Turpins 3: 2 Monsters, 13 Victims (WARNING abuse and torture)

[Palimpsest]

4 hours ago, church_of_dog said:

Thanks for this, @Palimpsest, it helps me understand a real-life situation I'm helping someone with. 

It is really complicated and I hope the situation you are helping with turns out well.  If this is about an older person I'd advise consulting an Elder Law attorney in your state.  

I'll just add that a lot of this depends on timing.  If a person is still "competent" (both a medical and legal issue) they can choose and appoint a trusted relative or friend as a Durable Power of Attorney themselves.  That is quite sufficient in 90+% of situations to keep someone safe.  However, DPOAs can't be signed under duress and are obviously not valid when a person's capacity to make decisions is already seriously impaired.  

 A Guardianship really is a last resort.  IME, they usually only come into play when an adult (or aging) person has been declared incompetent to make decisions, is seriously at risk, and they have no DPOA in place.  

1 hour ago, EmCatlyn said:

Thanks for your detailed explanation. I did know (in general) the dif between guardian and conservator, but my concern is with the “ permanent” part of the conservatorship.  I doubt that the Turpin kiddults will be ready to function all on their own in May, but I get the feeling most if not all will be ready a year from now. So a conservatorship with a time limit which would be reviewed, revisited and if necessary renewed would be best.

I hope all of them can get individual care and support.    

Sorry.  I quoted you but was trying to answer two questions at once about the differences between guardianship and conservatorship.  A lot of people don't know and the definitions of guardian and conservator do differ slightly among the states.

We really do need someone from CA to weigh in with exactly how these things work there in practice.

I agree with you that ideally this should be a temporary conservatorship.  These are not people with diagnoses of irreversible dementia.  They are young adults with good potential for recovery, IMO.  It may be months or years - but they have good potential.

Some of this stuff about "permanent" conservatorships may be careless reporting and - or -careless statements by those concerned.  In my state we can renew "temporary" conservatorships as required or recommend reassessment after specified time limits.  Perhaps CA is different and it is easier to overturn a "permanent" conservatorship.  I don't know.

I also wonder who will get appointed.  The relatives that have come forward so far do not exactly fill me with confidence (understatement).  Ideally a professional would be appointed by the court.  One who is able to encourage maximum input from the young adults - and one willing or even eager to help them to petition the court to end the conservatorship when they are able to care for themselves properly.

I don't know what resources CA has available, but here we a have a (very) limited number of professionally qualified guardians and conservators for abuse cases like these.  They get a stipend but none of them get rich through that work.  It is a huge responsibility.

[church_of_dog]

55 minutes ago, Palimpsest said:

It is really complicated and I hope the situation you are helping with turns out well.  If this is about an older person I'd advise consulting an Elder Law attorney in your state.  

I'll just add that a lot of this depends on timing.  If a person is still "competent" (both a medical and legal issue) they can choose and appoint a trusted relative or friend as a Durable Power of Attorney themselves.  That is quite sufficient in 90+% of situations to keep someone safe.  However, DPOAs can't be signed under duress and are obviously not valid when a person's capacity to make decisions is already seriously impaired.  

 A Guardianship really is a last resort.  IME, they usually only come into play when an adult (or aging) person has been declared incompetent to make decisions, is seriously at risk, and they have no DPOA in place.  

Thanks again.  Yes, this is an elder person.

My friend is the landlady.  The elder man is the tenant.  Landlady has decided to sell the house he rents so has given him his 60 day notice.  At the same time, the community has noticed that he doesn't seem able to care for himself well, although it's not super clear cut.  But it seems unlikely that he would have the wherewithal to find himself a new rental and get himself moved on his own.  (tiny community, limited rentals, no moving companies, etc).  He doesn't seem to have any friends.  He has a son who lives a day's drive away and who has not been appreciative when the landlady has called to let him know his dad seems to need help.  Hopefully the son will step in once he realizes his dad is being evicted...

I went with my friend to talk to APS when there seemed to be an urgent need situation (frozen pipes) and they did a welfare check, but what is really needed is a bit more long-term, as in helping him move, and if he's not able to care for himself, making that determination and helping him move into some kind of care facility or arranging IHSS in his new home, etc.

