suggest—
The Court: Don’t make suggestions. It is going to be over real soon. All right. Mr. Bradford, you have two minutes to give me your position. Make it count. [Emphasis added.]
Judge Adler then totally denied the petition for restraining orders and said he would have issued one of the requested restraining orders if Mr. Bradford and the conservator had filed the petition under a section of the California Probate Code that Mr. Bradford has insisted does not even exist. The following verbatim excerpt from the court transcript of the restraining order hearing reflects this:
The Court: All right. I am ready to rule. With respect to this Petition for Protective Order, it is all denied without prejudice. If it is rebrought under the Probate Code, the Court would probably entertain just item A, and reword it to say, “not to remove either of the conservatees Charles or Barbara Sawyer from their current residence without permission from the conservator or the Court.” That would probably be the only item I would be persuaded to. It would have to be brought under the Probate Code, and not under elder abuse statutes. So basically the whole petition is denied without prejudice.
Mr. Bradford: Your Honor, would you—well, you have just denied it. I guess that answers the question. I was trying to ask if you would hear some input from the doctors.
The Court: I have heard all the input I need. We are done.