Court Opinion

ID: 9400177
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-07 16:09:32.649203+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:42.667182
License: Public Domain

J-A23044-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

    IN RE: I.M.R., AN ALLEGED                  :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
    INCAPACITATED PERSON                       :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                                               :
    APPEAL OF: WILLIAM CARDWELL                :
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :   No. 728 MDA 2022

                  Appeal from the Decree Entered April 8, 2022
     In the Court of Common Pleas of Huntingdon County Orphans’ Court at
                               No(s): 2021-281

BEFORE:      BOWES, J., McCAFFERY, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.:                       FILED: JUNE 7, 2023

        William Cardwell appeals from the April 8, 2022 decree adjudicating

I.M.R. to be a totally incapacitated person and appointing Huntingdon-

Bedford-Fulton Area Agency on Aging (“the Agency”) as the permanent

plenary guardian of the person and estate of I.M.R. We affirm.

        In a prior memorandum, we detailed the factual and procedural history

of this case as follows:

              I.M.R. was born in November 1938. In 2014, I.M.R.
        displayed symptoms of cognitive decline and memory loss that
        would eventually be diagnosed as vascular dementia, a
        progressive condition which impairs her ability to function
        independently.   Immediately prior to September 2021, she
        resided with her adult son, Appellant, who exercised power of
        attorney on her behalf. The agency became involved with the
        family on September 13, 2021, after a stranger discovered I.M.R.
        wandering alone, unable to state her name, and indicating that
____________________________________________

*   Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A23044-22

      she did not want to live with her son. N.T., 12/20/21, at 24.
      Appellant refused to cooperate fully with the Agency’s subsequent
      investigation of the incident. Id. at 25-27.

           On December 6, 2021, the Agency sought and received the
      appointment of an emergency plenary guardian of both the person
      and estate of I.M.R. Thereafter, on December 15, 2021, the
      Agency filed a petition to adjudicate incapacity and to appoint a
      permanent plenary guardian for the person and estate of I.M.R.
      The petition alleged that I.M.R. needed daily care and supervision
      to ensure her safety, and it averred that no alternative to the
      appointment of a guardian had been considered.

            Following four non-consecutive evidentiary hearings, the
      orphans’ court entered the above-described decree adjudging
      I.M.R. to be totally incapacitated and appointing the Agency as
      the permanent plenary guardian of both the person and estate of
      I.M.R. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal, and the orphans’
      court filed a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) order directing him to file and serve
      a Rule 1925(b) statement within twenty-one days of the order.

In Re: I.M.R., 728 MDA 2022 (Pa.Super. filed March 16, 2023)

(nonprecedential memorandum at 1-2).

      Appellant initially failed to file the statement within the allotted

period, and the orphans’ court found all issues waived and declined to

address the merits of any of the issues presented. Id. at 2-3. However,

this Court determined that, because the orphans’ court’s Rule 1925(b)

order was facially deficient, Appellant’s failure to strictly comply with

Rule 1925(b) did not render his claims waived on appeal.         Id. at 7.

Hence, we remanded the matter for the preparation of a supplemental

orphans’ court opinion, which the orphans’ court filed on April 11, 2023.

                                      -2-
J-A23044-22

              Appellant presents five issues for our review.[1]

       1. Did the orphans’ court abuse its discretion or make an error of
       law when it granted the Huntingdon- Bedford- Fulton Area Agency
       on Aging’s motion for access to records without giving [I.M.R.] or
       William Cardwell an opportunity to respond?

       2. Did the [orphans’] court abuse its discretion or make an error
       of law when it granted emergency guardianship without a hearing
       when there was no adequate proof of an actual emergency?

       3. Did the [orphans’] court abuse its discretion or make an error
       of law when it prohibited Shaun O’Toole, Esq., [I.M.R.’s] previous
       attorney, from representing [her] . . . in this matter?

       4. Did the [orphans’] court abuse its discretion or make an error
       of law when it failed to appoint William Cardwell as guardian of
       [I.M.R.’s] person despite no Area Agency on Aging observ[ations]
       inside their home; only one caretaker witness who observed
       William Cardwell and [I.M.R.] together inside the home over a
       span of a few months; and [evidence that I.M.R.] walk[ed] away
       from the home on one brief occasion three months before the
       guardianship petition was filed?

       5. Did the [orphans’] court abuse its discretion or make an error
       of law when it failed to appoint William Cardwell as guardian of
       [I.M.R.’s] estate in light of four witnesses and the estate planning
       documents presented clearly stating [I.M.R.’s] desired intention
       for William Cardwell to inherit everything from her and the ability
       to make gifts to himself?

Appellant’s brief at 4-6 (cleaned up) (unnecessary capitalization omitted).

       Appellant’s claims challenge the orphans’ court’s finding of incapacity

and subsequent appointment of a guardian, which we review for legal error or

____________________________________________

1 As we noted in our prior memorandum, we do not address the sixth issue
that Appellant raised in his statement of questions presented, concerning the
March 19, 2022 invalidation of a transfer of land, because Appellant failed to
appeal the order that is the genesis of that claim.

                                           -3-
J-A23044-22

an abuse of discretion. In re Duran, 769 A.2d 497, 506 (Pa.Super. 2001).

As we have explained,

      The appointment of a guardian lies within the discretion of the trial
      court and will be overturned only upon an abuse of discretion.
      Discretion must be exercised on the foundation of reason. An
      abuse of discretion exists when the trial court has rendered a
      judgment that is manifestly unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious,
      has failed to apply the law, or was motivated by partiality,
      prejudice, bias, or ill will.

Id. (cleaned up).

      Pursuant to Chapter 55 of the Probate, Estates, and Fiduciaries Code

(“PEF Code”), an orphans’ court may appoint a guardian of the person and/or

estate upon clear and convincing evidence of incapacity.         See 20 Pa.C.S.

§ 5511(a). The PEF Code defines incapacitated person as “an adult whose

ability to receive and evaluate information effectively and communicate

decisions in any way is impaired to such a significant extent that he is partially

or totally unable to manage his financial resources or to meet essential

requirements for his physical health and safety.” 20 Pa.C.S. § 5501.

      As to the orphans’ court’s determination of incapacity and appointment

of a guardian, the PEF Code further provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

      (a) Determination of incapacity.--In all cases, the court shall
      consider and make specific findings of fact concerning:

            (1) The nature of any condition or disability which impairs
            the individual’s capacity to make and communicate
            decisions.

            (2) The extent of the individual’s capacity to make and
            communicate decisions.

                                      -4-
J-A23044-22

            (3) The need for guardianship services, if any, in light of
            such factors as the availability of family, friends and other
            supports to assist the individual in making decisions and in
            light of the existence, if any, of advance directives such as
            durable powers of attorney or trusts.

            (4) The type of guardian, limited or plenary, of the person
            or estate needed based on the nature of any condition or
            disability and the capacity to make and communicate
            decisions.

            (5) The duration of the guardianship.

            (6) The court shall prefer limited guardianship.

            ....

      (c) Plenary guardian of the person.--The court may appoint a
      plenary guardian of the person only upon a finding that the person
      is totally incapacitated and in need of plenary guardianship
      services.

            ....

      (e) Plenary guardian of the estate.--A court may appoint a
      plenary guardian of the estate only upon a finding that the person
      is totally incapacitated and in need of plenary guardianship
      services.

20 Pa.C.S. § 5512.1.

      For the following reasons, we discern no error or abuse of discretion on

the part of the orphans’ court. In the supplemental opinion, the orphans’ court

thoroughly distilled the relevant evidence concerning: (1) I.M.R.’s cognitive

impairment; (2) the effect of those impairments on I.M.R.’s ability to

communicate decisions, manage financial resources, and insure her physical

health and safety; (3) Appellant’s suspect care of I.M.R.’s physical and

financial needs, including the alleged misappropriation of the $250,000

                                     -5-
J-A23044-22

proceeds from her late-husband’s life insurance policy; and (4) Appellant’s

persistent obstinacy, which not only frustrated the Agency’s ability to serve

I.M.R.’s needs, but also led to the suspension of Appellant’s visitation

privileges from the residential facility that cared for I.M.R. after she was

removed from Appellant’s home. As the learned President Judge George N.

Zanic concluded in the supplemental opinion filed in this case,

             The focus of this case should be I.M.R. However, [Appellant]
       has continuously attempted to make it about himself. Time and
       time again he has shown that his true concern is maintaining
       control over I.M.R. and her assets, rather than acting in her best
       interest. I.M.R. is incapacitated and in need of a guardian. That
       guardian needs to be someone other than [Appellant], so that he
       can no longer exploit her.

See Orphans’ Court Supplemental Opinion, 4/11/23, at 61.

       Thus, after reviewing the certified record, the parties’ briefs, and the

orphans’ court’s comprehensive sixty-one-page supplemental Rule 1925(a)

opinion addressing the identical issues that Appellant presented in his brief,

albeit in a slightly different order, we adopt the trial court’s rationale as our

own and for the reasons cogently explained in the supplemental opinion, we

affirm the April 8, 2022 decree adjudicating I.M.R. to be a totally incapacitated

person and appointing the Agency as the permanent plenary guardian of the

person and estate of I.M.R.2

____________________________________________

2 President Judge Zanic’s analysis of Appellant’s third issue, concerning the
denial of Appellant’s request to have Attorney O’Toole appointed as counsel
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

                                           -6-
J-A23044-22

____________________________________________

for I.M.R., incorporated the court’s January 24,2022 order stating that
Attorney O’Toole was ineligible to serve as I.M.R.’s counsel in the
competency/guardianship matter due to both a conflict of interest between
Appellant and I.M.R. and the fact that Attorney O’Toole was a necessary
witness. Citing Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct 1.7 and 3.7,
entitled “Conflict of Interests: Current Clients” and “Lawyer as Witness”,
respectively, the court provided the following rationale:

              Attorney O’Toole represented [I.M.R.] with respect to estate
       planning that occurred in or about 2018. That estate planning,
       though, was done in coordination with [Appellant], and included
       the power of attorney in favor of [Appellant] that is one of the
       many matters at issue here. Given the significant level of
       involvement in those affairs testified to by [Appellant], there was,
       at minimum, a quasi (if not actual) attorney-client relationship
       between Attorney O’Toole and [Appellant] at that time. This
       finding is supported by the fact that when the emergency
       guardianship was initiated the first person [Appellant] contacted
       to contest it was Attorney O’Toole (meaning that while there may
       not be a formal, current attorney-client relationship between
       them, there is still arguably a quasi one). . . . Attorney O’Toole
       cannot represent both [I.M.R.’s] interests and [Appellant’s]
       interests, as they are not congruent. (For example, if it is in
       [I.M.R.’s] best interest to have a guardian appointed, and to have
       that guardian be someone other than [Appellant], that position is
       diametrically opposed to [Appellant’s] interests in remaining the
       caregiver and power of attorney for her.) This is a clear conflict
       of interest that violates Rule 1.7.

              ....

             [As to the likelihood of being a necessary witness, h]ere,
       Attorney O’Toole drafted the power of attorney and other estate
       planning documents that are at issue, as they establish what right,
       power, and authority [Appellant] has with respect to [I.M.R.’s]
       property—property that [Appellant] is alleged to have
       misappropriated and converted to his own use. More significantly,
       though,[Attorney O’Toole] is the only disinterested party with
       knowledge of [I.M.R.’s] capacity both in 2018 and at the current
       time (in light of his estate planning meetings with her in 2018 and
       his recent meeting with her on January 10, 2022, regarding the
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

                                           -7-
J-A23044-22

       Decree affirmed.

       Judge McCaffery joins.

       P.J.E. Stevens concurs in the result.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 6/7/2023

____________________________________________

       proposed Engagement Letter), and thus the changes, if any, in
       her condition during that period.

Order, 1/24/22, at 3-5 (cleaned up). We adopt the foregoing analysis as well.

                                           -8-
                                                                                                                                                                 Circulated 05/31/2023 09:48 AM

                                                                         IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF HUNTINGDON COUNTY,
                                                                                            PENNSYLVANIA
                                                                                        ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION

                                                                  IN RE: IVA M. ROUSH,                                                            CP-31-OC-281-2021
                                                                                                                                                  CP-31-00-281-2021
                                                                  an incapacitated person                                                         728 MDA 2022

                                                                                      AMENDED OPINION
                                                                                      AMENDED         IN
                                                                                              OPINION IN SUPPORT OF ORDER
                                                                                                       SUPPORT      ORDER
                                                                                                PURSUANT
                                                                                                PURSUANT
                                                                                                       TOTO Pa.R.A.P.
                                                                                                            Pa.RA.P,  1925(a)
                                                                                                                     19256)
                                                                            Petitioner William Cardwell, the son of incapacitated person Iva
                                                                                                                                         lva M. Roush
                                                                  ("I.M.R."), appeals from the Final Decree entered by this Court on April 8, 2022,
                                                                  ("IM.R."),
                                                                  which:
                                                                  which: ((1)
                                                                           1) adjudged I.M.R.
                                                                                       L.M.R. to be totally incapacitated; and
                                                                                                                           and (2)
                                                                                                                               (2) appointed the
                                                                  Huntingdon- Bedford- Fulton Area Agency on Aging to be the plenary permanent
                                                                  Huntingdon-Bedford-Fulton
                                                                  guardian of both IM.R's
                                                                                   I.M.R.'s person and estate
                                                                                                       estate.

                                                                            This Court originally filed its Opinion in Support of Order Pursuant to
                                                                  Pa.R.A.P.
                                                                  Pa.R.AP. 1925(a)
                                                                            1925(a) on March 27, 2022. Because Petitioner had not, either within the
                                                                  established 21- day deadline or as of the filing of such opinion, fled
                                                                              21-day                                                filed aaStatement of

                                                                  Errors Complained
                                                                         Complained of On Appeal, this Court originally proceeded on the basis that

 ••          z0                     •3
Aq pan.aaS

                           ol xoglieW asnoq:ano:) Aq panaaS

                                                                  he had waived all issues. Pursuant to the Superior Court's order of March 16,
 2
     a                                                            2023, this Court hereby submits this Amended Opinion in Support of Order
g .0 g
d

             %5                                                   Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P.
                                                                              Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a), which amends and supplements its original, and
c
01SdSn

 6   9
 •
 L
     e
                                                                  addresses Petitioner's late- filed Statement.
 8           $                      50                                                   late-filed
             3 t       ,            c
                                    8
                                                              J
                                    z                                                                      I. ISSUES RAISED
0
$-
=
g
             °
             °
             -0
                                    2
                                    g
                                    8'                             On Appeal,
                                                                             Petitioner's even-later-filed

                                                                      Appeal, filed June 13, 2022,'
                                                                                                              ISSUES RAISED
                                                                                          even-later- filed Amended Statement of Matters Complained of

                                                                                             2022, 1raises the following issues
                                                                                                                         issues (text
                                                                                                                                (text as in the original):
'
""
�
0             3
               0
               0

              (o
              e
              e
                 >
                 "
                                                                             1.        The trial court abused its discretion and/or made an error of
                                                                                       law when it granted
                                                                                       Agency
                                                                                                      granted the Huntingdon-
                                                                                       Agency on Aging's
                                                                                       Iva
                                                                                                                                Bedford- Fulton Area
                                                                                                                    Huntingdon-Bedford-Fulton
                                                                                                  Aging's Motion for Access to Records without giving
                                                                                                     an opportunity to respond.
              rt                                                                       va  M. Roush
              B
              0
              N
              8
              (D
              2
              •
              lD
              v
              0                                                    1Petitioner
                                                                    petitioner filed his original statement of errors on May 31, 2022, followed by his   his amended statement. The
              5                                                    Court makes no finding with regard to whether Petitioner's original late-filed
                                                                                                                                            late- filed statement or his even-later-filed
              •'+(De                                               amended statement
                                                                   amended   statement should
                                                                                         should apply
                                                                                                 apply here. Since they
                                                                                                       here. Sin�  they are
                                                                                                                        are largely
                                                                                                                            l•'l!•ly the same,
                                                                                                                                     1hr .. me, the   Court proettd<
                                                                                                                                                 th• Cou,  � proceeds on
                                                                                                                                                                      on the basis of
                                                                                                                                                                         the basis of the
                                                                                                                                                                                      the
                                                                                                                                                    '
              3
              1+
                                                                   amended statement.
                                                                    aw«Mamo                                                                     nu_tprjL N
                                                                                                                                                                           LLg      r

              "
              •t
              CL
              e
                                                                                                                                                      Kelsey Dunn Register of Mils
                                                                                                                                                   letsey                     Wills
              v                                                                                                                                   nd Clerk of the on#ans'
                                                                                                                                              ts'dcenafte         Orphans' co
                                                                                                                                                                           Court
              0
              4
              i•                                                                                              (d}
                                                                                                              {/                                      Huntingdon County, Pens/eanit
                                                                                                                                                      Huntington county. Pennsylvania
            2.
            Z.    The
                   The trial court abused its discretion and/or made an error of
                  law when it granted the Huntingdon-Bedford-Fulton
                                                Huntingdon- Bedford- Fulton Area
                  Agency on Aging's
                              Aging's Motion for Access to Records without giving
                  William Cardwell an opportunity to respond.

