Judge Boyd found Mae's dementia to be a fact of the case. It's in his April 1, 2005 ruling.
Dr. Jones examined the proposed ward on April 1, 2005, and prepared and filed his Evaluator's Report with the court wherein he opined that the proposed ward was incapacitated by reason of mental disability and was in need of a guardian of person and property.Mental disability has causes other than dementia. Further, the court in it's April 4 order merely repeated a doctor's opinion.
The April 1 ruling and order were made solely on the basis of the facts as presented by Gaddy.
Well, what do you say? How would you have handled it? I mean the whole thing, not just the internet part.
I am so glad you brought this up..
Do you mind eloborating on how Judge Boyd came to this to be a FACT?
If you read HIS own response on this-- HE NEVER found this to be a FACT. He found it necessary to give this woman a guardian until a hearing could be held-- and he made this decision based ONLY on the facts that he had at the time- and all these facts were one-sided. YOu want US to have an open mind- try it yourself.
Smatalek-- YOur questions are interesting- the problem is that you are not payiing attention- because all of them have been answered (or at least MOST of them)
Many people on BOTH sides are making a LOT of assumptions.
READ the ACTUAL THINGS REPORTED. NOT what people are assuming...