Of course this man is a crusty grump who does not welcome help and who has threatened to shoot the plumber, sheriff, or anyone who shows up.  I doubt he would but who wants to take that chance?  This has made it nearly impossible for the landlady to take care of the house.

If the son doesn't step in soon (his 60 days go until early May) we'll see what APS can do.  An elder-care lawyer is a great idea, but not really the landlady's role, I think.

Again, appreciate all the information.

[Palimpsest]

17 minutes ago, church_of_dog said:

Thanks again.  Yes, this is an elder person.

My friend is the landlady.  The elder man is the tenant.

Oh shit.  These situations are the worst and my sympathies to your landlady - and to grumpy old tenant.  I'll put the rest under a spoiler because it is OT so people can scroll on by.

Spoiler

Technically most of these sort of situations don't fall under APS because Grumpy Old Tenant (GOT) is not being actively abused by another person or caregiver at present.  And APS is overwhelmed.  Situations have to get to get to crisis or active abuse.  That stinks.  I know.

The system is screwed and there are variations among the states on how programs function.  Some (not all states) include self-neglect under APS (sometimes called EPS).  Mine doesn't (we have a very underfunded separate program for self-neglect).  So check the definition and what is covered by APS  in your state.  But nag contact APS again anyway.  More below about that. 

Also, depending on the state, this might make the threshold of neglect or abandonment by the son if GOT actually gets evicted - because son might be assumed to be GOT's caretaker.  I am a bit squeamish about that definition because some parents are toxic and some children are justified in distancing themselves.  Some parents want nothing to do with toxic children too.  One of the worst things that can happen is to force a previously abused adult child to care for a now vulnerable formerly abusive parent.  It is a huge risk factor for Elder Abuse.

My advice to landlady: 

1. Report again to APS and ask for clarification of the law and to be directed to other resources for GOT.  
2. Contact police (or sheriff) again to give a heads-up that GOT is going to resist eviction.  Ask to be directed to other resources.
3. Contact local senior social services agencies.  Alert them to the situation.
4. Contact the local Council on Aging.  Make them aware of the situation. Ask for referrals.

They will probably all refer her to each other.  

Finally.  Landlady should sit back and let things happen.  She will have done her best.  It is over to the professionals now.

It is quite possible that GOT will reject any and all attempts to help him by social services.  He may only accept help when he is actually out on the street.  He may well end up homeless, but landlady will have done her best.

The bottom line is that GOT has the right to make his own decisions - even self destructive decisions - unless and until he is deemed totally incompetent. Someone has to assess him for that, and it isn't landlady.

APS errs (correctly, IMO) heavily on the side of self-determination.  We don't take their human rights away from adults just because they are old.  And cantankerous.  And possibly mentally ill.

It is very, very, hard to watch someone self-destruct though.

 

[church_of_dog]

3 hours ago, Palimpsest said:

Oh shit.  These situations are the worst and my sympathies to your landlady - and to grumpy old tenant.  I'll put the rest under a spoiler because it is OT so people can scroll on by.

 

Thanks so much, @Palimpsest, both for the specific advice and for the reaffirmation that there is only so much landlady (and rest of concerned community) can do.  At least by May it will be warmer and a night spent in the car, if it actually comes to that, probably won't hurt him physically.

APS person emphasized that some fiercely independent folk "suddenly" realize/accept they need help when faced with a jarring situation, like perhaps an eviction notice.  We hope.

I agree re not forcing toxic family to interact.  I have also heard that GOT and son speak weekly by phone, so hopefully that's not the issue; perhaps son felt landlady was exaggerating etc and disregarded her input but isn't really uncaring about dad...

I will pass your recommendations on to landlady re asking for resources/referrals.  Again thanks so much.

