It's theft to take property, such as a gun, from someone who has not been deemed incompetent by a court. Don't be a thief. Follow the law.

I think stepping in is what we are here for as long as we don't abuse it. It's our job to know when to take away the car keys. I'm sry but I'm not gonna let her have the keys & just follow her to make sure she's ok. #1 who says you are gonna be there 24/7 to make sure you can follow them & #2 what good is following them gonna do if they end up hitting an innocent person & killing that person even if you call the cops on them driving recklessly bc the cops may not get there before they hurt/kill someone. So yea I will not allow my granny to drive anymore but she has agreed not to drive now also. I take her everywhere she needs to go. But she does sometimes forget when talking to someone on the phone & she will say she still drives. If I'm within hearing distance I do remind her that I do the driving now but sometimes I may miss her saying it but it doesn't change the fact that I drive for her now. If someone that wasn't around alot just talked to her they would think that there was nothing wrong with her at all & she was competent bc she has been able to hide it very well but I've had her tested & she is not competent & has early stages of Alzheimer's so I am the one who does most stuff for her now. I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I allowed her to end up accidently killing someone else bc I didn't step in & stop her from doing things she can't do safely anymore. But you don't think of all the different circumstances that may be involved for other people bc not everyone is the same as you or anyone else. There are different circumstances for every situation. Sometimes those circumstances may be why they don't go to court to do it the legal way & just go about it the best way they can. It would be negligent if they didn't & knew the situation was bad. Not every person can just take off work as soon as they notice the problem & you would have to take off work most likely especially if you still are working. Not only that but it could be multiple times that u may hafta miss work & maybe you are barely making it as it is & that would financially hurt you even more so it's not possible. It's all really about what each person can do in their situation that makes it the best outcome for their elder & them. It isn't the same for everybody & there's not 1 remedy for these things unfortunately. I think we all try our best to manage these situations & sometimes you need to put yourself in someone else's shoes before you say they should have went about it differently. Mainly bc you aren't them & they may not have the same options as you do therefore they can't always do things the same. So what is best & possible for you to do may not be possible for someone else. Yea it's great if you are able to do this the correct way that some say you should do it but not always is it possible to do it that way & personally I'm not gonna allow my granny to possibly kill an innocent person just bc I'm waiting for a court date to go bout it the legit way. That's just not gonna happen. Not to mention I'm not gonna allow her to live alone either just bc she says she can. Bc I know it's not in her best interest. She appeared to be able to handle things ok but when we got to looking deeper at different things it wasn't ok & that's when my mom & uncle said that she either had to have someone live with her or she would have to go to nursing home. She wasn't eating right or taking her medicine correctly & I ended up moving in with her & have since then found things that she hadn't been doing like she was supposed to for instance remembering to pay bills that she needed to pay. I'm still trying to figure out some things bc she had already got past the point that we could ask her bout something & she could give us the answer so unless we knew already or it was somewhere easy to find im still searching for it & findin things I've needed since day 1 bc it wasn't all together or was hidden in spot that only my grandparents knew. My grandad's gone.

In the years I've been a member of the AgingCare forum I've read a lot of posts from people who are stymied at every turn in their attempts to get medical professionals to certify dementia in someone who clearly sounded in need of intervention, I have a hard time reconciling all those pleas for help and guidance with the assertion that going to a judge and petitioning for guardianship is a simple, inexpensive and timely possibility.

TN, I really was not involved in a firsthand kind of way, so perhaps I shouldn't even be commenting.

I visited these cousins recently and they were recounting their tribulations trying to get weapons away and dad into care and being stymied along the way. They are sophisticated professionals, but perhaps they didn't know the right words to say.

I so recall being taught here by others to say "not a safe discharge" and "no one at home to care for her" which made my mom cry and feel abandoned but sure lit a fire under the diacharge department folks!

Wow, some really great advice, thank you defender and TNtechie. The information that you both have provided shows the best ways to deal with difficult situations that truly require intervention.