            3.    The trial court abused its discretion and/or made an error of
                  law when it granted Emergency Guardianship without a        a
                  hearing
                  hearing   when   there was   no adequate  proof of an  actual
                  emergency.
            4.
            4,     The trial court abused its discretion and/or made an error of
                   law when it granted Emergency Guardianship without any
                   medical expert
                            expert testimony or any medical evidence showing aa
                   need for guardianship.

            S.
            5.     The trial court abused its discretion and/or made an error of
                   law when it prohibited
                                 prohibited Shaun O'Toole, Esq., Iva M. Roush's
                   previous
                   previous attorney, from representing Iva lva M.
                                                                M. Roush in this
                   matter.
                   matter
            6.     The trial court abused its discretion and/or made an error of
                   law when it failed to appoint William Cardwell as guardian of
                   lva M. Roush's person despite no Area Agency on Aging
                   Iva
                   observing
                   observing inside their home; only oneone ((1)
                                                               1) caretaker witness
                   who observed William Cardwell and Iva    va M. Roush together
                   inside the home over aaspan of aa few months; and Iva M. Roush
                   walking away from the home on one  one ((1)
                                                            1) brief occasion three
                   months before the guardianship petition was filed?

            7.     The trial court abused its discretion and/or made an error of
                   law when it failed to appoint William Cardwell as guardian of
                   Iva
                   lva M. Roush's estate in light of four (4)
                                                           (4) witnesses and the
                   estate planning
                          planning documents presented clearly stating Iva M.
                   Roush's desired intention for William Cardwell to inherit
                   everything
                   everything from her and the ability to make gifts to himself?
            8.
            8      The trial court abused its discretion and/or made an error of
                   law when it voided the deed signed by William Cardwell in
                   light
                   light of the fact that the Area Agency
                                                   Agency on Aging never requested
'I                 that William Cardwell be removed as power of attorney of Iva
                   M. Roush and the Court did not remove him prior to signing
                   the deed?
l'
                 II.
                 I. PROCEDURAL
                     PROCEDURAL HISTORY     RELEVANT
                                HISTORY AND RELEVANT FACTS
                                                   FACTS
       1.    I.M.R. is currently 84 years old, having been born on November 27, 1938.
             IM.R.is                                                            1938
,',·

                                               22
,:

        2. This matter first came to the attention of the Court on September 22, 2021,
it

             when
             when the
                  the Huntingdon- Bedford- Fulton Area
                      Huntingdon-Bedford-Fulton   Area Agency on Aging
                                                       Agency on Aging (the
                                                                       (the "Agency")
                                                                            "Agency")
             filed aapetition
                     petition for access to I.M.R.'s
                                            L.M.R's medical and financial records pursuant
             to the Pennsylvania
                    Pennsylvania Older Adult Protective Services Act, 35P.S.
                                                                      35 P.S. $$
                                                                              §§

             10225.101, et seq. (the ""OAPSA"),
                           seq. (the   OAPSA"), and the guardianship support agency

             provisions of 20 Pa.
             provisions           C.S. ch. 55
                              Pa.CS.       55 (such
                                              (such petition, the
                                                              the ""Records
                                                                    Records Petition.") The
                                                                                        The
             Records Petition was granted
                                  granted by
                                          by this Court ex parte the same day.
           On December 6, 2021, the Agency
        3. 0n                       Agency filed a
                                                 a petition
                                                   petition to adjudicate incapacity
             and to appoint
                    appoint an emergency                           I.M.R.'s person
                               emergency and permanent guardian of IM.R's
             and estate
                 estate (the
                        (the ""Emergency
                               Emergency Petition").
                                         Petition"). The Emergency Petition was

             supported by
             supported by aasigned
                            signed statement provided
                                             provided by I.M.R.'s
                                                         IM.R.'s treating physician,
             Dr. Amy
                 Amy Sellers, who opined
                                  opined that I.M.R.
                                              LM.R. ""should
                                                      should not be left alone,"
                                                                         alone," "suffers
             from
             from mild-moderate
                  mild-moderate dementia && gets
                                            gets confused easily," is "[n]ot capable of
                                                                   is "[not
             higher[-] level executive functioning," and
             higher[-Jlevel                          and "needs
                                                         "needs care including help with
              [activities of daily living]
              [activities          living] && monitoring so she does not wander off." The
                    granted the emergency guardianship ex parte the same day,
              Court granted                                              day. It

              appointed the Agency
              appointed     Agency as the emergency guardian of I.M.R.'s
                                                                LM.R's person and
                          appointed Ray
              estate, and appointed Ray A. Ghaner, Esq.,
                                                   Esq., to represent IM.R.
                                                                      I.M.R.z

         4. On December 7, 2021, the Agency filed aapetition to extend the emergency

              guardianship. That
              guardianship. That petition
                                 petition was granted, and
                                          was granted, and the
                                                           the emergency
                                                               emergency guardianship
                                                                         guardianship
              was                             2021.
              was extended until December 28, 2021
         S.
         5. On December 8, 2021, Shaun E. O'Toole, Esq., filed aapraecipe for entry of
              appearance, seeking to represent LM.R.
              appearance,                      I.M.R. in lieu of Attorney Ghaner.
         6. On December 10, 2021, Roberto D. Ugarte, Esq., filed aapraecipe for entry of
              appearance, representing
              appearance, representing Petitioner.

       This was done per
     This
     2                 per the Court's standard practice,
                                                 practice, which is to appoint
                                                                       appoint counsel for the alleged incapacitated
     person in
     person  in all guardianship cases, unless they are already represented by counsel.
                    guardianship casts,                                           counsel, The Court notes here that
     Attorney
     Attorney Ghaner did not have an opportunity to address the scope and nature of his meetings with his client,
     I.M.R.,
     LM.R., until much later in the case than usual.
                                               usual, This is because of the unusual progression of this matter.
                                                                                                          matter,
     However,
     However, Attorney
                Attorney Ghaner did inform the Court that he had met with I.M.R.
                                                                               IM.R. twice prior to the second hearing
     in this matter on February   1, 2022, N.T.,
                        February1,2022.    NT., February 1,   2022, Hearing, at 67
                                                            1 202Z,             67. Attorney Ghaner addressed the
     matter of his meetings with I.M.R,
                                   LM.R. in detail at the third hearing,                     2022. See61,
                                                                hearing held on February 8, 2022.             infra,
                                                                                                    See ¶ 61, infra

                                                             3
                                                             3
11

            On December 15, 2021, Attorney O'Toole filed a
         7. 0n                                           a petition for reconsideration
            of the emergency
                   emergency guardianship, asserting, inter alia, that in 20181.M.R.
                                                                          2018 I.M.R. had
11
            executed aageneral
                       general power
                               power of attorney in favor of Petitioner
                                                             Petitioner (the
                                                                        (the "Alleged
                                                                             "Alleged
            POA"),
            POA"), and that Petitioner had been serving as I.M.R.'s
                                                           IM.RR's caregiver prior to the
            emergency guardianship.
            emergency               That same
                      guardianship. That same day,
                                              day, the
                                                   the Agency filed aapetition
                                                       Agency filed   petition
            seeking to have IM.R.
                            I.M.R. be adjudicated as fully incapacitated and to be

            appointed as plenary             I.M.R.'s person and estate
                         plenary guardian of IM.R's              estate (the
                                                                        (the
            "Guardianship Petition").
         8. On December 16, 2021, Attorney
                                  Attorney Ugarte filed, on behalf of Petitioner, an
            emergency petition
            emergency petition to remove the Agency as guardian and to conduct aa
            review hearing.
                   hearing. Petitioner asserted that he had full authority over I.M.R.'s
                                                                                IM.R.'s
            property
            property and healthcare decisions pursuant to the Alleged POA, that he
            served as I.M.R.'s caregiver, and then asserted aalitany of deficiencies with
                      IM.R.'s caregiver,
            the Emergency Petition and the Agency's actions in general.
            On December 20, 2021, the first hearing was held in this matter, addressing
         9. 0n
            the Emergency
                Emergency Petition, Attorney O"Toole's
                                             O'Toole's proposed representation of

             I.M.R.,
             L.M.R., and Petitioner's emergency petition to remove the Agency as
             guardian (such
             guardian (such hearing, the
                                     the ""First
                                           First Hearing").

         10. The Court first addressed Attorney O'Toole's
                                                O"Toole's praecipe for entry of
             appearance. The Court extensively queried Attorney O"Toole
             appearance,                                        O'Toole regarding

             whether he had undertaken actions that might satisfy the requirements of

             Pa.R.O.C.P.
             Pa.R.O.C.P 14.4(b),
                         14.4(b), including whether he had aacurrent engagement letter
             with I.M.R.
                  IM.R. regarding the guardianship proceeding and whether he had met
             with I.M.R.
                  IM.R. Attorney
                         Attorney O'Toole represented
                                          represented that he did not have aacurrent
             engagement letter with I.M.R.,
                                    LM.R., had not met with her since 2018 when he
             prepared
             prepared the Alleged
                          Alleged POA, and had minimal knowledge of the matter. He
             had simply
                 simply been contacted by
                                       by Petitioner, notified by him that I.M.R.
                                                                           I.M.R. had
             been "taken"
             been "taken" by
                          by the Agency,
                                 Agency, and requested by Petitioner to intervene.
             Because Attorney O'Toole had not complied with Rule 14.4(b), as well as
                     Attorney 0"Toole

     l       had potential
                 potential conflicts arising from his preparation of the Alleged POA and

     i       contacts with
             contaLts with Petitioner, the
                                       the Court did not
                                                     not allow him
                                                               him to represent
                                                                      represent I.M.R.
                                                                                I.M R at

                                                4
                                                4
            the First Hearing. It did, however, did allow him to be present so he was

            aware of the proceedings. N.T., First Hearing, at 2-9,
                         proceedings. NT,                     2-9. The Court further

            directed the Agency to assist Attorney 0"Toole
                                                   O'Toole in arranging aameeting with

             I.M.R. and ordered Attorney
                                Attorney O'Toole, if he was satisfied after such meeting
            that I.M.R.
                 IM.R. wished to have him represent her, to comply with the
             requirements of Rule 14.4(b).
                                  14.4(b). N.T., First Hearing, at 104.
         11. The first witness for the Agency was Bonnie Sue Parks.
             a. Ms.
                Ms. Parks primarily
                          primarily works at the Giant store in
                                                             in Smithfield Township,

                 Huntingdon
                 Huntingdon County,
                            County, but also makes additional income on the side as an
                 informal home health aide/caregiver. She met Petitioner through her
                 employment at Giant, and Petitioner made arrangements with her to
                 provide
                 provide care for I.M.R,
                                  1.M.R. at his home in the James Creek area of
                  Huntingdon
                  Huntingdon County.
                             County.'3 She was initially
                                               initially paid in
                                                              in cash, but was also later

                 paid in-kind (Petitioner
                 paid in-kind (Petitioner gave her aacar, and she
                                                              she "worked off" the
                                                                  "worked off   the value of

                  the car). Id,
                            Id. at 10-11, 17-18
                                   10-11,17-18
             b. Ms. Parks would go to the home two to three times aaweek, staying
                  anywhere from 45 minutes to two hours. Ms. Parks's primary task was
                  to give I.M.R.
                          I.M.R. showers, but she also assisted with many other tasks,
                  including
                  including laundry,
                            laundry, dressing, medication, changing bedclothes, and
                  preparing
                  preparing meals. The other residents of the home were Petitioner and
                  his mechanic, known to her only as
                                                  as ""Bil"
                                                       Bill." Id,
                                                              Id. at 10-11, 13.

             c. Per Ms. Parks, the condition of the home was quite poor.
                       Q:      And so IIknow this will be difficult but I'd like
                                                                              hike you to
                               describe the condition of the home va
                                                                  Iva lives in.

                      A:        The home is dirty.
                       Q:
                       0:       Is
                                ls it fair to say that you've described it as aa quote,
                                unquote
                                unquote shit hole?
I'                     A:       IIcan't say shit hole but it does---it
                                                             does— it is dirty.

l                      Q:       There a
                                      a lot of dog feces throughout the home?

     specifically,
     3                   Tussey Lane in Lincoln Township,
      Specifically, 3016 Tussey                 Township, Huntingdon County, with aamailing address of 3016
     Tussey Lane, James Creek,  PA 16657
                          Creek,PA 16657.

                                                          5
                                                          5
I'

                   A:      Yes.

                   Q:      Cats throughout the home?
                   A:      There is only one cat.
                    Q:     The kitchen, has that been described as aahog pen?

                   A:      Ihave went out there, yes, and it has been very dirty.
                           Ihave                                           dirty
                    Q:
                    Q:     Is
                           ls that because there are aalot of dirty dishes?
                    A:
                    A:     Dirty dishes. The floor is very dirty at times.
                    Q:     How about spoiled food in crockpots, things like that?
                    A:     Ihave seen that, yes,
                           Ihave            yes.
                Id. at 12
                Id,    12 (testimony
                          (testimony of Ms. Parks on direct examination by the Agency's
                counsel, Michael M. Kipphan, Esq.)
             d. Ms. Parks further testified that I.M.R.
                                                 IM.R. did not have the level of care she
                needed, and the level of care she did receive from Petitioner was poor.

                    Q:     To your
                              your knowledge,
                                   knowledge, Bonnie, have there been times when
                           va's been left alone?
                           Iva's

                    A:
                    A:     Yes, there has been aafew times I
                           Yes,there                       I have went out there and
                           she has been alone.
                    Q:
                    Q:     Does that concern you when you see that?

                    A:     Yes, it does, because she   =like IIsaid, she is not able to
                                                  she---hike
 I'                        take care of herself and she f  falls.
                                                            lls.
                                                             a    She has no phone to
                           contact anybody with.
                                             with
                    Q:      Have you
                                 you come to the home and found Iva covered in
                            feces before?

                    A:
                    A:      I
                            I have come there and like
                                                  hike her diaper that she wears has
                                      in it, yes
                            had feces in     yes.

     :,             Q:
                    0:      How are Iva's
                                     lva's meds managed? You put them in aaseven
     'I                     day box and
                                    and [Petitioner]
                                         [Petitioner] gives them to her?
     I,
                    A:
                    A:      He either gives them to her or sets them on the table
                            when she gets up in
                                             in the morning. Then she gets them.
                                                                           them

                    :Q•     Would it be fair to say that Iva
                                                         lva can't take care of her own
                            meds?
                    A:      Correct.

      ,11:                                          6
                                                    6
                                                ...
                Q:
                Q:      How does lva
                                 Iva get
                                     get around? Does she need a
                                                               a walker?
                A:     She—yes she, does walls
                       She-yes              walk sometimes without her walker
                       but she is very unstable.

                Q:
                Q:      Based on your
                                 your observations is she aafall risk?
                A:
                A.      Yes.