[clueliss]

Or the distant son is overwhelmed I. Denial, which I say as the still sometimes overwhelmed daughter of "oh she's so nice" 80 something woman (now in memory card due to dementia).  Because Mom was so nice (!) and not causing problems her behavior was noted but overlooked/ignored until mom drove off (multiple times) and a deputy gave me a call (I had inserted a business card with my personal information in it in mom's wallet st one point or another) because he was concerned she likely had an Alzhiemers episode.  I don't have the link at hand but we do have a thread titled worried chidren sharing circle (or something look old that) probably under are you there Fj that may have helpful information and advice (possibly from those not reading this thread)

[church_of_dog]

19 minutes ago, clueliss said:

Or the distant son is overwhelmed I. Denial, which I say as the still sometimes overwhelmed daughter of "oh she's so nice" 80 something woman (now in memory card due to dementia).  Because Mom was so nice (!) and not causing problems her behavior was noted but overlooked/ignored until mom drove off (multiple times) and a deputy gave me a call (I had inserted a business card with my personal information in it in mom's wallet st one point or another) because he was concerned she likely had an Alzhiemers episode.  I don't have the link at hand but we do have a thread titled worried chidren sharing circle (or something look old that) probably under are you there Fj that may have helpful information and advice (possibly from those not reading this thread)

Yes, son could be overwhelmed, definitely, or denial.  Or isn't ready to believe landlady because that requires disbelieving dad when he says everything's fine.

Before my mom moved into the retirement community, I did not realize how bad things were with her because my visits were "special occasions" where her normal behaviors were overridden, and because she made things sound fine over the phone.  This dad is likely telling son over the phone that he's doing fine and to disregard landlady.  Because landlady's eviction notice is not aimed at GOT's behavior or condition, but rather on her wish to sell the house, he should be able to admit to son he needs to move (at which point we hope the son will help).

That was a brilliant idea to put your card in your mom's wallet!

Also a good idea for me to check the other thread with an eye to this situation.  Thanks!

[Palimpsest]

On 3/10/2018 at 10:25 PM, church_of_dog said:

I have also heard that GOT and son speak weekly by phone, so hopefully that's not the issue; perhaps son felt landlady was exaggerating etc and disregarded her input but isn't really uncaring about dad...

I will pass your recommendations on to landlady re asking for resources/referrals.  Again thanks so much.

Yes, it could just take a call from someone other than landlady to make him understand the severity of the situation.  I jumped to the conclusion that he didn't want to be involved but I was probably wrong.  My deep sympathy to him too.  Looking after aging parents isn't easy.

And you are very welcome.  Landlady is a lovely person to be so concerned about GOT and so are you.  

[Sideways]

Did anyone see the Dr. Oz show Monday afternoon?  Basically a set up to draw viewers in thinking they would see David and Louise Turpin  interviewed from jail.

Instead more of Elizabeth and her cousin talking about THEIR visit with both of the monsters in jail.  Of course the actual perps were not interviewed.  

[luv2laugh]

I’m getting a sense that Elizabeth is desperate for fame.

[EmCatlyn]

@Sideways regarding Dr. Phil I have been looking for a report if not a transcript of that show,  but all I get is little snippets about it in other articles tht mostly repeat what is known.

I was interested about the part where Elizabeth (sis) and cousin tried to get to see the older Turpin offspring, but were turned away. Apparently the young people are all still at the hospital.  I hope it is not because of health. 

@luv2laugh I agree that Elizabeth Flores definitely has fame issues.  The other siblings seem a lot less eager to get into their sister’s spotlight.

Did anyone who saw the show note that according to Elizabeth, Louise would offer herself to the family abuser “to protect” younger sisters and cousins?  (This was a snippet of the interview that appears in other articles.)

I am not sure I believe anything Elizabeth says, but supposing it is true . . .  Abuse is bad enough, but it sounds like this man felt entitled to just pick one of the girls for whatever he wanted to do to them and all the girls knew about each others’ abuse.

Very sad, even if Elizabeth Flores made up the incident. 

 

[Mcnapple]

On 3/10/2018 at 2:55 PM, Palimpsest said:

 

Some of this stuff about "permanent" conservatorships may be careless reporting and - or -careless statements by those concerned.  In my state we can renew "temporary" conservatorships as required or recommend reassessment after specified time limits.  Perhaps CA is different and it is easier to overturn a "permanent" conservatorship.  I don't know.