Barb, I'm curious. Why didn't your cousins use statements from the cops and the doctor's "nice people don't get dementia" to request a judge order an evaluation by another doctor (maybe a neurologist who specializes in elders)? Judges sometimes get it wrong (or want to better CYA particularly here in TN where many are elected), but my experience is they are usually are open to reasonable requests for more information before a decision is made, and often to reasonable "temporary" orders to secure weapons to a neutral storage facility, particularly when backed by a law enforcement officer. For that matter, in TN if you are willing to sign a warrant you can have someone picked up for a 72-hour mental evaluation. Of course, that action is a bomb and the person can sue you (and win) if no mental illness or incapacity is found. Dementia was eventually diagnosed in one of my extended family members when law enforcement took him in for a mental evaluation after he threaten to shoot a trespasser in a crowded city block.

Did your cousins choose to not take the legal path because they did know about it, considered it too difficult, didn't have full support in the family for it, or felt they couldn't win in the legal system?

I will admit I have had an interest in this topic since I first consulted an attorney about what was needed to challenge my father's competence many years ago. I wanted my mother to challenge his competency when my older brother first began to tap into their financial resources a good 15 years before Mom's health began failing. Mom didn't want to do it and I didn't think he was a risk to anyone else for several years (although I was aware that was at least a possibility) so I gave way to Mom's desires - afterall it was _her_ money her son was taking. I didn't move to challenge Dad's competency until after Mom's health began to fail and Dad pushed my mother and caused a dangerous fall. Between becoming Dad's guardian and defending my mother from eldest brother attempting to get her POAs set aside, I have had a better look into how the system works in my county than I ever wanted.

I'm curious where you live, Defender. In the case of my family member (my uncle, WWII vet, severely mentally ill BEFORE his dementia became obvious), he had a doctor who stated uncategorically that he DIDN'T have dementia, "because nice people don't get dementia".

If my cousins had gone to court to get guardianship (which their mother, my aunt, refused to support saying "I can't go against my husband", this crazy doc would have testified and my cousins would have lost the case.

Sneaking the guns and the ammo out the house was the right thing to do and I don't think that the local cops would have had any issue with it; them seemed relieved to be told that the firearms were gone (they were frequent visitors to the property).

Defender wrote:

"Probate courts take the family's concerns into consideration as well as a point (sic) doctors to test competency and give the results to the court and the family. Your concerns sound logical and therefore a judge should agree with you and set the stage for you to legally intercede on behalf of the safety of your relative and safety of your family. So why not make sure that you are the legal guardian? As guardian you have the legal right to make these decisions."

I'd like to address the issue from another viewpoint.   When I worked as a court reporter for the Juvenile Court, we sometimes had to provide services to the Probate Court for mental health hearing and commitments when the Probate court reporter wasn't available.

I don't recall if they were specifically were for guardianships, although I believe some were.  And others were for mental commitment.   That was a long time ago and fortunately I don't remember all the trauma and sadness that accompanied them.

And that's my point:   these are traumatic, not only for the family, but for the person being evaluated.    Unless you've been in this kind of hearing, it's hard to imagine being the subject of evaluation, to be considered as a subject as opposed to someone's beloved parent or relative.  

There were of course situations that dictated this kind of intervention.  There were others in which the family dynamics factored in heavily on the ability or lack thereof by the family to work with the individual in question.  But this also was back in the mid to late 1960s, and guardianships weren't as commonplace as they are now.

As to court consideration and evaluation of all parties' needs and interests, I say HAH!  How many court hearings have YOU attended?  Have you ever watched as someone sat in literal fear and agony while her/his coping ability and life were discussed?   It's very, very emotional, and embarrassing.   It's hell for the people being examined like a thing as opposed to a person.  

And judges aren't always rational.  Some refer for psychiatric treatment or psychological evaluation to shift the decision making to someone else.  Some are inclined to get anyone who needs help to be subject to psychological evaluation.   One judge was predictable;  I knew every time I covered a hearing with his present that he'd order a psych eval, as  matter of course.    Perhaps it was his philosophy; perhaps it was a CYA move.  Whatever, it was emotional for the family.