                Q:      Has Iva
                            lva shared with you that she also hallucinates about
                        people
                        people in trees and things like that?

'I'             A:      Yes, she has.
                                 has.
                Q:      And have you noticed that she has some cognitive
                        thinking disabilities?

                A:
                                                   . ..
                        Yes.

                 THE COURT:         Can I
                                        I ask, ma'am, when was the last time you
                                    saw Iva?

                 THE WITNESS:       It would have been the day that they came to
                                    get
                                    get her which IIthink was December 6
                                                                       6th.

                 THE COURT:         Okay. And when you saw her was this one of
                                    Okay.
                                    the days
                                        days when her diaper was full of feces?
                 THE WITNESS:
                     WITNESS        No, no.
                 THE COURT:         When was the last time that happened?

                 THE WITNESS:       That's when
                                           when she
                                                 she was
                                                     was sick and
                                                               and she was
                                                                       was having
                                    the diarrhea, so at times she couldn't get her
                                    diaper down fast enough.
                                    diaper            enough

                 THE COURT:         Okay.
                                    Okay. When you're not there, do you know
                                    who takes care of her?

       I         THE WITNESS:
                     WITNESS: [Petitioner]
                               [Petitioner] had told me that his mechanic Bill
                              has cleaned her upup.
      I'
              Id. at 12-14
              Id,    12-14 (testimony
                           (testimony of Ms.
                                         Ms. Parks on direct examination by Attorney
              Kipphan,
              Kipphan, with follow-up by the Court).
           e. Upon
              Upon examination by I.M.R.'s counsel, Attorney Ghaner, Ms. Parks gave
                               by IM.R.'s
                                   I.M.R.'s cognitive issues and daily life.
              further detail about IM.R's

                                              77
I'
II
                  Q:
                  Q•      Ms.
                          Ms. Parks, Mr.Mr Kipphan asked you about cognitive
                          disabilities. What sort of shortcomings do you see [va
                                                                             Iva
                          having?
                          having?
                  A:      She does not remember-you
                                          remember—you know, you can say
                          something to her and within aa half hour she don't
                          remember what you've
                                          you've told her. Very often she has said
                          about people
                                people out in the trees fighting. She had said about
                          people being there that I
                          people being              I know that wasn't there. She's
                          very
                          very hallucinating.
                   Q:     Can you
                              you have aanormal conversation with her like you
                          and I
                              I are having
                                    having right now?
                  A:      You can but then she steers off and she has no idea what
                          she's talking about.

                   Q:
                   Q:     She gets confused?

                   A:     Very easy,
                               easy.

                   Q:
                   Q:     Does she forget
                                   forget things
                                          things during the conversation that
                          you—
                          you-

                   A:     Yes.

                   Q:
                   Q:     Does she forget
                                   forget things
                                          things like whether or not she's eaten
                          that day?
                               day
                   A:     Yes, she has.

                   Q:
                   Q:     Does she forget
                                   forget whether or not she's had her medications
                          those days?

                   A:     No.
                          No, She does remember she takes her medicine because
                          every time I've
                          every       I've went out, I've asked her, have you taken
                          your
                          your   medicine  and she's always said yes.
                                                                   yes. When I  I woke
                          up,  you know, it was on the table. I
                          up, you                                 tools it. She always
                                                                I took
                          tells
                          tells you exactly
                                you exactly how
                                            how  many
                                                 many  pills she took.
                                                                 took.

                   Q:
                   0:      Where was she residing
                                         residing when you were providing care
                           for her?
     l             A:      She lived inin the home
                                               home with
                                                     with [Petitioner].
                                                            [Petitioner]. She had
                                                                              had aa
     il                    bedroom there. When IIwould go in, if she wasn't sitting
     '
                           at the table, she was usually in her bed

                Id. at 15-16
                Id,    15-16.
     11   f.f   Cross-examination of Ms.
                                     Ms. Parks by Petitioner's counsel did not reveal
                additional significant
                           significant details. Ms. Parks did clarify that she had begun

                                                8
                                                8
      working for Petitioner in March of 2021, had begun caring for L.M.R.
      working                                                       I.M.R.

      after I.M.R.
            LM.R. had come from the hospital,
                                    hospital, and that Petitioner had had
      another person
              person coming in to help I.M.R.
                                       LM.R. for a
                                                 a short time after she first
      came home from the hospital.
                         hospital, With regard
                                        regard to the condition of the home,
      Ms. Parks said that she had mentioned to Petitioner about cleaning the

      house, and specifically
                 specifically the kitchen, on a
                                              a few occasions, and in response
      Petitioner had asked his mechanic to vacuum, and Ms.
                                                       Ms. Parks to wash the
      dishes. Id,
      dishes. Id. at 17-23
                     17-23.

   9. At the outset of her testimony, Ms. Parks indicated that she was
   g.
      concerned about the potential for retaliation from Petitioner. Id,
                                                                     Id. at 10.
                                                                            10
      Her demeanor reflected that.

12. Next to testify was Brenda Hughes, aaProtective Service Worker for the
12.
   Agency.
   Agency. Ms.
           Ms. Hughes
               Hughes testified that I.M.R. first came to the attention of the
   agency via aareport from the Pennsylvania State Police on September 13,
   2021, after an incident in which I.M.R.
                                    1M.R. had been found wandering down the
   road by aastranger and transported to the Huntingdon PSP station.
          She was unable to state her name.
                                       name. She was saying she did not
          want to live with her son,
                                son. She also said she was headed to New
          York. There were also concerns about, you know, home
          conditions, exploitation, that she's alone for long periods of
          time and the son would not go pick her up at the police station.
                                                                  station
   Id. at24.
   Id, at 24. Eventually
              Eventually arrangements were made that day for Ms. Parks to
   pick
   pick up
        up I.M.R.,
           IM.R., spend the day with her, and then take her home.
13. Ms.
    Ms. Hughes when to Petitioner's home the next day to interview him and
                                                                       and.

   I.M.R.,
   L.M.R. and to observe the conditions there. To say the visit was not
   successful would
              would be
                    be an
                       an understatement.
                          understatement
           Q:
           Q;     What investigation did you undertake based on the
                  report
                  report of need?
          A:
          A:      What investigation?

           Q:
           Q:     Did you interview-
                          interview—

           A:     Idid aaface-to-face visit.
                  1did

           Q:
           Q:     With Iva?
                       lva?

                                        99
i

         A:
         A;   Well,
              Well, unfortunately
                    unfortunately II couldn't meet
                                               meet with Iva alone.
                                                    with lva
              Mr.
              Mr. Cardwell would
                           would not
                                 not allow that.
                                           that.
         Q:    Did you ask to
               Did you     to meet
                              meet with Iva alone?
                                   with lva

         A:   Yes,
              Yes, I did.
                   I did.

         Q:
         0:    Did Mr. Cardwell refuse that?

         A:
         A     Yes,
               Yes, he did.
                    he did

         Q:    Did he tell you why you were not allowed to meet with
               her alone?
         A:    No.
               No. He just said that's not going to happen.
         Q:    So when you met with her it was—
                                           was-

         A:    With him.

         Q: —with
         0  with him.
                  him. And
                       And what
                           what was
                                was the outcome
                                        outcome of that meeting?
                                                        meeting?
         A:
         A     Well, she had acknowledged that she took aawalk the
               other day, the day before, and she had said she was going
                                         York. And then she also said that
               to see her sister in New York
               she was going to go to the hospital and I    I asked was she
               not feeling
                    feeling well and she  said no, that she  wants to go to aa
               nursing
               nursing facility because she can't take care of herself and
               needs
               needs help.
,,                     help
                                            ...
         Q:
         Q:    Were you
                    you able to observe Ms.
                                        Ms. Roush's ambulation?

         A:    No too much, no. I
                                I mean, she came out to the porch.
                                                            porch. She
               was using her walker I believe.
                                    I believe

         Q:    Did you also ask to see the home?
         A:    I
               I can't say as I
                              I got that far.
                                         far He was being so resistive, I
                                                                        I
               wasn't pushing it any further
                                       further.

         Q:    Was he being intimidating?
         A:
         A:    Yes, not only to me but also to Mrs. Roush.

         THE COURT:           What do you mean by that? Can you describe
     I                        that? You say he was being
                                                    being intimidating to
                              Me. Roush.
                              Ms.
    ii
          THE WITNESS:        Well, when she said about wanting to go to the

     l
    ii

    11
                              nursing facility.
                                      facility. He said, you don't want to go

                                       10
                                  to a
                                     a nursing facility and you have no money.
                                  You only get Social Security and who's going
                                  to visit you in the nursing facility and you
                                  don't know anyone in the nursing facility and
                                  what about your cat?

        Id. at 25-27.
        Id,
     14. With respect
     14.With  respect to Petitioner's statements to I.M.R.
                                                    IM.R. that she
                                                               she "has
                                                                   "has no money,"
        the Agency
            Agency had conducted an investigation of I.M.R.'s
                                                     IM.R.'s financial situation as
             it could with the records it had been able to access using the Records
        best it
        Petition. That investigation gave significant cause for concern regarding the
        possible
        possible dissipation
                 dissipation and misappropriation of IM.R.'s
                                                     I.M.R.'s assets by Petitioner.
                                                                        Petitioner
        Per Ms. Hughes's
                Hughes's testimony,
                         testimony, I.M.R.
                                    IM.R. had realized $$500,000
                                                         500,000 in income or

        assets in September
                  September 2018, yet by October 2021 she had less than
                                                                   than $$2,000
                                                                          2,000 in

        her bank account
                 account (which
                         (which was aajoint account with Petitioner).
                                                         Petitioner). That was the
        same account that her monthly Social Security payments were directly
                        Id. at 27-28.
        deposited into. Id,
     15. Ms. Hughes had significant concerns regarding I.M.R.'s
     15.Ms.                                            IM.R's safety in the home,
        based in part
                 part on the reports
                             reports from Ms. Parks, but also on statements made to
        her by
            by Petitioner. When she raised the issue of the walkaway incident,
                                                                     incident, "[h]e
                                                                               "[hJe
        didn't seem to think it was aabig
                                      big deal. He said she had aadestination in mind.
        She was going to New York." Id,
                                    Id. at 29. More concerning was the following:

                Q;
                Q:      Following
                        Following the incident in which Ms. Roush wandered
                        from the home, did Mr. Cardwell tell you that his cure
                        was to lock her in the house when he was gone?

                A:
                A.      Yes.
                        Yes
         Id.
         Id
     16. In addition to her testimony
                            testimony regarding Petitioner's demeanor during her
                              I.M.R., Ms. Hughes
         attempt to interview IM.R.,      Hughes testified regarding actions taken by
         Petitioner to hamper
                       hamper her investigation
                                  investigation into the matter generally
                                                                generally.
/                       It's my understanding that Ms. Roush has aasister, is that
                Q:
'1                      right?

                A:      That's what I'm told, yes.
 I
.!
l                                           11
'I
n
                    Q:
                    Q       Did you ask
                            Did you     Mr. Cardwell
                                    ask Mr. Cardwell for
                                                     for the
                                                         the name and address
                                                             name and address and
                                                                              and
                            phone number
                            phone number of the sister?

                    A:
                    A       Yes.
                            Yes

                    Q:
                    Q:      She would be entitled to notice of today's hearing,
                                                                       hearing, isn't
                            that right?

                    A:
                    A:      Well,
                            Well, as aasister, sure.

                     Q:
                     0:     Did Mr.
                                 Mr Cardwell give you that information or did he
                            refuse
                            refuse it?

                    A:      He refused
                               refused.

                     Q:
                     0:     Did you
                                you ask him on more than one occasion?

                     A:
                     A      Yes.
                            Yes.

                     Q:
                     Q                              say you
                            On each occasion did he say you can't have it?

                     A:
                     A:     Yes. And aa second time he told me it's none of my
                            business.
                     Q:
                     Q:     Did
                            Did he
                                he also tell you not
                                        tell you not to
                                                     to come back
                                                             back to
                                                                  to the
                                                                     the house?

                     A:
                     A:     IIcan't say
                                    say that but I
                                                 I certainly got that message.
                     Q:
                     Q      Has Mr. Cardwell provided
                                                provided you with any medical or, I'm
                            sorry,
                            sorry, financial information?

                     A:     No.
                            No

                     Q:
                     Q:     Now I I understand that there's a        Iva Roush income
                                                            a trust, lva
                            only trust?
                            only trust?

                     A:     Yes.
                            Yes.

                     Q.
                     Q:     Have you
                                 you been given aacopy of that?
      '
     ,I              A:
                     A:     No.
                            No.

                     Q:
                     Q      Are you
                                you asking
                                     asking the Court today to direct that the Agency
                            receive aafully executed copy of that trust?

                     A:
                     A      Yes.

              Id. at 30-31
              Id     30-31 (emphasis
                           (emphasis added).
           17.                                      I.M.R., along with the highly suspect
           17 The lack of financial information for IM.R.,
              nature                 involving her property, rendered
              nature of transactions involving               rendered her
                                                                      her ineligible
                                                                          ineligible at

      11
                                                  12
                                                  12
il
l"

                  that time for medical assistance to pay for the care she needed. 'That
                                                                                   That

                  ineligibility
                  ineligibility could also extend for five years into the future.
                           Q:        Why
                                     Why was itit so difficult to get Ms. Roush approved for
                                     medical assistance?

                           A:        We still don't have her approved. It's so difficult because
                                            property that was sold for $250,000
                                     of the property                    $ 250,000 in January of
                                     2020, so the County Assistance Office is going to look at
                                     that as aasold asset and actually itit was sold under fair
                                     market value. It's actually 280-something
                                                                     280- something thousand
                                     dollars and so because that's within the past five years,
                                           going to have a
                                     she's going          aperiod
                                                           period of ineligibility.
                            Q:
                            Q,           you're talking
                                     So you're   talking about the five year look back that
                                     Medical                employs to determine if you're
                                     Medical Assistance employs                      you're
                                     eligible for nursing care, is that right?
                                                                        right

                            A:       Yes.

                            Q:       And as we stand here todaytoday she's not qualified because
                                     of all the stuff that's gone?
                            A:       More likely
                                           likely than not, no. IIdon't have the official word
                                     but I
                                         I know that they have the five year look back and
                                     she's got
                                     she's got well
                                               well over
                                                    over the
                                                         the $$8,000
                                                               8,000 limit
                                                                     limit that
                                                                           that is
                                                                                is aacriteria
                                                                                     criteria for
                                                                                              for
                                     their program.

                  Id. at 39-40.
                  Id,
              18. Petitioner's cross-examination of Ms.
              18.                                   Ms. Hughes primarily focused on matters

                   such as the fact that the Agency was relying on Ms. Parks' testimony
                   regarding
                   regarding conditions inside the home, and that Ms.
                                                                  Ms. Hughes had only been
                   out to the home twice
                                   twice (on September 13
                                         [on September 13th and December 6).
                                                                         6th). Pertinent

                   matters that came out during her cross-examination were that the Agency

                   had been trying
                            trying to obtain bed space
                                                 space for I.M.R.
                                                           IM.R. since the September incident,
                                hampered initially by Petitioner's refusal to provide financial
                   but had been hampered
                   records, and then by the fact that on paper, it appeared that I.M.R.
                                                                                 IM.R. should
                   have significant
                        significant assets
                                    assets (meaning
                                           [meaning that medical assistance funding was not
                   available to pay         care). 4 Overall, Petitioner's cross-examination
                                pay for her care).'

            Petitioner's counsel raised an allegation that Petitioner had asked the Agency for help in March 2021, but
          4 petitioner's
          4

          had been refused, insinuating that they would not help when asked, but then turned around and went after

     11
                                                                13
                  amounted solely
                  amounted solely to an attack
                                  to an attack on
                                               on how
                                                  how the Agency proceeded.
                                                      the Agency            It raised
                                                                 proceeded. It raised no
                                                                                      no
                  matters that contradicted the evidence presented or weakened it
                                                                               it to an

                                      Id. at 31-40
                  appreciable degree. Id,    31-40.