I'm leaning towards the careless reporting. How I'm picturing it, after the adult children were rescued, an emergency conservatorship was set up with an expiration date, in order to give time for the adult children to be evaluated. Because there was an expiration date set-up, it must be renewed, and now that the adult children have been evaluated, the conservatorship will be set-up more long-term, to give the adult children time to be reintegrated into society. But I'm sure reintegration would be the goal, not to have the adult children in a permanent, as in forever conservatorship.

[CrazyMumma]

anyone see the news article that seven of the Turpin adults have been released from hospital?

[feministxtian]

I did a goggle search https://www.google.com/search?q=turpin+adults+released+from+hospital&rlz=1C1CHWA_enUS665US665&oq=turpin+adults+released+from+hospital&aqs=chrome..69i57.10126j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

One article says they're still getting physical, occupational and psychological therapy. I'm guessing that they were released once they could take in adequate calories by mouth and could maintain/gain weight without needing nutritional supplementation (feeding tube/TPN). 

 

***as part of the pancreatitits community, I know more than I ever wanted to know about tube feeds, TPN, etc. I am married to a Chronic Pancreatitis/Total Pancreatectomy survivor. He was released from the hospital after TP/AIT 5 years ago today!

[EmCatlyn]

“the young adults, ages 18 to 29, were taken by their attorney and public guardian from the carefully controlled ward of the hospital to an undisclosed rural house they now call home.”

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/News/exclusive-siblings-allegedly-held-captive-experience-freedom-1st/story?id=53837445

The article says that the young people don’t want to be thought of as victims but as survivors.

[Palimpsest]

52 minutes ago, EmCatlyn said:

The article says that the young people don’t want to be thought of as victims but as survivors.

There is a lot of good news in that article.  The minor siblings are apparently divided between 2 separate foster homes but they are arranging a meet-up for the family soon.

I like the lawyer who apparently specializes in representing people with special needs.  Good resume: https://brownwhitelaw.com/jack-b-osborn/

Quote

"They want to do things for themselves and they want to start having independent lives where they're responsible for themselves," he added. "That's the goal and that's what everyone is working toward.”

That should indeed be the goal. 

[feministxtian]

1 hour ago, EmCatlyn said:

The article says that the young people don’t want to be thought of as victims but as survivors.

I think this speaks to the care they got after their rescue. Their attitudes towards themselves is not just from within but from the people who cared for them over the last two months. I hope and pray they all get to have their dreams come true and 10 years from now are living their own lives. 

[EmCatlyn]

An article from People states that the Corona Hospital staff have not been told where the 7 Turpin adults have been moved (for security reasons).  It also has some discussion of what lovely people they are, how affectionate, etc.

Good Bye Party for Turpin Young People

[Palimpsest]

It looks as though the Turpin adults and minors are being very well cared for and their privacy protected.  Thank goodness.  They need privacy and peace to heal and move forward.

CA has apparently stepped up very well to the challenges in this case.  

Is it just me who got a tear in my eye at the thought of their dogs being reunited with them?  

[Chocolatedefrauded]

I’m tearing up at the thought of them running around in the sunshine, laughing & goofing around, cooking together, whatever they want, watching movies and reading all the books they want. Having their own space, relaxing, daydreaming of their futures.

 Only good things in their future! They have already suffered enough for a lifetime.

[EmCatlyn]

5 hours ago, Palimpsest said:

It looks as though the Turpin adults and minors are being very well cared for and their privacy protected.  Thank goodness.  They need privacy and peace to heal and move forward.

CA has apparently stepped up very well to the challenges in this case.  

Is it just me who got a tear in my eye at the thought of their dogs being reunited with them?  

Over on Websleuths the concern has been raised that the state appointed guardian (not the same person as their lawyer) would not allow the 7 to stay in touch with the staff at Corona.  The CEO of Corona seemed to feel this was not in the young people’s best interest.

Apparently the young people’s lawyer supported their wish of staying in touch and psychologists recommended it, but the guardian chose a comple break.  

Quote

The day the public guardian took the seven siblings away to live in their first real home, the siblings kept slipping out of the vehicles and trying to sneak back into the hospital. Everyone cried.

Uffer [Coronas CEO] says he is concerned with the public guardian, which has cut off all contact between the children and the hospital, despite psychologists and the siblings’ own attorney’s recognition that continuity of care for the siblings is critical to their recovery. 