I do understand your emphasis on proper procedures, and respect that.

I don't challenge the need; I do think though that considering guardianship is not something to be done primarily to take control, make decisions, etc.    What I've seen here is guardianship as a reliable alternative, w/o examination of all the issues, including the removal of choice from the subject individual, not to mention the cost if guardianship is granted to an attorney.

Negligence is not going through the proper channels such as documenting such events as have been claimed above. I too have had a violent, incompetent relative. I learned the quickest and safest way to restore peace and safety to the family living in the household with someone who is in need of assistance to accomplish activities of daily life due to Alzheimer's and dementia. I had to learn it the hard way. Therefore I have posted not to be inflammatory for no reason as someone has accused me of doing. I have read complaining posts written by family members many of whom have mentioned firearms, violent behavior and driving. Many responses to my post were very sarcastic as though going through proper channels was not an option in their opinion. If your father is drunk and violating your mother's rights you can document that behavior with the police and with his physician so the incident is in his medical records. You can also seek assistance insofar as medication from your father's physician. By documenting reasons for your actions. You are protecting yourself as well as your family. It comes to the point where someone in your family is putting himself in harm that's not difficult to document. It shouldn't be kept secret while you continue to live in fear of something terrible happening. That is in fact negligent. Because taking proper action could have prevented something from happening. So make the effort on behalf of your loved ones. To lovingly and respectfully document the issues. Request a hearing for guardianship and show up. The court will listen to all members of the family and make a proper determination. Granted some family members are keeping information from other family members and may not want to go to court for that reason.

Once again, I'm seeing over emotional posts describing situations where family members were in fear of their parent or elder doing something dangerous. What I am saying and have said is that there are proper procedures which you are legally required to follow. Many of you have stated logical arguments. It's so terribly easy to get an emergency hearing for guardianship. Probate courts take the family's concerns into consideration as well as a point doctors to test competency and give the results to the court and the family. Your concerns sound logical and therefore a judge should agree with you and set the stage for you to legally intercede on behalf of the safety of your relative and safety of your family. So why not make sure that you are the legal guardian? As guardian you have the legal right to make these decisions.

TNTechie, thanks for addressing the range of attitudes, some helpful and some not, of people attempting to provide care for their parents.   You've aptly and tactfully addressed decision making, sometimes based on false assumptions as well as lack of experience in analysis.   As I age, I see things differently than I did when caring for my parents and sister.    And that's not just an observation, it's experiential.

I am especially getting experience in decline of energy, leading to less physical and/or mental activities, and that's kind of frightening.    But I can also see the valuable benefit of doing nothing, or just reading.   They're no a reflection of just sitting and not participating.  They're a reflection of recognition that our bodies and brains need more "down time" as we age.

You're probably right Bridger46164, but it's still a topic that needs some thought. I have experienced both sides; Dad was resistant to give up his guns (including the revolver he carried in his pocket) but Mom stopped driving as soon as I asked with reasons why I thought she should stop. It's a delicate balance between respecting their self-determination and protecting them and others.

The OP has not been back. Like Burnt caregiver I think this post is meant to be inflammatory.

The discussion is not about whether a compromised senior should drive or have a gun. The discussion is about whether _you_ have the _right_ to universally _decide_ a senior is in fact compromised and take action _alone_.

Our system of government provides methods to handle the situation with a compromised senior in a way that protects the senior's rights when someone tries to take advantage of them and the rights of society not to be victimized by a compromised senior. The "system" involves multiple people: a judge, a doctor, a concerned person who wants to become the potentially compromised senior's decision-maker. Too many "children" think if Mom and Dad need some help then they should give up all decision making to their children helpers.

I have seen situations where a senior is living perfectly well in their home with paid service providers (lawn care for the yard, weekday housekeeper in the mornings doing cooking and cleaning, etc.) and a son deciding mom is "wasting" too much money staying in her home (still just spending her monthly income) and "needs" to relocate to a cheaper apartment in the area he lives in. Dad left Mom with enough savings and pension income to maintain a life in their modest house for _years_. According to the son, mom was obviously demented because she would not agree to sell her home, move to a small apartment, and put her son on all her accounts.