              19. To follow-up
              19.To  follow-up on Ms.
                                  Ms. Hughes's
                                      Hughes's testimony regarding I.M.R.'s
                                                                   IM.R.'s finances,
                                                                            finances, the
                  Agency
                  Agency presented the testimony
                                       testimony of Caroline Burnell, an expert witness in
                  the field of financial fraud examination. Based on the records that the

                  Agency had been able to obtain using the Records Petition, as well as
                   publicly
                   publicly available land records, it
                                                    it was Ms. Burnell's preliminary
                                                                         preliminary opinion
                   that: (i)
                         (1) there was at least $200,000
                                                $ 200,000 0f
                                                          of I.M.R's
                                                             I.M.R.'s funds not accounted for; and

                   (ii) the records showed potential financial exploitation of IM.R.
                                                                               I.M.R. of between

                            and $
                   $200,000 and   500,000. Id,
                                $500,000.  Id. at 40-43.
                                                  40-43
                  Ms. Burnell further opined that, based on the information she had at that
              20. Ms.
I'                 point, I.M.R. had been aavictim of financial exploitation. She based this
                   point, IM.R.
                   primarily
                   primarily on her findings with respect
                                                  respect to two joint bank accounts held by
                   I.M.R.     Petitioner. [d.
                   L.M.R. and Petitioner  Id. at 44-45.

                   a.   The first was a
                                      a checking account with M&T
                                                              M&T Bank. It was opened in
                        March 2018 and closed in November 2018,
                                                          2018. Reviewing the transaction

                        history, the withdrawals attributable to Petitioner exceeded the

                                deposited by
                        amounts deposited           about $$61,000.
                                          by him by about   61,000. Even taking into account

                        roughly
                        roughly $$6,000
                                  6,000 of deposits that could not be directly attributed to either

                        account holder, the excess amount taken by Petitioner was
                                                                              was $$55,000.
                                                                                    55,000.

                   b. When the M&T
                               M&'T Bank account was closed in November 2018 it had aa
                        balance of $180,000.
                        balance of $ 180,000. That amount, which
                                                           which was
                                                                 was all
                                                                     all the
                                                                         the proceeds of aalife
                        insurance policy
                                  policy that paid out to IM.R.
                                                          I.M.R. after her husband passed away,

                        was
                        was deposited
                            deposited into
                                      into aanew
                                             new account
                                                 account at
                                                         at Members
                                                            Members First
                                                                    First Federal Credit
                                                                          Federal Credit

          Petitioner. Petitioner later raised this allegation multiple times in his own testimony in an attempt to cast the
          Petitioner
          Agency
          Agency in aapoor
                         poor light. Pet Ms
                                         Ms. Hughes's testimony, what actually happened was that when IM.R.
                                                                                                         I.M.R. was released
          from the hospital, the Agency was tasked with performing an evaluation to see what care she might need. need. This
                           elderly persons similarly situated in the Agency's service area.
          is done for all elderly                                                     area. However, the actual investigation
               eligibility determination are performed by a
          and eligibility                                    abroker working on contract funded by the Pennsylvania
                            Aging. This meant that once the Agency obtained the initial information, the matter was out of
          Department of Aging
          its hands. llL
          Its          Id. at 34-35
                              34-35. The Agency therefore had no information about whatwhat might
                                                                                            might have transpired between
                                                                                                                   between
     II   Petitioner ad
                     and the broker
                             broker,
,

                                                                  14
            Union the same month. By
                                  By the end of February 2019 the balance of the
            account had been depleted to $27,000
                                         $ 27,000.

     21. Ms. Burnell made clear that her report was preliminary,
     21.Ms.                                         preliminary, and that it was
        based on the limited information that the Agency had been able to obtain.
        "If a
        If  areport
              report is needed for aafinal guardianship hearing, then I
                                                                      I will obviously

        do additional work"
                      work." Id. at 46.

     22. Petitioner's cross-examination of Ms.
                                           Ms. Burnell proceed in a
                                                                  a similar fashion as
        for Ms.
            Ms. Hughes.
                Hughes. Petitioner's counsel questioned Ms.
                                                        Ms. Burnell's methods,
        reliance on incomplete data and information
                                        information (i.e.,
                                                    (i.e. less than the full and
        complete bank records, which Petitioner had impeded access to), and
        reliance on information from the Agency,
                                         Agency, but raised no issues that
        contradicted Ms. Burnell's conclusions or appreciably weakened the
        strength of her testimony. Id,
                                   Id. at 46-50
                                          46-50.

     23.
     23. The final witness for the Agency
                                   Agency was Lori Heaton, Service Director.
        Ms. Heaton's testimony focused on:
                                       on: (i) Petitioner's conduct in impeding the
        Agency's investigation of IM.R.'s
                                  I.M.R.'s case and preventing access to IM.R.;
                                                                         I.M.R.; and

         (ii) Petitioner's conduct in harassing and intimidating the Agency and its
         (ii)
         employees. Id,
         employees. Id. at 51-57. She also discussed the steps taken by the Agency

            try to obtain appropriate care for IM.R.,
         to try                                I.M.R., which were met with resistance

         by Petitioner. Id,
                        Id. at 53-54.

     24. Ms. Heaton became directly
                           directly involved in the matter on December 2, 2021,
         when she accompanied another Agency employee on an attempt to visit

         I.M.R.
         I,Mg and interview her at Petitioner's home.
                                                home, The
                                                      The visit itself was
         uneventful; however, Petitioner's actions afterward were troubling, to say

         the least.
                 Q:
                 Q:     Can you
                              you give
                                   give us some details about the [level
                                                                  [level of
                        Petitioner's] cooperation
                                      cooperation [in
                                                  [in the case]?
                 A:     Yes. Again
                             Again all during the case IIhad been hearing about
                        the difficulties and cooperation by Mr. Cardwell but on
                        December 2nd I  I went out to the home along with Belinda
                        Black to try
                                  try to see lva
                                             Iva and she was not home. We did
,,
'                       speak with his mechanic, Mr. Cardwell's mechanic, Bill.
'

                                           15
,.
l
 I'
I,I                       He
                          He tried to reach
                                      reach Mr.
                                            Mr. Cardwell but was
                          returned to the office.
                                                             was unable
                                                                 unable to.
                                                                        to. So we
                                                                               we

l
                          When
                          WhenIreturned to the office
                                                   office Ihad a
                                                               avery angry voicemail
'I·
%

                          message
                          message from Mr. Cardwell telling us that we had no
Ii                        business stopping
                                    stopping by the home and to never do it
                          and that if we wanted to-anything
                                                                              it again
                                                   to— anything from him, we were
                          to mail itit in writing to aa Chambersburg address address.
                          Subsequently he then called the office again and IIspoke
                          with him over the phone
                                               phone and again he was very angry,
                          threatening
                          threatening me that we should never come back to the
                          home again; that it
                                            it was not necessary. IItold him that we
                          just wanted to visit Mrs. Roush, discuss the case further,
                          just
                          talk
                          talk about any
                                      any needs that
                                                 that she had
                                                           had and
                                                               and he said that  it was
                                                                           that it  was
                           not necessary.

                    Q:
                    Q:     Is        anything you
                           ls there anything    you would
                                                     would like
                                                           like to add about
                           cooperation
                           cooperation with Mr.
                                            Mr. Cardwell?

                    A:     Just
                           Just that there has been several instances of phone calls
                           from him demanding to know the worker's full names.
                           You know,
                                know,itit just seems to serve no other purpose but to
                           harass, be menacing.
                                        menacing. He's accused they did not have
                           their proper
                                 proper ID, which is not true, and-
                                                               and—

                    Q:
                    Q:     After the emergency guardianship was filed, did Mr.
                           Cardwell file aaright
                                           right to know demand?
                    A:     Yes.
                    Q:
                    Q:     Listing dozens
                           Listing dozens and dozens of requests
                                                        requests for
                                                                 for information?

                    A:     Yes, yes.

                    Q:
                    Q:     Do you
                               you believe that was in retaliation for your
                           actions?

                    A:
                    A.     Yes, Ido.
                           Yes,I
             Id. at S2, S4 (emphasis
                    52, 54 (emphasis added).
          2S. On cross-examination, I.M.R.'s
          25.                       L.M.R's counsel obtained clarification about the
             right-to- know requests,
             right-to-know  requests, which included five
                                                     five (or
                                                          [or more)
                                                              more] years' worth of
             records pertaining
                     pertaining to how many people the Agency had removed from their
             homes, the salaries of all Agency employees, all complaints that have been
             filed against the Agency, drug testing and criminal background check

                                               16
      H
!I

                 results for all Agency employees, sources of funding for the Agency, and
                                 Agency employees,
                 what legal authority
                 what legal authority the Agency
                                          Agency has
                                                 has to
                                                     to do emergency guardianships. Id. at
                 56. Ms.
                 56, Ms. Heaton also provided
                                     provided further information regarding her
                 communications with Petitioner.
                        Q:      How many times have you interacted with Mr.
                                                                        Mr Cardwell?

                        A:     Five to six times actually verbally over the phone and
                               then we had several email exchanges.
     I

'
  I                      Q:
                         Q
                        A:
                                Have you-maybe
                                     you— maybe close to ten times?

                                Yes, or more.
                                        more

                         Q:
                         Q•     You have been doing this [work]
                                                          [work] for almost 30 years.
                                Those ten times you interacted with him, how many of
                                those was he helpful?
                         A:     Less than half.
                         Q:
                         Q:     How many of those was he focused on what was best
                                for his mother?

                         A:     In my opinion none. He did verbalize that he was
                                concerned that she belonged with him and not in aa
                                nursing
                                nursing facility.
                                          facility. In fairness I
                                                                I will say the one time
                                that I
                                     I did feel that he had aatrue concern was that he
                                wanted to make sure that her healthcare directives
                                were followed.

                  Id. at 57
                         57 (emphasis added).

               26. Clarification questions
                                 questions from the Court revealed the extreme nature of
                  Petitioner's actions toward the Agency.

                         THE COURT:        Ms.
                                           Ms. Heaton, were you
                                                            you able to
                                                                     to get into
                                                                            into the
                                                                                 the home
                                                                                     home
                                           or were you allowed access to Ms.
                                                                          Ms. Roush?

                         THE WITNESS:      No, we weren't.
                                                  weren't
                         THE COURT:
                         THE COURT:        What had to happen to get access to
                                           Ms.
                                           Ms. Roush.
                                               Roush.
                         THE WITNESS:      We had to get aaCourt Order.

         ,,'             THE COURT:
                         THE COURT:        Typically
                                           Typically in these
                                                        these situations
                                                              situations when you
                                                                              you come
                                           to me with an emergency, an Order is signed
                                           and then you do what you have to do?

                         THE WITNESS:
                             WITNESS       Yes.

                                                    17
                                                    17
               THE COURT:        Was this different from most situations?

               THE WITNESS:
                   WITNESS.      Yes.
                                 Yes.
               THE COURT:        Why?
               THE WITNESS:      We were very concerned about the safety of
                                 our
                                 our workers, so we
                                     workers, so    had to
                                                 we had to ask
                                                           ask the
                                                               the police
                                                                   police to
                                                                          to
                                 accompany us.

               THE COURT
               THE COURT:         And that accomplished what you needed to
                                  accomplish?
               THE WITNESS:       Yes, it did.

               Id. at 55
               Id,    55.

     27. Petitioner offered the testimony of himself in
                                                     in rebuttal of the evidence

        presented
        presented by
                  by the Agency.
                         Agency. Due to the allegations
                                            allegations of financial exploitation
        that were raised, as well as the presence of representatives of the

        Huntingdon
        Huntingdon County District Attorney's Office and two criminal investigators
        from the Pennsylvania State Police in the courtroom, the Court gave

        Petitioner the opportunity to meet with counsel to discuss whether to

        testify,
        testify, and then conducted aabrief colloquy on the record to confirm that
        Petitioner both understood his Fifth Amendment rights and that the

        testimony he gave could be used against him in acriminal prosecution.
                                                    in a

        Petitioner confirmed that he understood his rights
                                                    rights and the possible risks
        involved, and that
                      that he
                           he still
                              still wanted to testify. Id. at
                                                           at 64-66.
     28. Petitioner's testimony on direct examination was troubling, and, at times,
     28.
        bizarre.
     29. Petitioner had been caring for I.M.R.
                                        IM.R. for ten years. He originally was caring
         for both his parents, and they were living at their f
                                                             farm
                                                              a in Dauphin County.
                                                              rm
         His father
             father (I.M.R.'s
                    (IM.R.'s husband) passed away in 2018, and at some point after
         that, he had moved IM.R.
                            I.M.R. in with him at his home in
                                                           in Huntingdon County.

         I.M.R. had been living with him for between two and one-half and three
         .M.R.
         years. Petitioner and I.M.R.
         years.                IM.R. met with Attorney O'Toole, and she signed the
         Alleged                                died. Id,
         Alleged POA, after Petitioner's father died. Id. at 6
                                                             67-68.
                                                              7-68
 '
 I
,:
n

                                             18
                                        I.M.R. had only recently been prescribed medication
            30. Petitioner claimed that IM.R.
               for Alzheimer's, which he then clarified as being
                                                           being ""aacouple of years." He did
               not believe that her condition had deteriorated that far.
                                                                    far He characterized
                      having "good
               her as having       days and bad days." He confirmed that she at times has
                             "good days
               trouble recognizing
                       recognizing people.
                                   people. He described aagood day as I.M.R.
                                                                      IM.R. having aa
               conversation with him and telling him the
                                                     the "years and dates of her sisters-
                                                                                 sisters—

               she had 13 brothers and sisters." Id,
                                                 Id. at 68-69. He described a "bad day" as

               follows:
                       A:
                       A:    Bad day,
                                  day. She has fits where she sees aanaked person
    '                        outside the house.
                                          house. Then you have to explain to her
                             there's no naked people
                                              people hanging outside your house and
I                            she's okay.
                                   okay. Might
                                         Might argue with you some but she's okay.
                       Q:     Would you acknowledge what was testified to earlier
                              about her visions of people in the trees?

                       A:     Yeah, that's—  normally it happens with she gets aaurinary
                                     that's-normally
                              tract infection is when it
                                                      it happens most of the time.

               dI. at
               ld,    69.
                   at69
            31. Per Petitioner, I.M.R.
                                I.M.R. had been hospitalized at the beginning of the year for
                about
                about aaweek,
                        week, and when
                                  when she
                                       she was
                                           was discharged he
                                                          he tried
                                                             tried to
                                                                   to get her
                                                                          her into
                                                                              into aa
                nursing
                nursing home in Carlisle. That did not happen
                                                       happen "because
                                                              "because we had something
                with the insurance where we were in the wrong county or something. I

                don't know." dI.
                             Id, at 70. The hospital did set up someone to come to the
                home three times aaweek for skilled care.
                                                    care. He claimed that this continued for

                many
                many months,
                     months, until
                             until mid- summer, and
                                   mid-summer,  and that
                                                    that he
                                                         he had
                                                            had brought
                                                                brought in
                                                                        in Ms.
                                                                           Ms. Parks
                                                                               Parks to
                                                                                     to
                supplement
                supplement the skilled care providers. Id. When the skilled care ended it
                                            providers. Id,
                was only
                    only himself, his mechanic, and Ms. Parks who were providing
                                                                       providing care. He
                confirmed that Ms. Parks came to the home three days aaweek, her primary
                duty was to bathe I.M.R.,
                duty              IM.R. and that he had her take care of IM.R.'s
                                                                         I.M.R.'s other

                needs.
                needs. Petitioner was very
                                      very hands-off with respect to Ms. Parks's care for
                I.M.R. "She
                       "She was never given aaschedule. She was told to come out there
                three times aaweek,
                              week, make sure mom got
                                                  got aabath and if there was anything

                                                  19
                                                  19

        I
        else that mom needed, let her do it.
                                         it. I
                                             I mean, that's what IIwas paying her
        for."     at 72.
        for." Id. at 72
     32. Petitioner's description of the daily routine was that I.M.R. would get up on
        her own, give
                 give herself aasponge bath, and then come out to the table for

        breakfast. He would make her something to eat and giver her her
        medications.
        medications. If she'd been incontinent of herself overnight, he would clean
        her up.
            up. She would typically
                          typically spend the rest of the day napping and playing
        with the dogs or her cat. She had previously spent a
                                                           alot of time watching

        television, but that had tapered off. She did not know how to turn the
                               Id. at 72.73
        television on herself. Id,    72-73.