ABC News interview with Coronas CEO and others.

Whether or not the decision to break all contact between the 7 and the Coronas staff is wise or not,   I am concerned that this may have been the first of many tug-of-wars over the best interests of the young people.

In any case, there does seem to be a support system for them in the new arrangements made for them.

[Palimpsest]

7 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

Whether or not the decision to break all contact between the 7 and the Coronas staff is wise or not,   I am concerned that this may have been the first of many tug-of-wars over the best interests of the young people.

So am I.  Looks like people are getting proprietary.

I am sure the siblings bonded with the hospital staff and they with them, but they need to move on from the hospital setting for their own sakes.  They need to move to a non-medical community setting.  They need to start adjusting to new people in their lives safely.  The plans for their new home include good care.

Some of the posters on Websleuths can be a bit over the top, IMO.  I see conspiracy theory stated as fact over there all the time.  FWIW, I read the article you linked above and had a few rather different thoughts about the CEO of Corona:

1. We only have Mr. Uffer's word for the claim that the Public Guardian removed the young adults from all contact (temporarily or permanently) with their hospital caregivers, and that it was against the advice of psychologists and their lawyer.
2. Their lawyer (Jack Osborn) in a different article described the move briefly without saying that he objected to the Public Guardian's decision.
3. The Public Guardian can't give her side of the story.  It is called confidentiality.
4. Mr. Uffer is frankly talking out of turn.  In this story he is releasing details to the press about the siblings that might better (or should) be kept private.  Confidentiality again.
5. Mr. Uffer is way too invested as he "chokes back tears" telling the Press about the heart-breaking parting. 
6. Mr. Uffer apparently has his own agenda.  It might not be in the best interest of the siblings.  Remember Genie.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genie_(feral_child)

We will see.  I really hope the move is beneficial. The siblings still have a very hard road ahead for them, especially if this case goes to trial.

[SusanAtTheLastBattle]

Yeah, it seems like Uffer is doing some special pleading when he says (in the People article)

Quote

They realize when people generally care for them. They don’t embrace everybody the same way. It was a very select group of nurses and leadership that took care of them and they were very aware of that.

Like he's pushing back on the idea that they need to work on healthy forms of bonding with a smaller number of people.

[EmCatlyn]

13 hours ago, Palimpsest said:

So am I.  Looks like people are getting proprietary.

I am sure the siblings bonded with the hospital staff and they with them, but they need to move on from the hospital setting for their own sakes.  They need to move to a non-medical community setting.  They need to start adjusting to new people in their lives safely.  The plans for their new home include good care.

Some of the posters on Websleuths can be a bit over the top, IMO.  I see conspiracy theory stated as fact over there all the time.  FWIW, I read the article you linked above and had a few rather different thoughts about the CEO of Corona:

1. We only have Mr. Uffer's word for the claim that the Public Guardian removed the young adults from all contact (temporarily or permanently) with their hospital caregivers, and that it was against the advice of psychologists and their lawyer.
2. Their lawyer (Jack Osborn) in a different article described the move briefly without saying that he objected to the Public Guardian's decision.
3. The Public Guardian can't give her side of the story.  It is called confidentiality.
4. Mr. Uffer is frankly talking out of turn.  In this story he is releasing details to the press about the siblings that might better (or should) be kept private.  Confidentiality again.
5. Mr. Uffer is way too invested as he "chokes back tears" telling the Press about the heart-breaking parting. 
6. Mr. Uffer apparently has his own agenda.  It might not be in the best interest of the siblings.  Remember Genie.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genie_(feral_child)

We will see.  I really hope the move is beneficial. The siblings still have a very hard road ahead for them, especially if this case goes to trial.

Yeah, I know all about Genie.  Even in less extreme cases, where the child(ren) in question are not going to be “studied,” there are issues of control and competition between agencies/family members etc.  The possibility of the Turpin kids being caught in a “tug-of-war” has been on my mind since the case broke.  

I was a little surprised that the first “tug of war” seems to have been with the hospital.  