Other people decide mom is old enough that she should just do what her children have decided; if she doesn't want to then she's _obvisously_ in denial. I have certainly seen that attitude displayed by some posters here. One example is the child has decided mom should not drive _even_ though she passed a driving test (and the doctor agrees on continued driving) or should not be gardening even though she loves it.

One 89-year-old friend of the family was gardening after supper one night when he had a fatal heart attack; some people say he should not have been in the garden. I say "what a wonderful way to go", still living independently in his own home and doing what he wanted in a beautiful natural setting. Was he "denying" he was an old man when he continue to have a small garden and raise his own vegetables? Our opinions can differ, but _none_ of us have a _right_ to force the old man out of his house and garden because we prioritize his "health" above his right to enjoy his home and garden. We don't get to decide he should stay out of the garden so he can die instead in a facility, possibly after years of "living" without what he considered a good quality of life.

When old age weakens a senior's body it does not always weaken the mind to the point the senior cannot continue to make decisions according to their life choices - those OFTEN do not agree with the people of another generation and differing life experiences. I would point out we have one good example in front of us now. Seniors (who often grew up with friends and family affected by diseases when there were no vaccinations available) have chosen vaccination at a rate that would support herd immunity if only younger people (who were given multiple vaccinations as children and have not experienced annual pandemics) are not.

What a ridiculous post. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say it was written to be inflammatory.
If a someone is a threat to the safety and welfare of the community they live in, then a people have responsibility to prevent them from being so.
Elderly people have rights. In fact, an mentally-incompetent senior has more rights legally than a perfectly rational young adult who happens to still be a minor.
Now, I've been in senior homecare for a very long time. Caregivers are obligated by the law to report if one of their clients is in danger or is being a danger to themselves or others. I've always provided outstanding care to every elder on my service because I am paid to do so. Believe when I say, I couldn't care less what happens to some "stubborn" elder who won't give up their driver's license. What I do care about is myself. An incompetent senior has no right to endanger my life or the lives of anyone else.
As for elders and guns, well let me clear that argument away in plain English.
If a person has to have a caregiver because they're not able to keep up on washing their dishes or cleaning their own a$$es, they can no longer safely handle or keep weapons of any kind.

Defender, what brings this odd post up? It's not necessary to be deemed incompetent by any court to be a danger to others. Certainly many elderly have the capacity to make reasonable decisions, care for themselves and handle weapons responsibly. Then again, some don't.

You don't mention why you're caring for someone. Does this person have a mental illness or a neurodegenerative disease like Alzheimer's? Does the person you are caring for exhibit delusions, hallucinations? Does the person wander throughout the house or leave the house at 2 AM without your knowledge? I don't know who you're caring for or why you're caring for them, but if you spend 10 minutes with someone with advanced dementia, you'd realize weapons are a significant danger because the person doesn't have the cognitive faculties to know right from wrong. So should I break the law (?) and remove any weapons, or take my chances that my loved one won't do any harm?

Removing, hiding, locking up a weapon from someone living with dementia, prevents the possibility that the person may mistakenly kill a family member when they see a strange man, who is actually a relative, in the house, or is reliving their war days.

No, I'm sorry, if it's against the law I'll take that chance. In fact, it would be neglect not to remove the weapon from the person's access to it. What terrible guilt would the caregiver suffer if knowing that removing or hiding the weapons could have prevented a killing? No guardianship or POA is required. Remove the weapon and call the police if necessary. For a heart rendering story go to:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/unlocked-and-loaded-families-confront-dementia-and-guns

Yes, it comes down to if they are a threat to someone else or to themselves.

Amen Loopyloo. In a perfect world, we "children" wouldn't be put into such a position to have to take these measures for stubborn elderly parents or parents with dementia who are in denial in the first place.

Defender, I'll be happy to be charged with theft for stealing a parents firearm and ammunition if their mind is compromised and they are threatening others. Same goes for their automobile. I'll sleep better at night with those charges on my record than knowing I allowed my demented father to kill someone because I didn't have the guts to do what I needed to do.