     33. Petitioner claimed that I.M.R. was rarely left alone in the house.
                                                                     house. Either he
        or his mechanic would be in the house with her.
                                                   her, But there were times that
        he had to go pick up aacar or car parts and I.M.R.
                                                    IM.R. had been left on her own
                                                                               own.

                   days he would have Ms.
         One those days               Ms. Parks come twice or have aafriend check
         in
         in   on her. Jd.
                      Id. at 73-74.

     34. Petitioner also claimed that he often took I.M.R.
                                                    IM.R. on errands and trips with
         him
         him to
             to buy
                buy car parts.
                        parts. He
                               He also would take
                                             take her
                                                  her out to
                                                          to get her hair
                                                                     hair done or her
                                                                                  her
         nails done.
               done. Id,
                     Id. at 73--74.
                            73-74.

     35. Petitioner's description of
         Petitioner's description of the
                                     the events
                                         events of
                                                of September
                                                   September 6,
                                                             6th, when
                                                                  when I.M.R.
                                                                       IM.R. walked
                                                                              walked
         away and was picked up
         away                up by
                                by PSP, was as follows:
                  A:       She was mad at me because she wanted to go to New
                           York.
                           York
                   Q:      What's in New York?
                  A:       That's
                           That's where
                                     where our  our family
                                                     family isis from.
                                                                  from. MomMom likes    to
                                                                                  likes to
                           gamble,
                           gamble, so we go    go up there to this place way up north.
                           IIgot
                              got to think what the hell it is.    is, It's a
                                                                            a reservation
                           casino thing up there she goes to. She'll spend eight
                            hours sitting at a   atable. IIactually have to tell the lady
                            at the table to shut it down so she'll eat but she likes
                            to           gambling. So we
                            to do the gambling.              just had one of her
                                                         we just              her brothers
                                                                                  brothers
                            or sisters passed away, so she wanted to go up north, so
I·                          we went up up north but before I  I could do that she got mad
                            because I  I told her
                                               her IIcouldn't do itit that day. She
                                                                      that day.       got—
                                                                                 She got-
                            climbed a a little fence. Started walking down the road.

n
                                                20
 I

 I
 '
ii
                    Q:        What little fence is that? Inside the house?

                    A:
                    A:        We got   afence so we can let the dogs out and they don't
                                  got afence
                              run off. So you
                                          you can't come in the house that way. There's
                              a fence like two foot, three foot high.
                              a                                 high
                     Q:       Okay.
                              Okay.

                    A:
                    A:        So mom crawled over the fence, decided to walk down
                              the road. When she walked down the road, somebody
                              picked
                              picked her up.
                                         up. We only live on James Creek Road. We
                              see maybe
                                  maybe five cars aaday down there
                                                             there.

                     Q:       Were you home at the time?

                     A:
                     A:       No.
                              No. I was getting groceries. Bill [Petitioner's mechanic]
                                   Iwas
                              was home. Bill's the one that called me, said Bill, your
                              mom walked off,off. Well, you know what happened. She
                              walked down the road, somebody picked her up and
                              dropped her off at the State Police. I
                              dropped                              I call the State Police,
                                                                                    Police,
                              alerted them before she even got there. She wasn't even
                              there
                              there when
                                    when II called them. While II was talking to him, she
                              walked into the police station. Well, I I was in
                                                                             in Altoona. I I
                              called Bonnie
                                     Bonnie [Parks].
                                              [Parks]. Bonnie went and picked her up
                                   brought her
                              and brought   her back  home. Then
                                                 back home,  Then the next
                                                                        next day that lady
                                                                                       lady
                              [pointing at Ms. Hughes] showed up
                              [pointing                       up.

              Id. at75-76.
              Id, at 75-76.
           36. Much of Petitioner's testimony regarding his interactions with Ms. Hughes
              and the Agency
                      Agency focused on what he alleged were illegal or impermissible
              actions by
                      by them
                         them (matters
                              (matters which the Court ruled were not relevant to the
              question of the emergency
              question        emergency guardianship). It did confirm, however, that he
              took                posture with
              took an adversarial posture with the Agency from
                                               the Agency from the
                                                               the very start.
                                                                   very start
                     Q:       And do you
                                      you recall at that time whether Ms.
                                                                      Ms. Hughes asked
                              you to take a
                                          a look around the house or to meet with your
                              mom?
                              mom?
                     A:
                     A:        No, The conversation went pretty much like
                               No.                                              hike this.
                                                                                     this. She
                               come up on the porch. She said she'd like to talk to
                               come  up  on  the porch.   She said she'd  like to talk to mom.
                                                                                          mom.
                               I
                               I went and got
                                            got mom, put
                                                       put her on the porch and she had aa
                               conversation, two minute conversation, with my mom
                               and turned around and told me my mom needs to be in a         a
                               nursing
                               nursing home. Then I     I asked her, II said, who are you to
                               tell me in aatwo minute conversation with my mother she
                               belongs
                               belongs in aanursing home? What qualifications do you
     ,,'
                                                    21
                                                    21
l
I
II
                            have? In fact, I
                                           I said to her where's your identification
                            because she by law-

                    THE COURT
                    THE COURT:         Let's move on. I'm not concerned with that.

             Id. at 77; see also generally id. at 77-78.
                                                  77-78
          37. Petitioner claimed that he had no further interaction with the Agency until
             they
             they showed up
                         up with the State Police on December 6th
                                                              6 to take custody of
             I.M.R. Id. at 78. He addressed the financial issues in aasuperficial manner;
             I.M.R. Id,
                     0:Q•   There's been some allegations about misappropriation of
                            mom's funds. Is there anything that we[sic] to have to
                            say about that here today?

                     A:
                     A:     There's no misappropriation of mom's funds. Whenever
                            mom or dad died, they were renting the farm out to
                            $13,000.
                            $13,000. When I   I rented the farm out, she made
                                                                          made $$25,000.
                                                                                 25,000.
                            I
                            l put
                              put that in a
                                          a trust fund and that goes  into her money  or
                            into our bank account along with both of our social
                            securities goes into the same bank account. We have the
                            same bank account.

             Id. at 79.
             Id,
          38. As far as his income, Petitioner claimed that he was retired or
          38.As                                                            or ""semi-
                                                                                semi-

              retired," due to having
                               having suffered some unspecified injury in 1991. He last
             worked in 2012. Id,
                             Id. at 68. He also claimed to be an expert in
                                                                        in in-home care

              and the investigation of elder abuse.
                      Q:    Mr.
                            Mr Cardwell, prior
                                         prior to your retirement and/or disability,
                            do you have any work history in the field of in-home
                            care?
                      A:    Absolutely.
                      Q:    What is that?

                      A:     Iused to be acontractor
                             Fused       acontractor for the Office of Aging.
                                                                       Aging. I
                                                                              I covered
                             eight counties.
                      Q:
                      Q;     When you say aacontractor, what do you mean?

                      A:     We did in-home care. IIhad aahundred girls working for
     Il                      me, so I'm
                                    l'm very
                                        very much aware of what's going on here.

                      Q•     How long
                                 long did you
                                          you work in that capacity?
     I

     l
      I
     ::
                                                  22
                                                  11
ii
                     A:       Six years I
                                        I think it was.
                                                   was. In those six years I
                                                                           I had two
                              counties investigated and basically the Federal
                              government came in and shut them down.
             Id. at 80
             Id,    80.

          39.
          39, When Petitioner was asked by his own counsel about how I.M.R.
                                                                     I.M.R. was doing

             since having been placed in a
                                         a nursing home
                                                   home (he
                                                        (he had visited her the previous
             day),
             day), he had trouble focusing on his mother's overall condition, and focused
             instead on supposed shortcomings with both what the Agency had done
             and the quality of the home they selected. Id,
                                                        Id. at 80-82.

                     Q:
                     Q•       Has she-do
                                  she— do you know whether or not she's taking her
                              medications or is receiving       any kind of medical
                              treatment that she may need?
                     A:       Well, I— when I
                                     I-when   I got to the nursing home—     on the way to
                                                                      home--on
                              the nursing come I  I call the other Area of Aging and asked
                              them the story on the nursing home. They told me they
                              have Covid[sic] in the nursing home and they told me it
                              was aathe worst nursing in    in the county. They told me it
                              had aa one star rating and they're seriously understaffed.
                                                                              understaffed
                              Iasked lady[sic] at the nursing home or the Area of Aging
                              asked
                              would you put your mom there. She said absolutely not.

 I.I
                      Q:
                      Q       Has your— how is your mom's condition?
                              las your-how                                   When's the
                              last time you saw your mom?
                      A:      Yesterday.
                              Yesterday
                      Q:      How is her condition?
                      A:      Good.

                      Q:
                      Q•      Did she have any kind of, you know, infections or any
                              kind of conditions? In good condition or no?

                      A:
                      A.      When I I finally got to see my mom aaweek later, her nose
                              looked like it was falling off her face.
                                                                     face. So I I got the
                              administrator and IIasked them, what's this thing on her
                              face and they
                                        they told me it was aastaph infection.
                                                                    infection. She didn't
                              have aastaph infection when she left me but sure got one
                              now. So—
                                    So-
              Id. at 81-82
              Id,    81-82.

      I
     ,.
     n
     l

                                                   23
     40. Cross-examination of Petitioner
     40.Cross-examination                by the Agency's
                              Petitioner by     Agency's counsel revealed
                                                                 revealed more
                                                                          more
        bizarre claims and information that was much more concerning than what

        came out in direct examination.
        a.a. Petitioner claimed to be unaware that IM.R's
                                                   I.M.R.'s physician, Dr. Sellers, had

           diagnosed I.M.R.
           diagnosed IM.R. with dementia in 2014 and had prescribed medication
            for the condition at that time. (This
                                            (This despite supposedly having been to
            every        I.M.R.'s medical appointments
            every one of LM.R.'s          appointments since he began taking care of
            her in 2012.) Id,
                in 2012.) Id. at
                              at 84-85.
        b. He could not provide
                        provide aafull name for IM.R.'s
                                                I.M.R.'s sister, as he only knew her

            as
            as "Aunt Suzy." He could not provide her address despite having been to
            her house "a
            her house "a hundred times."
                                 times." ""Don't
                                           Don't ask me where
                                                        where she
                                                              she lives.
                                                                  lives. IIcan only
            drive there." [d,
                          Id. at 83-84.
                                 83--84
        c. He did not dispute Ms. Parks's description of the interior of his home.
                                                    cleaning freak." Id. at 86.
            He did, however, claim that she was a ""cleaning
           He (unintentionally)
        d. He [unintentionally) confirmed that I.M.R.'s
                                               LM.R.'s cat could be used as aa
            source of leverage over her.
                                    her,
I'
               Q
               Q:      When your
                              your mom expressed
                                           expressed some concern-strike
                                                            concern— strike that.
                            your mom
                       Was your   mom worried
                                         worried about
                                                 about what
                                                        what was
                                                             was going to
                                                                       to happen
                       to her cat if she went to a
                                                 a nursing home?
               A:      My
                       My mom's always worried about what happens to
                       that cat. Everyday
                                 Everyday she wakes up IIget a
                                                             a story about
                       this cat.
                Q:     Did you tell
                       Did you  tell her,
                                     her, quote, you should have fucking thought
                                          quote, you                     thought
                                           you
                       about that before you    took off down the road and to the
                       State Police?
                       State Police?

                A:     No.
                       No
                Q:     You never said that?
                A:     No.
            Id. (emphasis added)
                          added).

         e. He admitted that his claim that the infection on I.M.R.'s
                                                             IM.R.'s nose was staph
            was false. He also
                          also (again,
                               (again, unintentionally)
                                       unintentionally) confirmed that his focus was
                          I.M.R., and not
            on control of LM.R.,      not what was best     her.
                                                   best for her

                                            24
                   Q;
                   Q•   The staph infection that you indicated your mom has on
                            nose.
                        her nose
                   A:   Yes.

                   Q:
                   Q:   Isn't it true that the doctor there said it was cellulitis?
                        Isn'tit
                   A:   They
                        They told me it
                                      it was a
                                             a staph infection. I I have not heard
                        the terminology
                            terminology cellulitis until yesterday.
                   Q:   Who did you
                                you hear it from yesterday
                                                 yesterday?

                   A:   The nurse.
                        Te
                   Q:
                   Q:   At the nursing
                               nursing home?

                   A:
                   A:   At the nursing home.
                                       home

                   Q:   So yesterday you were told it was cellulitis?

                   A:   Yes.

                   Q:   But today you're testifying it was aastaph infection?

                   A:   That's what I
                                    I was told.

                   Q:
                   Q    By whom?
                   A:   The coordinator up at the nursing home. When I      I got to
                        the nursing
                              nursing home,  the first thing I
                                                       thing I did was  went  to the
                        coordinator and he got the director of nursing and I         I
                        handed them the power of attorney that I       I had which
                        basically states everything my mom wants done. I             I
                        told them Huntingdon doesn'doesn'ttrecognize this power
                        of attorney but everybody in the country does. I       I said
                        if IIwas you, I
                                      I would get
                                              get my
                                                  my mom evaluated because you
                        just told me that this happened outside of your area.

             Id. at 90
             ld,    90 (emphasis
                       (emphasis added).
      f.f,   Petitioner confirmed that the copy of the Alleged POA that he had

             provided
             provided to his attorney and that had been filed with the Court, the
             same document he had represented
                                  represented to the Agency as giving him
                                     I.M.R.'s person and property, had not been
             absolute authority over IM.R.'s
,,'
                                                      effective. Id
             executed by him as required for it to be effective. Id. at 90-91. The

             Court left open the possibility
                                 possibility of Petitioner locating an executed copy.
             Id.
             Id.

                                              25
,I        41. With respect
          41.With  respect to the misappropriation
                                  misappropriation issue, Petitioner initially refused to
 I                   any specifics
             discuss any specifics regarding finances without having bank records with

             him, claiming
                  claiming that he could not remember the details. For example, he
,,           initially claimed he didn't recall that I.M.R. received
                                                            received $$250,000
                                                                       250,000 from aalife

             insurance policy
                       policy after her husband died in 2018.
                                                        2018. [Id,
                                                              Id. at 92.
                                                                     92. He then said

             that he was
                     was ""aware
                           aware of it." Id. His testimony was similar regarding
                                    it." Id,                           regarding $$250,000
                                                                                   250,000

             that
             that I.M.R.
                  IM.R. had
                         had received
                             received from
                                      from the
                                           the sale
                                               sale of
                                                    of aaproperty.
                                                         property. He
                                                                   He then
                                                                      then went on to
                                                                           went on to
             testify
             testify that he did not know how the money had been spent or where it was.
                                                                                   was
              He also
                 also (inadvertently)
                      [inadvertently) testified once again to the degree of control he had
              over I.M.R.
                   LM.R.
                     Q:
                     Q:     Well,
                            Well, you do know or you
                                  you doknow     you don't know.
                                                           know. As your [sic] power
                                                                 As your[sic]
                            of attorney
                               attorney I
                                        I would assume you would be on top of those
                            things.

                     A:             asking me. She's got it. If she got it, it's probably
                            You're asking
                            in the bank account and II probably either tools
                                                                          took it out for
                            something
                            something   or  did something    with   it but   she okayed
                            everything that I've done.
                            everything

                     Q:
                     Q:     So it's still somewhere?

                     A:
                     A:     Probably.
                            Probably
                     Q:
                     Q:     Are you handling her finances?

                     A:      Ipaid her bills.