I share your misgivings about the hospital CEO, though I hadn’t picked up that the allegation that all contact with the hospital staff had been forbidden came only from him.  

The CEO seems to mean well, but I have been struck by the way he keeps giving reports that make him and his hospital look good.

It was a surprise that the 7 stayed in this hospital for as long as they did while the younger kids moved into foster care but as we speculated here, some of them may have needed special feeding and we also heard that their discharge was delayed because some of them caught the flu.   It has made sense that they waited to discharge them together instead of separating them because of one or two who needed extra care.

But now I wonder if the delays in the discharge also had to do with the increasingly “proprietary” interest the hospital was taking. They may have hoped to keep the 7 for another month or so.  And let’s be honest, the hospital was making money from caring for the Turpins.  Individual staff members may have bought clothes and so on for the young people when they arrived, but the hospital was charging Medicaid or whatever CA state agency is resposible, for the medical care, room, board, nursing, therapies, etc.

I agree that some people on WebSleuths seem over the top.  But I think that their concern about whether or not the guardian should have forbidden all contact between the 7 and the hospital staff is legitimate.  If the Corona CEO has not misrepresented the case, then you have to wonder why all contact has been forbidden.  On the other hand, it may be the Corona CEO is exaggerating a little. (We know he exaggerated about the kids never having seen a guitar up close. J-2 took guitar lessons.)

 

[Palimpsest]

13 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

<snip for space>But now I wonder if the delays in the discharge also had to do with the increasingly “proprietary” interest the hospital was taking. They may have hoped to keep the 7 for another month or so.  And let’s be honest, the hospital was making money from caring for the Turpins.  Individual staff members may have bought clothes and so on for the young people when they arrived, but the hospital was charging Medicaid or whatever CA state agency is resposible, for the medical care, room, board, nursing, therapies, etc.

Yes.  I can easily believe that the hospital staff went over-and-above when the siblings first arrived, and over time became very bonded with the 7 adults who stayed longer.  Perhaps too bonded.  And, yes.  The hospital was being compensated for their care and has an incentive to want to keep them there.  The hospital has also had a lot of good publicity over this.

I think that some professional boundaries may have broken down.  And that is not good.  That goes for the nursing staff, doctors, and other therapists, including the psychologists and psychiatrists involved.  From day one the staff should have known that the siblings stay there was temporary, and focused on helping them have a smooth transition to the community and to other health professionals.   

Nurses and therapists have ethical responsibilities and Best Practice guidelines about how and when to "terminate" with patients and clients.  For nurses it is supposed to be at discharge.  Of course termination isn't always easy and clear cut in real life.

The staff may have prepared the siblings properly for transfer.  They may be anxious about the siblings.  However, this decision did not happen overnight, so Uffer's tear-choked statement makes him (and them if it is true) look unprofessional.  Again, IMO.

That said "all contact" with "all staff" (if Uffer is to be believed) seems a bit abrupt to me.  However, I'm going to give the Public Guardian the benefit of the doubt at the moment.  I'm a macro MSW who worked at state level, but I also did my clinical time in the APS trenches.  I don't automatically assume that she is in the wrong.

I did a bit of googling after my last post.  The Office of Public Guardians in CA is under DMH.  Oddly enough, DMH does have a fair amount of expertise in mental health issues and, especially in this high-profile case, would have appointed a knowledgeable Guardian experienced with special needs and mental health issues.  If Uffer has a valid argument then the decision could have been appealed to DMH and -or- to a judge.  Perhaps he did that, was over-ruled, and so decided to spout off to the press.

Bottom line: I find Uffer very unprofessional and think that this sort of tug of war and stirring in the press is not in the best interests of the siblings. 

[Tatar-tot]

It is not uncommon for hospital staff to bond with their “frequent fliers” for example kids/adults going through chemo or chronic conditions.  The staff are human.  There is no way they would not bond with them on some level.  

The issue is the Turpin kids probably do not understand relationship boundaries. The k-adults need to learn to rely on themselves, each other, and make friends with people in their age group.  

The k-adults have a complicated road ahead of them.   I hope & pray they will reach their fullest potential whatever that may be.  

Right now, though, they need a lot of protection until they develop some “street smarts.”