Defender I assume you are the elder who is having someone try to take away his guns. Have you asked WHY they are doing this? My Dad was the sweetest man ever, but he got to a point before his actual diagnosis where he would get his handgun and point it at my mom and threaten to shoot her. He adored my Mom, she and I were his whole life,, so we knew something was wrong. We took all the ammo from his hiding places. One week later we got the actual diagnosis of ALZ. He also thought my cousin who he had told could have firewood was stealing from him and was going to shoot him.. And threatened to shoot other people. This was taken into consideration with his diagnosis. a friend of ours dad was a retired cop.. he was caught peeping into neighbors window "in case there was a problem". He was covered up for by his old coworkers until a father found him peeping into a 14 YO girls window at night! Perhaps you are not noticing that your behavior is sort of unusual? I think if your family thinks something is "off" perhaps it is?

No I would not hide the whiskey bottle. I would have reported the drinking and violence to his wife to the police. If I knew he was drinking and driving I would even watch him and call the cops when he next heads out under the influence,,, as I did for one 32-year-old mother who had her children in the car with her.

I agree. Elderly people are not children & I agree, we should follow the law.

I also follow the law of Duty of Care.

Eg if I am looking after an elderly relative & I have strong belief they may harm themselves or others I can take reasonable steps to prevent this. This may include calling Police, EMS, Mental Health service. This may include removing a dangerous weapon until help arrives.

It is a very fine line - this freedom of choice vs duty of care...

A 90 yr old man drinks whiskey in his own home, alone. OK.

A 90 yr old man drinks whiskey in his own home but past drinking episodes have caused violence towards his wife, stopping home care supports for both entering the home, dehydration, falls with head strike causing brain bleed.

You go to visit & see the whiskey bottle out. Would you hide it?

When I filed for guardianship of my father, I spoke with the Judge and got an emergency order that allowed me to remove his firearms and automobile access until the hearing and to obtain copies of his medical records. Working with the constable, I did remove most of them prior to Dad being served with the hearing notification. At the emergency hearing, I had my own sworn statement of his disfunction and my knowledge of doctors' diagnoses, as well as statements from my mother, brother, and a lifelong neighbor.

Almost no one needs to violate their parents' rights and take illegal actions; they just chose to make the assumptions they convince themselves they have the moral authority to do so. Many guardianship cases fail in court because the petitioners cannot sustain the position that the parents are incompetent or acting in _any_ way dangerous to themselves or others; they just are not agreeing to the "decisions" their offspring want, usually relating to stop driving or agreeing to enter a facility or sell some assets. Just because you have decided the person has dementia does not allow you to abuse them, even if you think it is for the "best".

Legally no one has dementia until a doctor says they do and MCI or early dementia does not necessarily render a person incompetent. No one had the right to remove someone's property until a court says you do. Get an emergency order to compel a doctor's evaluation if you must. Or call your state and give them the documentation needed for a mandatory driving evaluation. Do it legally. Don't get caught in the trap of a competent parent or step-parent (or a sibling) pressing theft charges. If there's no legal right to deprive them of their property, the charges of theft will be sustained and you will be in a far weaker position if you need to file for guardianship, particularly if there is disagreement in the family over the parents' care.

I believe it is prudent to remove firearms and access to vehicles when an elder starts to become unreliable in their reactions if they don't recognize that fact for themselves.

I understand that technically, this may not be "legal". But I sure am glad that my cousins took away my uncle's guns and ammo before they took him to court to get guardianship. He thought any crime scene he saw on TV was happening in his own back or front yard and often tried to "help" with his guns.

I doubt the cops who showed up at the door those many times would have survived had been able to access his firearms.

Great! So family should let their mentally/physically compromised parent drive and have guns in the house. Smaaaaart.

People aren't entitled to dangerous behavior, especially when innocent people get involved. Letting your near-blind grandpa drive and kill someone because "I can't tell him what to do" is negligence. It's called loving your parent enough to step in and make sure they are safe.