                     Q:
                     Q:     You don't know where her money is?

                     A:
                     A:      Ipay
                               pay her taxes. I I pay the bills and it comes out of my
                                                         They [I.M.R.
                             account and her account. They     [IM.R. and her husband]
                             had separate
                                 separate accounts when they were married of when
                             dad died. When all that took place, there was 60-some
                                                                               60- some
                             thousand dollars missing
                                                missing out of one of dad's accounts. It
                             is what it is.
                                        is, I
                                            I didn't have control over dad's accounts
                             either.

     ,,              THE
                     THE COURT:         When did your dad pass away?

                      THE WITNESS:                  was-]I want to say it's in the
                                        ]I think it was—
                                         September
                                         September range     2018. He died at the
                                                    range of 2018
                                         house.

                                                 26
'I
               THE COURT:        Was
                                 Was   that before or after
                                                      after the
                                                            the power
                                                                power of
                                 attorney?
               THE WITNESS:      After—  no, I'm
                                 After -no,   I'm sorry. No, No. Yeah, it was
                                 after because before dad died I    I tried to get
                                 her to do aa power of attorney on dad and I     I
                                 don't think she did.
                                                    did . I
                                                          I don't think she did
                                  but at some point we had mom's name put
                                  on everything and at some point dad tried
                                  to get her to sign off on it and I
                                                                   I told her no.
                                  And then when dad died, she ended up with
                                  everything
                                  everything and then she told the attorneys
                                  that she wants to give me everything now
                                  while she's still alive.

               THE COURT:         When was that?

               THE WITNESS:       Back in 2018. That's when IIput everything in
                                  a trust fund so that we
                                  a                    we— the income coming in
                                                          -the               in
                                  from the house shows up as income and that's
                                  what's on the taxes every single year.
                                                                   year

        Id. at 93-94
               93-94 (emphasis
                     (emphasis added).
     42. Petitioner further revealed that his recordkeeping with regard to his joint

        account with I.M.R. was woefully inadequate, and that he considered all of
        her assets to be his,
                         his.

               Q:
               0:      So right now she gets her Social Security?

               A:      Yes.

                0:
                Q:     And
                       And $$25,000
                             25,000 aayear, is that right?

               A:
               A       Yes.

                Q:     She get any other income?

                A:     No.

                Q:
                Q•     And her money
                               money goes
                                     goes into a
                                               a joint bank account with yo,
                                                                         you,
                       is that
                          that right?

                A:
                A      Yes.

                Q
                Q•     It would be safe to say that the balance of you account at
                       least in October would have been aa couple thousand
                       bucks?

                                           27
 I                    A:        I
                                l have no idea what my
                                                    my balance its. I'm 60 years old and
 I                              I've
                                I've never reconciled aachecking account since then
                                                                               then.

 I                     Q:
                       Q        Would you
                                       you know if it
                                                   it was a
                                                          a couple thousand versus aa
,I                              million?
                       A:        Probably
                                 Probably because I I get notifications that I
                                                                             I got more than
                                aathousand in my bank account. I     I don't keep money in
                                the bank. II pull money in and out of banks all the time
                                                                                      time.

                       Q:
                       Q:       Do you keep your mom's money in the bank?

                       A:       I
                                I pull money out all the time. Our money—  it's our
                                                                   money-it's
                                money.   It is not my  mom's  money. If mom   needs
                                something,
                                something, IIbuy my mom whatever she needs. My
                                mom's not wanting for anything.
                                                      anything.""

                    95-96 (emphasis
             Id. at 95-96 (emphasis added).
         43. Petitioner
         43. Petitioner confirmed that there were ten
                                                  ten dogs in the home. Id. at 96
                                                                  home. Id,    96.

         44. Petitioner confirmed that he contacted Attorney O'Toole for help with
         44.
             getting I.M.R.
                     IM.R. out of the Agency's custody as soon as she was removed from
             his home, specifically
                       specifically focusing on the Alleged POAS
                                                            POA. 5 Id,
                                                                   Id. at 98
                                                                          98.

         45. At the close of the hearing the Court denied the petitions to remove the
              Agency                I.M.R.'s person
              Agency as guardian of IM.R.'s  person and estate and to reconsider the
              appointment of the
              appointment        Agency as emergency
                             the Agency    emergency guardian,
                                                     guardian. The Court also stated

              on the record its limited reasons for denying the petitions, and that it

              believed I.M.R.'s
                       IM.R's dementia and need for care were sufficient to support the
                        guardianship.
              emergency guardianship
                       THE COURT:               I
                                                l appreciate
                                                   appreciate the argument.
                                                                   argument. However, under
                                                the circumstances based on the testimony that
                                                IIheard I I think there's more than enough to
                                                 deny the emergency petition to   to remove the
                                                                                              the
                                                 current guardian.
                                                          guardian. II believe that Ms.
                                                                                    Ms.  Roush  is
                                                 at risk
                                                    risk based
                                                         based on the
                                                                   the testimony.
                                                                        testimony. II believe
                                                                                      believe she
                                                 has been at risk.
                                                Again,
                                                Again, IIwould imagine that the testimony will
                                                be developed further but IIdon't think there's
                                                any
                                                any question
                                                    question that she has dementia.
                                                                          dementia. She's in a
                                                                                             a

     SThe Court notes that it did not allow further questioning or testimony on this issue given the possibility of
     Te
     privileged              being revealed.
     privileged information being  revealed, The fact that Petitioner did contact Attorney"Toole
                                                                                  Attorney O'Toole is relevant,
     however, to      question of
               to the question of whether
                                  whether he
                                           he should have been
                                                           been permitted  to represent
                                                                 permitted to           I.M.R.
                                                                              represent IM.R

                                                            28
I

l
 I                                                     dementia
                                                       dementia unitunit now
                                                                          now which
                                                                                 which I think
                                                                                            think is
►1
                                                       appropriate based on the testimony. It sounds
                                                       as if she needs round the clock care. There's
                                                       no evidence that round the clock care has
                                                       been
                                                       been provided
                                                              provided under
                                                                       under the circumstances.****
                                                                             the circumstances.

                               Id. at
                               Id,    102-103.
                                   at 102-103

                46. The Court further ordered Petitioner to provided fully executed trust
                46,
                     documents within ten days. Id,
                                                Id. at 103.

                47. Following
                    Following the First Hearing, aafull hearing on the Guardianship Petition was
                     scheduled for February 1, 2022.

                48.
                48. On January 13,
                    0n January 13, 2022, Attorney
                                         Attorney O'Toole filed an emergency petition
                                                                             petition for
                                                                                      for leave
                                                                                          leave
                     to serve as legal             I.M.R. That petition was incomplete, as it
                                 legal counsel for IM.R.                                   it did

                     not include an engagement
                                    engagement letter as required by Pa.R.0.C.P.
                                                                     Pa.R.O.C.P. 14.4(b).
                                                                                 14.4(b). The
                     following
                     following day, the Court entered an order directing Attorney O'Toole to file
                     acopy of the engagement
                     acopy        engagement letter as aaconfidential document and giving the

                     other parties
                           parties until January
                                         January 21, 2022, to file any written responses to

                     Attorney O'Toole's petition. After review of the then-existing
                     Attorney O"Toole's                               then- existing record, the

                     petition,
                     petition, and the response
                                       response filed by Attorney Ghaner, the Court denied
                     Attorney O'Toole's petition on January 24, 2022.

                 49. The second hearing
                 49,            hearing in this matter
                                                matter (the
                                                       (the ""Second
                                                              Second Hearing") occurred as

                      scheduled on February 1, 2022.
                 50,
                 50. The Agency
                         Agency presented the testimony of Dr. Brandon Michael Roscoe,
                      Dr.
                      Dr. Amy
                          Amy Sellers, Brittany
                                       Brittany Bacher,
                                                Bacher, and
                                                        and Carissa Beish.
                 51. Dr. Roscoe
                 51.Dr   Roscoe is aaprimary
                                     primary care physician
                                                  physician who specializes in geriatrics. He is
                                                                                              is
                      an attending physician at Mountain
                         attending physician    Mountain6 Laurel
                                                          Laurel Healthcare and Rehabilitation
                                                                                Rehabilitation
                                                    facility at
                      Center in Clearfield, PA, the facility at which I.M.R. was
                                                                which IM.R.  was placed
                                                                                 placed after being
                                                                                              being
                      removed from Petitioner's home.
                                                home. N.T.,
                                                      N.T., Second Hearing, at 6-7
                                                                               6-7. He

                      examined I.M.R.
                               IM.R. in that capacity upon her admission to the f
                                                                                facility,
                                                                                 cility,
                                                                                  a       and
                      reviewed her medical records from before that time and those generated by
                      I.M.R.'s
                      L.M.R.'s treatment
                               treatment by
                                         by other staff at the                           Id. at 7,
                                                           the facility after admission. Id,       9-10.
                                                                                                7, 9-10

     I!: -,.-,-,-,
          , --"-"-,-,-,-,-m-
                        "   ,-.-   , --.,-. .,r�rs to
                            , "-,-0-,
              The hearing transcript continually refers to ""Mount t..urel, • but
                                                             Mount Laurel,"   but ""Moun!•1n
                                                                                    Mountain Laurel"is
                                                                                             Laurel" is correct
                                                                                                        correct.
                                              .,

          6

     I
                                                                     29

     II
   He
   He concurred with Dr.                                          Id. at
                     Dr. Seller's diagnosis of vascular dementia. Id, at 7. In
                                                                            In
   his opinion,
       opinion, it "completely
                   " completely impairs her ability to function independently,"

   rendering
   rendering her in need of round-the-clock skilled care. Id,
                                                          Id. at 8. When asked

         specific activities he
   about specific               opined that
                             he opined that she would
                                                would not
                                                      not be
                                                          be able to negotiate
                                                                     negotiate
   contracts, handle her own checkbook, administer he own medicines, cook
                                                                     cools

   her own meals, or regularly
                     regularly use the bathroom on her own. Id,at
                                                            Id.at 8, 10--11,
                                                                     10-11.

   On cross-examination by
                        by Petitioner's counsel, Dr. Roscoe specifically
   referenced I.M.R.'s
              LM.R'S BIMS    score. BIMS is aaneurologic
                       BRIMS score,           neurologic assessment tool used
   by
   by the nursing
          nursing facility,
                  facility, scored 0-15; 13-15 is normal, 8-12 is moderate
   cognitive impairment, and anything less than 7
   cognitive                                    7 is severe cognitive
   impairment.
   impairment, I.M.R.'s
               LM.R's score was 6. Dr. Roscoe characterized this as
                                                                 as ""aa

   profound           Id. at 11. He further testified that the prognosis for
   profound deficit." Id,
   I.M.R.'s vascular dementia is poor, with the condition expected to be
   I.M.R's
   progressive
   progressive and worsening. Id,
                              Id. at •
                                     9.
52. Dr. Sellers is aaphysician in private practice in Harrisburg, PA, specializing
      family medicine. She began
   in family               began treating
                                 treating I.M.R.
                                          IM.R. in 2014 and continued as
   I.M.R.'s primary
   I.M.R's  primary care physician
                         physician until she was placed in the Mountain Laurel
   facility. Dr. Sellers first saw I.M.R. for
   facility.                              for ""difficulty
                                                difficulty with her memory" after aa

   fall. Id. at 14-15. Dr. Sellers first prescribed medication to treat her
   "memory difficulties" in December 2014, and, with, some changes in
   medication, she has been treated with medication for cognitive issues ever

   since that time. Id,
                    Id. at 15, 20--21.
                               20-21. Although Dr. Sellers prescribed

                   I.M.R. in 2014, she did not diagnose her with vascular
    medication for IM.R.
    dementia at time;
                time; "The
                      "The official diagnosis was made aabit later but it was
    mild cognitive impairment
                   impairment at that point
                                      point that we were using the
    [medication]
    [medication] to treat." Id. at 20,
                    treat" Id,     20. Dr. Sellers confirmed that she personally

    prepared
    prepared the form M-851 Physician's Statement Regarding Patient's
    Medical Condition and
    Medical Condition and Capacity
                          Capacity that
                                   that was attached to
                                        was attached to the Emergency
                                                        the Emergency
    Petition. d.
              Id. at 27-28.
                     27-28. She confirmed that I.M.R.
                                               I.M.R. needs round-the-clock
    nursing
    nursing care, cannot live independently, and can only complete basic tasks
    such as getting food and going to the bathroom with assistance. Id,
                                                                    Id. at 15-

                                       30
,",
l
I
n                         16, 23-24. On cross-examination by
                          16,23-24.                       by Petitioner's counsel, Dr. Sellers
                          characterized I.M.R.'s
                                        LM.R.'s impairment
                                                 impairment as being milder than opined by
                          Dr. Roscoe, repeating
                                      repeating her
                                                her "mild to moderate" characterization from the
                                      Id. at 23, 27. Dr. Sellers also noted, however, that in addition
                          form M-851. Id,
                          to her baseline dementia, I.M.R.
                                                    IM.R. had suffered several instances in which
                          "things flared" and she suffered
                          "things                 suffered ""acute
                                                             acute mental status changes." This was

                          attributed to urinary
                                        urinary tract infections and instances of T[As
                                                                                  TIAs or
                                                                                       or "mini-
                                                                                           mini-

                                     Id. at 29. The TIAs contributed to her vascular dementia.
                           strokes." Id,                                             dementia. Id,
                                                                                               Id.

                           Upon
                           Upon further questioning, Dr. Sellers noted that the acute mental status
                           changes had led to multiple emergency room visits for IM.R.,
                           changes                                               I.M.R., and had been

                           occurring ""frequently."
                           occurring   frequently." Id,
                                                    Id. at 30. She agreed with Dr. Roscoe that L.M.R's
                                                                                               I.M.R.'s

                           prognosis is poor and progressive. Id,
                           prognosis                          Id. at 16.
                                                                     16
                      53. With specific respect to her knowledge of Petitioner and his relationship
                           with I.M.R., Dr. Sellers first met him in 2017, when he began taking I.M.R.
                                IM.R., Dr                                                       IM.R. to
                           her medical appointments. Id,
                                                     Id. at 22. She characterized I.M.R.
                                                                                  IM.R. as always
                           being dressed appropriately and not appearing malnourished or neglected.
                           Id. at 22-23. She noted that she had had discussions with I.M.R.
                           Id                                                        IM.R. and
                           Petitioner sometime after I.M.R.'s
                                                     IL.M.R's husband died about the fact that I.M.R.
                                                                                               IM.R.
                           could no longer
                                    longer live alone, after which I.M.R.
                                                                   IM.R. moved in with Petitioner. Id,
                                                                                                   Id.

                           at 16.
                              16, She had also
                                          also discussed with Petitioner
                                                              Petitioner more
                                                                         more recently
                                                                              recently that I.M.R.
                                                                                            I.M.R. was
                                                                                                   was
                                                                Id. at 17-18. Notably, at aavisit in
                           now in need of round-the-clock care. Id
                           April 20187
                           April 2018 7 Petitioner asked Dr. Sellers about becoming a
                                                                                    apower- of-
                                                                                      power-of-
                           attorney for I.M.R.
                                        LM.R. Id. at 18, 22.
                       54. Brittany
                       54. Brittany Bacher is the Director of the Alzheimer's Unit at Mountain Laurel.
                            I.M.R.
                            L.M.R. was housed in that unit. Id,
                                                            Id. at 46. Ms. Bacher's testimony only briefly

                            addressed I.M.R.,
                                      IM.R. whom she characterized as having taken some time to
                            adjust to the transition before showing improvement,
                                                                    improvement, but generally doing
      I                     adjust
                                  Id. at 47. The focus of Ms. Bacher's testimony was on Petitioner's
                            well. Id,

              '             behavior
                            behavior at visits and
                                               and his
                                                   his actions afterward. Petitioner's
                                                                          Petitioner's harassment
                                                                                       harassment and
          I
                  7 Dr. Sellers first testified that this occurred in April 2019, but then consistently referred to it as occurring in
                  'Dre
                  April
                  April 2018 inin all later testimony, See
                                      later testimony.   See id. at 18, 19,22.
                                                         id.            19, 22,

                                                                            31
            intimidation
            intimidation of Mountain
                            Mountain Laurel's
                                     Laurel's staff matched that
                                                            that he had
                                                                    had committed
11

            against the Agency. He had repeatedly photographed and videoed staff,
             continuing to do so after being
                                       being directed to stop.
                                                         stop, He was loud and disruptive
             during
             during visits, to the point that he upset other patients. He repeatedly
             threatened to sue Mountain Laurel and its staff. He subjected multiple staff
             members to questioning and caused aascene if any of them answered

                                  others. He claimed that the Alleged POA trumped the
             differently than the others.
             orders of this Court. He told Ms. Bacher that he was placing pennies on the
             floor to see if the facility
                                 facility was being cleaned, and then the next day reported
             Mountain Laurel to the Department of Health. (The
                                                          (The resulting investigation
             was returned
                 returned "unfounded.")
                          "unfounded.") Petitioner complained that he had taken the
             wedding ring off IM.R.'s
                              I.M.R.'s finger and no staff members had noticed.
                                                                       noticed. Ms.
             Bacher personally
                    personally witnessed Petitioner eating food off of IM.R's
                                                                       I.M.R.'s tray and

             had to "redirect" him not to do so.
                                             so, And she had witnessed him intimidating
             I.M.R., pressuring her to change her drink selection
                                                        selection ("[H]e
                                                                  ("[HJe told her no. You
             don't drink that.
                         that. You drink the other one.") Id,
                                                          Id. at 48-50. These actions had

             led the Agency to suspend Petitioner's visits with I.M.R. Id. at 48.
                                                                IM.R. Id
          55. Carissa Beish is the Director of Nursing Services at Mountain Laurel.
          55.                                                               Laurel. She
             was familiar with IM.R.
                               I.M.R. and, similar to Ms. Bacher, characterized I.M.R.
                                                                                IM.R. as
             having
             having adjusted to the transition and doing well. Id. at 57-58. Also as with
                                                         well. Id,
             Ms. Bacher, the focus of Ms. Beish's testimony was Petitioner's behavior at
             the facility.
                 facility
                     Q:      Do you recall an event at your facility during which
                             Mr. Cardwell was yelling in in Iva's room and Iva's  lva's
                             roommate pleaded
                                       pleaded for the yelling and fighting to stop?
                     A:      Yes.

                     Q:
                     Q:      Is
                             ls it fair to say
                                           say that your facility isn't equipped
                                                    your facility       equipped to
                                                                                 to handle
                             that kind of behavior by visitors?

                     A:
                     A.      Correct.
                             Correct
                    58.
             Id. at 58

     ,,                                           32
                                                  32
     ,,
     11
            56. On cross-examination by Petitioner's counsel, Ms.
            56.On                                             Ms. Beish testified that she

                 had been made aware of Petitioner photographing staff, including while

                 staff was providing
                           providing care to IM.R.
                                             I.M.R. in her room, and that Petitioner had made

                            and ""frequent"
                 "numerous" and   frequent" complaints regarding the cleanliness of the

                 facility     alleged noncompliance with €OVID-19
                 facility and alleged                    COVID-19 infection management

                 protocols. Id,
                            Id. at 59-63.

             57. Petitioner presented
                            presented the testimony of Dr. William Kauffman.
                                                                   Kauffman. Dr. Kauffman
                 practices in the hospice
                                  hospice and nursing home setting, and was previously
                 engaged in family practice. Id,
                 engaged                     Id. at 35. He was originally presented to the

                          having been aatreating physician for IM.R.
                 Court as having                               I.M.R. He was accepted as aa

                 witness on that basis, and not as an expert. Id,
                                                              Id. at 36. However, it soon

                 became apparent that I.M.R.
                                      [.M.R. had never been aapatient of Dr. Kauffman
                                                                             Kauffman (he
                                                                                      (he
                 characterized it as
                                  as "[n]ot officially aapatient"). Id,
                                                                    Id. at 36, 43.
                                                                               43. Instead,

                  Dr. Kauffman knew Petitioner as both aapatient and aafriend. In fact, they

                 had known each other for 30 years.
                                             years. Id,
                                                    Id. at 36, 44. Dr. Kauffman had been

                  contacted by Petitioner, given Petitioner's version of events, and was
                  testifying
                  testifying as aafavor to him. Id
                                                Id. at 44.8
                                                       44. 8 Dr. Kauffman had last seen I.M.R.
                                                                                        LM.R. in
                  March 2021 when she was hospitalized in Carlisle, and presumably had
                  checked in on her as a
                                       a favor to Petitioner. Id
                                                              Id. at 37.
                                                                     37 The primary thrust of
                  Dr. Kauffman's testimony was to dispute the severity of I.M.R.'s
                                                                          IM.R.'s cognitive
                  impairment
                  impairment as characterized by Dr. Roscoe. Dr. Kauffman was skeptical of
                  the BIMS score, which he alleged could vary day-by-day, and the fact that

                  Dr. Roscoe did not evaluate IM.R.
                                              I.M.R. multiple times, because her level of

         eSee id
         See  id. (cross-examination by the Agency's counsel).
                                            Agency's counsel)

                  Q
                  Q:       ***And             your attendance here today, is that as aafavor to Mr. Cardwell? Are yo
                             And so, Doctor, your                                                                 you
                           being paid to be here today? ls
                           being paid                   Is it
                                                           it an accommodation? Can you help me do that?

I'                A;       Iam not being paid.
                                         paid

                  Q;       Okay, sorry
                           Okay  sorry.
'                 Q
                  A;
                  A:       No, that's okay,
                           No,that's  okay. So he and I talk—we
                                                      I talk -we get together maybe four times aayear because we have
                           a hobby
                           a            common, so we get together for dinner about four times a
                             hobby in common,                                                     ayear and so when he
                           told me what had happened and it   it did not make aalot of sense to me, IIsaid IIwas happy to
                           help
                           help out if I
                                       I could.
                                         could

                                                                 33
    11
    I,
it

             cognitive impairment
             cognitive impairment could also vary
                                             vary day-to-day and would have been
             exacerbated by
                         by the move into the nursing home. Id,
                                                            Id. at 39-40.
                                                                   39-40. However, he

             also confirmed that beyond
                                 beyond the BIMS score, he had no reason to disbelieve
             Dr. Roscoe's findings
                          findings regarding
                                   regarding I.M.R.
                                             IM.R. nor Dr. Roscoe's ultimate conclusion
             that she was incapacitated. Id. at 40-41.
                          incapacitated. [d,
          58.
          58. Due to time constraints, the Second Hearing was adjourned, with the
             remainder of the testimony to be presented on February 8, 2022. Id. at 67.
          59. Two days
          59.Two  days after
                       after the
                             the Second
                                 Second Hearing
                                        Hearing (February 3, 2022)
                                                (February 3, 2022) Petitioner
                                                                   Petitioner filed
                                                                              filed aa
             motion in limine seeking to have all medical and financial records obtained

             by
             by the Agency
                    Agency excluded from evidence,
                                         evidence. The basis for the motion was that

             the Records Petition had been wrongfully
                                           wrongfully granted ex parte, without notice
             to I.M.R.    Petitioner. In essence, Petitioner was making a ""fruit
                IM.R. and Petitioner,                                       fruit of the

             poisonous
             poisonous tree" argument,
                             argument, claiming that the alleged impropriety with
             respect to the information obtained via the Records Petition extended

             across the entirety of the Agency's case, and significantly prejudiced both
             I.M.R.
             IM.R. and Petitioner.
                       Petitioner
          60. The final hearing was held as scheduled on February 8, 2022
          60,                                                        2022 (the
                                                                          (the "Third
             Hearing"). The Court began
             Hearing"). 'The      began by
                                        by hearing argument from counsel for all of the
             parties
             parties regarding
                     regarding the motion in limine. N.T., Third Hearing, at 1-9. While
             the Court agreed
                       agreed with Petitioner's counsel that the Records Petition should

                                                       the Interest of
             not have been granted ex parte, citing In the          of M.B.,
                                                                       MB, 686 A.2d 877
             (Pa. CmnwIth.
             (Pa. Cmnwlth. 1996), it did not agree that significant prejudice had

             occurred, nor that the proper resolution was to exclude all of the Agency's
             evidence. Rather, the Court denied the motion, citing the facts that: (i)
                                                                                   () even
             without
             without the
                     the evidence obtained
                                  obtained using
                                           using the
                                                 the Records
                                                     Records Petition, the
                                                                       the remaining
             evidence in the possession
                             possession of the Agency
                                               Agency at the time the Emergency Petition
             was filed                  grant the emergency guardianship;
                 fled was sufficient to grant               guardianship; (ii)
                                                                          [ii] the
                                                                               the
              Agency
              Agency would have obtained all of the records at issue as aaresult of the
              emergency guardianship
              emergency guardianship (i.e.,
                                     (ie., inevitable discovery); and
                                                                  and (iii)
                                                                      (iii) Petitioner did
              not have an interest in protecting the records, as that interest belonged to

              I.M.R.
              L.M.R. N.T., Third Hearing, at 10-11
                                             10-11.

     11

     11
                                                34
     61. Petitioner's
         Petitioner's counsel specifically
                              specifically raised
                                           raised the
                                                  the question of why
                                                                  why Attorney
                                                                      Attorney
        Ghaner, as counsel for I.M.R.,
                               IM.R., had not joined in the motion in himine
                                                                      limine in order

        to protect
           protect I.M.R.'s       Id. at2.
                   LM.R's rights. Id  at 2. Attorney Ghaner first noted his concern

        that the motion in Aimine
                           limine appeared to be an attempt by Petitioner to use

        I.M.R.'s rights
                 rights as aashield to protect himself. Attorney Ghaner then

        explained his reasoning for not joining
        explained                       joining the motion in limine
                                                              imine as follows:
                 Moreover, Your Honor, and factually specific to this, I
                                                                       I have met
                 with my client two times at length because of the controversial
                 nature of this specific guardianship. I   I spent an extended
                 amount of time with her. And on neither of those occasions did
                 she present
                 she           as somebody
                      present as   somebody whowho I I believe
                                                       believe would
                                                                would have     the
                                                                         have the
                 capacity to understand the argument that is being made and
                 capacity
                 the records that
                             that were
                                  were taken.
                                       taken
                 So with that, I
                               I conducted some research and am led by Rule of
                 Professional Conduct 1.14
                                         1.14 which
                                              which directs that
                                                            that aalawyer when
                                                                            when
                 dealing
                 dealing  with  a
                                a client of diminished capacity,  shall, as far as
                 reasonably possible, maintain aa normal client/lawyer
                 relationship.
                 relationship
                 That rule goes on to state that if the lawyer reasonably believes
                 that the client is of diminished capacity and at aasubstantial
                 risk
                 risk of physical,
                         physical, financial,
                                   financial, or other harm,
                                                         harm, then
                                                               then the
                                                                    the lawyer
                                                                        lawyer can
                                                                               can
                 seek
                 seek the
                       the appointment
                           appointment of aaguardian.
                                              guardian
                         exactly why we are here. For the appointment of aa
                 That is exactly
                 guardian.
                 guardian. There is       emergency guardian
                                    is an emergency    guardian in
                                                                 in place,
                                                                    place, which
                                                                           which I
                                                                                 I
                 believe is proper.
                            proper. And IIwill tell you whenever I'm called upon,
                 that based on lengthy discussions with Iva,
                                                           lva, that a
                                                                     a guardian is
                 needed.

         Id. at 8, 9.
         Id,
     62. The Agency
             Agency presented
                    presented further testimony from Ms.
                                                     Ms. Burnell and Ms. Heaton
                                                                         Heaton.

     63. Ms. Burnell's testimony was in follow-up to her original testimony
     63.Ms.
         regarding                           I.M.R. by Petitioner from the First
         regarding financial exploitation of IM.R.
         Hearing,
         Hearing, as she had been able to review
                                          review "many
                                                 "many hundreds of pages of bank
I,       documents" as well as other items in the intervening time and had prepared
 '       aafinal report. Id. at 14-16. Although Ms. Burnell did not provide aafinal
                 report. Id,
         number for the amount of misappropriated assets, she noted aanumber of
         transactions and occurrences that totaled hundreds of thousands of dollars,

                                             35
         and
         and which led her
                       her to
                           to the
                              the conclusion that financial
                                                  financial exploitation had been
         substantiated. Id. at 23.
         substantiated.        23. These included:
         a.a. The assets that were to have been transferred into the income-only
                                                                     income- only trust

            for I.M.R.
                IM.R. were not the properties
                                   properties actually transferred into it.
                                                                        it. The
            properties that had been transferred into it
            properties                                it were sold in January 202O,
                                                                              2020,

            with no indication of what happened to the proceeds. Although it
                                                                          it

            appeared
            appeared that they
                          they had
                               had been
                                   been placed
                                        placed in the joint account
                                                  the joint account between I.M.R.
                                                                    between LM.R.
            and Petitioner
            and            at Members
                Petitioner at Members First
                                      First Bank,
                                            Bank, there
                                                  there was,
                                                        was, at
                                                             at most, only $103,000
                                                                most, only $ 103,000

            of those assets remaining. Id,
                                       Id. at 17.

         b. Also with respect
                      respect to the Members First account, in November 2018
                     of IM.R.'s
            $180,000 0f I.M.R.'s money had been transferred into that account. By

            March 2019 very little of those funds were left. The funds were spent in

            aaway
              way that both violated the Multiple Parties Account Act and that would
            penalize I.M.R. in terms of eligibility for medical assistance, including
            penalize IM.R.
                                                 $ 41,000 paid to vendors who were
             $81,000 that was withdrawn in cash, $41,000
             not identified or who could not be identified in terms of the services
             they
             they provided, and
                            and $$18,000
                                  18,000 paid to vendors dealing in automotive

             repair
             repair and restoration, including painting                     Id. at 18.
                                               painting and transportation. Id,
            Payments that were received from aaDarren M.
         c. Payments                                  M. Weaver/Weaver
                                                         Weaver/Weaver Family
             Farm, which appeared to be ground rent paid for the use of property

             owned by I.M.R.
                      IM.R. and payment for property of I.M.R.
                                                        IM.R. that was sold to
             Mr. Weaver, had been made via check payable to Petitioner and

             deposited in
             deposited in the joint account, rather
                          the joint          rather than
                                                    than the trust.
                                                             trust. The ground
                                                                        ground rent
                                                                               rent
             payment
             payment was for $24,800
                             $ 24,800 and the other check, the purpose of which

1'
             could not be definitively
                          definitively identified, was for $363,700,
                                                           $ 363,700. Id,
                                                                      Id. at 20-21.

         d. Because
            Because the
                    the property
                        property that had been held
                                               held in
                                                    in the
                                                       the trust was sold to

     I       Mr. Weaver for $250,000,
                            $ 250,000, the $ 363,700 check raised the possibility that
                                       the $363,700
             Petitioner had arranged
                            arranged some sort of installment sale of the farm still

,.           owned by
                   by I.M.R.
                      IM.R. to Mr. Weaver. That farm had aavalue of approximately
                               Mr Weaver,
I
             $800,000, and was the only significant asset I.M.R.
                                                          IM.R. had remaining. Id. at
 ,I          21-22.
             21-22
     I

                                            36
     64. In addition to the bank and land records, Ms.
     64.                                           Ms. Burnell had reviewed the

        Alleged
        Alleged POA and the trust document for the Iva
                                                   lva M. Roush Income-Only
                                                                Income- Only

        Trust. The Alleged
                   Alleged POA included
                               included aaprovision that I.M.R.
                                                         IM.R. has
                                                                has an interest in
        receiving medical assistance; the trust document includes aasimilar

        provision.
        provision. These provisions
                         provisions both authorized the holder of the property or
        power
        power to undertake actions that would hasten or facilitate such eligibility
        for I.M.R.
            IM.R. However, even if the transactions undertaken by Petitioner were
        claimed to be a ""spend
                          spend down" of assets so as to hasten such eligibility, none

        of them had that effect.
                         effect. In fact, they had just the opposite effect, potentially

        rendering
        rendering I.M.R. ineligible for up to five years into the future. Id,
                                                                          Id. at 16-17,

        18,19-20.
        18,19-20
     65. On cross-examination by IM.R's
                                 I.M.R.'s counsel, Ms. Burnell confirmed that the

        copy of the Alleged
        copy        Alleged POA she had received had not been signed by Petitioner.

        She also confirmed that it contained language requiring Petitioner to act in

        I.M.R.'s best interests. Id,
        L.M.R.'s                 Id. at 40-42
                                        40-42.

     66. Ms.
     66. Ms. Heaton's testimony
                      testimony was limited to the issues regarding Petitioner's
        visits to I.M.R.
                  I.M.R. at the Mountain Laurel facility that had been raised at the

               Hearing, and specifically
        Second Hearing,     specifically with respect to the Agency's suspension of
         Petitioner's visiting privileges.
         a. Not long
                long after IM.R.
                           I.M.R. was removed from Petitioner's home he contacted

            Ms. Heaton asking her where I.M.R. was and requesting to visit IM.R.
            Ms.                                                            I.M.R.

            Ms.        agreed to
            Ms. Heaton agreed to provide
                                 provide this
                                         this information and allow visits
                                                                    visits so long
            as Petitioner agreed
                          agreed to comply with rules established by the Agency for

            visitation.
            visitation, Those rules
                              rules were
                                    were laid
                                         laid out in an email Ms.
                                                              Ms. Heaton
                                                                  Heaton sent
            Petitioner
            Petitioner on December
                          December 10, 2021. The rules
                                                 rules included
                                                       included that
                                                                that Petitioner
                                                                     Petitioner
            would follow the rules and protocols
                                       protocols of the facility regarding
                                                                 regarding COVID-19;
            that he understood that he was not to remove or attempt to remove

             I.M.R.
             L.M.R. from the facility; that he would not
                                                     not ""engage
                                                           engage in contentious

                                    staff; and that he would
             behavior with facility staff";            would "not
                                                             "not speak with
             Mrs. Roush in an intimidating tone or upset Mrs. Roush in any way

I.           during the
             during the visit." Id. at 45-46.
                        visit." Id     45-46. After
                                              After some back
                                                         back and forth regarding
                                                                        regarding

                                             37
                  visiting
                  visiting hours, Petitioner agreed to the rules via email on December 13th.
                                                                                       13,
                  Id. at 46.
                  Id,
             b.   Problems with Petitioner's behavior at Mountain Laurel began almost
                  immediately.
                  immediately. On December 15th,
                                           15t, the Agency received its first call from
                  the facility regarding
                               regarding Petitioner's behavior there. Between December
                  15, 2021, and
                            and January
                                January 13, 2022,
                                            2022, Ms. Heaton
                                                      Heaton received
                                                             received 11 separate
                  reports
                  reports from the facility regarding Petitioner's behavior and actions
                                                                                actions.

                  The issue was significant enough that the Agency was in danger of losing

                  the placement
                      placement for I.M.R.,
                                    IM.R., as the facility was prepared to discharge I.M:R.
                                                                                     IM.R.
                  if the behavior continued.
                                  continued. As a
                                                a result the Agency, both of its own
 I
                  volition and on the request
                                      request of the facility, suspended Petitioner's visiting
,,
                  privileges. Id,
                  privileges. Id. at 47-48. Ms.
                                            Ms. Heaton noted that before this action
                  occurred, she had communicated with Petitioner's counsel regarding
                  the issue, but that no change in
                                                in Petitioner's behavior and actions

                            dI. at 48.
                  resulted. Id,
              c. Ms. Heaton further testified that in her roughly 30 years of working for
                  the Agency,
                      Agency, she could only recall suspending visits for family members
                  in two or three cases. She concurred that it was a "pretty severe action"
                  to get to that point. Id,
                                        Id. at 48-49.
                                               48--49.
           67. Cross-examination of Ms. Burnell and Ms. Heaton by Petitioner's counsel
           67,Cross-examination
              mirrored what occurred at the First Hearing. Ms. Burnell was repeatedly
              questioned about the sufficiency of her methods and the information she
              questioned
              reviewed as well as her conclusions that the Alleged POA and trust

              document did not permit Petitioner to make unfettered use of1.MR.'s
                                                                        of I.M.R.'s assets

              for his own benefit. Id,
                                   Id. at 24-38. Ms. Heaton was questioned regarding the

              sufficiency
              sufficiency of the Agency's
                                 Agency's communications with Petitioner prior to the
     f        removal of I.M.R.,
                         LM.R, the sufficiency
                                   sufficiency of its actions with respect to suspending
              visits and not providing
                             providing alternatives such as video calls, the quality of the
      I       Mountain Laurel facility,
                              facility, and the timeliness of aanotification to Petitioner
              regarding
              regarding a "lump" that had been discovered on I.M.R.'s       Id. at 59.
                                                             IM.R's armpit. Id,
     I',
              Nothing raised on cross-examination weakened the Agency's evidence, and
     11

                                                   38
                                                   38
I

ii           at times it strengthened it (including
                                         [including with respect to the unreasonableness
             of Petitioner's demands and behavior).
                                         behavior].
          68.
          68. Petitioner
              Petitioner presented
                         presented the testimony
                                       testimony of Terry Lynn
                                                          Lynn Lumbard-Monnat,
                                                               Lumbard-Monnat, Valerie
                                                                               Valerie
             Scott, and himself
                        himself.

          69. Ms. Lumbard-Monnat is LM.R's
          69,Ms.                    I.M.R.'s niece and Petitioner's first cousin,
                                                                          cousin. She lives

             in New York state and has a
                                       a cottage in Black Lake, New York. Her testimony
                        I.M.R.'s cognitive capacity, the relationship between IM.R.
             focused on IM.R.'s                                               I.M.R. and

             Petitioner, and IM.R.'s
                             I.M.R.'s condition while in Petitioner's care. She had last

             seen I.M.R. in September
                            September 2021 when they
                                                they came to her cottage for aa
             weeklong
             weeklong visit. She characterized IM.R.
                                               I.M.R. as having dementia but being able

             to care for herself, dressing
                                  dressing herself and using
                                                       using the bathroom unassisted. Id.
                                                                          unassisted. Id,
             at 61, 62-63. Per Ms.
                61,62-63,      Ms. Lumbard-Monnat, I.M.R.'s
                                                   IM.R's mind is still sharp when it
             comes to playing games, and she and Ms. Lumbard-Monnat played games
             nightly.
             nightly, Ms. Lumbard-Monnat noted multiple times that I.M.R.
                                                                   IM.R. likes to
             gamble and go to the casino.
                                  casino. Id,
                                          Id. at 61, 63, 65. She also discussed the extent

             to which I,M.R.
                      I.M.R. and Petitioner would gamble,
                                                  gamble.

                     Q:     You said that Iva
                                          lva likes to gamble.
                                                       gamble. Was that always at the
                            house or would you go to casinos?
                     A:     We would frequent a    a casino when we were together.
                                                                             together,
                            We have been to The Turning Stone,Stone. We have been to
                            Akwesasne. I  I wouldn't stay as long because Iva and
                            Bill like to gamble.
                                         gamble. My aunt more so than him. She
                            would sit there for hours and hours and hours. IIalso
                            work for the federal government,
                                                      government, so I I didn't spend
                            money
                            money the way
                                        way they
                                             they did. I
                                                       I would limit myself to maybe
                            $500.   They would
                            $500. They    would bring
                                                  bring in
                                                         in thousands.
                                                            thousands.
                     Id. at 65
                     Id,    65 (emphasis added).
                               (emphasis added)
          70. Ms. Lumbard-Monnat characterized the relationship between Petitioner
          70,Ms.
                  I.M.R. as
              and IM.R.  as "very
                            "very good," and his care of her as
                                                             as ""exceptional."
                                                                  exceptional."

              Ms. Lumbard-Monnat emphasized that I.M.R.
              Ms.                                I.M.R. always had her hair done, her
              nails done, had on nice clothes, and that Petitioner took
                                                                   tools her out to eat and

              out shopping
                  shopping all the time. Id. at 64, 65. When questioned further about
                                   time. ld,
              I.M.R.'s
              I.M.R's mental capacity, though, Ms.
                                               Ms, Lumbard-Monnat noted that aalot of

                                                 39

     II
I{                                                          I.M.R.'s childhood and
        their conversations focused on past events, such as IM.R.'s
        family. Id,
                Id. at 61, 63.

                Q:
                Q•     How was her conversation?      Could she hold aa
                       conversation and understand what you were saying,
                       make sense?

                A:     Her conversation is limited. My aunt likes to talk about
                       her childhood upbringing. Bill and her
                                                            her. We would talk
                       about going to the casino. Not aanormal conversation you
                       would have about what is going
                                                    going on, you know, in the
                       world, no.

        Id. at 63.
     71. Valarie Scott is another of1.MR.'s
     71.Valarie                   of I.M.R.'s nieces, first cousin to Petitioner, and also

        lives in New York. Her testimony was largely irrelevant. The
                                                                 'The relevant
        portions,
        portions, though,
                  though, mirrored Ms. Lumbard-Monnat's. Specifically, Ms.
                                                                       Ms. Scott

        lives jn
              in New York, had last seen I.M.R.
                                         I.M.R. when she and Petitioner visited in
                                                                                in

        September 2021, downplayed the degree of I.M.R.'s
                                                 IM.R's cognitive impairment,
        believed that I.M.R.
                      IM.R. could largely take care of herself, and noted how close
         Petitioner and I.M.R.
                        IM.R. had always
                                  always been. Id,
                                               Id. at 68--69,
                                                      68-69, 70-72,75-76.
                                                              70-72, 75-76. She also

               I.M.R.'s skill at card games
         noted IM.R.'s                games.

                 Q:
                 0:     Tell me aalittle bit about her demeanor, her well-being
                                                                     well-being?

                 A:     She was fine. She doesn't change,
                                                   change. I'm the one who calls
                        her on aaregular basis. I
                                                I have always done that.
                                                                     that She has
                        always been with us.us. She slowed down like anybody
                        does at her age, but she is still able to walk around and
                        join everybody, and she is aawhiz at cards. She is pretty
                        sharp.
         Id. at 71.
         Id,
     72. After discussion with his counsel over the lunch break, Petitioner once
         again elected to testify. Id,
                                   Id. at 77--79.
                                          77-79. Much of his testimony on direct

         examination was aarepeat
                           repeat of his testimony at the First Hearing, at times
         with more detail and at times with less, but with the same tone and

         demeanor. He did make, however, yet more troubling admissions regarding
                         I.M.R.'s
         his handling of LM.R.'s finances.

                                               40
           a. Petitioner confirmed that he, I.M.R.,
                                            IM.R., and his mechanic lived in the home
                at 3916 Tussey Lane in the James Creek area of Huntingdon County.
                However, he also claimed that they did not have aamailbox there as they

                considered it
                           it a ""cabin,"
                                  cabin," and not aaresidence. He maintained that I.M.R.'s
                                                                                  L.M.R.'s
                residence was at the farm in Dauphin County (4206
                                             Dauphin County (4206 Roush Road), and
                he consistently gave aaFranklin County mailing address for himself,
                which he later admitted was nothing
                                            nothing more than aaUPS box. Id,
                                                                         Id. at 80, 85-

                86, 129-130. He faulted the Agency for attempting to send notices to
                the
                the home in
                         in Huntingdon County, as
                            Huntingdon County,    opposed to
                                               as opposed to the out- of- county
                                                             the out-of-county
                addresses. Id,
                addresses. Id. at 85.

           b. Petitioner once again railed about the Agency, accusing it and its staff of
                         wrongdoings. Id,
                multiple wrongdoings. Id. at 84--91.
                                             84-91.

           c.   Petitioner testified that he had done extensive work to his home since

                I.M.R. had been removed to make it handicapped accessible for her, and
                that such work had been planned
                                        planned prior to the removal
                                                             removal (this
                                                                     [this was also
                raised at the First Hearing).
                                    Hearing). He believed this made his home an entirely
                appropriate and safe place for I.M.R.
                appropriate                           Id. at 92--95.
                                               IM.R. Id,     92-95.

           d. He made extensive allegations
                                allegations of poor conditions and neglectful care at
                the Mountain Laurel facility. Id. at 95-102.
                                    facility. Id,    95-102. Yet he also confirmed that

                he began
                   began making
                         making complaints to the facility administrator right away,
                focused excessively on the cleanliness of the floors, and had been taking
                pictures in the facility. Id,
                                          Id. at 97, 99-100, 102-103. This testimony also

                confirmed his absolute disregard for authority.
                    Q:
                    Q•     After you were told to leave the facility and that you were
                               longer welcome back, did anybody reach out to you to
                           no longer

I                          try
                           try to arrange
                                   arrange any
                           telephone
                                           any other form of communication like
                           telephone or video?
',                  A:     No. That's when II told you to get aahold of somebody
II                         because they
                                    they can't stop
                                                stop me from seeing my mom. I   I
    '                      don't care who they are.
    11          ld.
    l           Id. at 103
                       103 (emphasis
                           (emphasis added).

    "1''

                                               41
                                    I.M.R.'s only sources of income were rental
       e. Petitioner confirmed that IM.R's
            from the farm in the amount of
                                        of $25,000
                                           $ 25,000 annually and Social Security

                        $ 1,375 monthly. Id. at 106.
                     of $1,375
            payments of
       f.         I.M.R.'s husband died in
            After LM.R.'s               in 2018, her land assets included the core

                   farm ((128
            family farm   128 acres in Dauphin County) and an unspecified number

            of properties in the surrounding area. Petitioner testified that at that
                  I.M.R. gave him all of the properties.
            point IM.R.                      properties. Id,
                                                         Id. at 107.
                                                                107, He then sold all of
                properties other than the farm, because the farm was generating
            the properties
            income, and claimed that he had put the farm into the income- only trust
                                                                  income-only
                I.M.R. He claimed that doing this allowed himself and I.M.R.
            for LM.R.                                                 IM.R. to avoid
            paying $$375,000
            paying   375,000 in
                             in taxes. Id,
                                       Id. at 107-108.

       g.g. Petitioner confirmed that Darren Weaver was the person who was
            leasing the farm and who had purchased all of the other properties. Id.

            at 109.

       h.   Petitioner's testimony took aamarked turn when he addressed the funds

            from the Members First Bank joint account.
                Q:
                Q:     From the—
                             the-IIbelieve it was just the Member's[sic] First
                       bank account. What do you  you have to say in response to
                       any of that
                              that [Ms.
                                   [Ms. Burrell's testimony] as far as any kind of
                       explanation?
"'              A:     Well, there is no explanation to it.
                                                         it.All
                                                            All that money was
                       put in that account belonged to me.
                                                         me. My mom gave me
                       all of that.
                              that. That'
                                    That'sswhy it's in there.
                                                       there, The only income
                       my mom has is $1357
                                        $1357 in social security, and she has
                       the  $ 25 ,
                                 000 coming in from the farm.
                       the $25,000
                Q:     If
                       [f there ever was a
                                         a time mom needed long-term care and
                       was unable to afford it—
                                            it--
                A:     Never will my mom not afford anything.         If she needs
                       something, IIprovide for it.
                Q:
                Q•     Was there ever aatime that mom was hospitalized and
                       couldn't pay a
                                    a hospital bill?
                A:
                A.     No.
                       No

                Q:     Was there ever a a time that you didn't have enough
                       money to pay for food or medicine or anything else?

                                            42

 "I'
 ,,
           A:      No. I
                       I have
                         have $40,000 in food at my house right now. I'm
                              $40,000
                   a preparer.
                   a  preparer.      I
                                     I have got aa building buried
                   underground
                   underground   full of food
                                         food..There is no way we're ever
                   going
                   going to be without anything.
L Id
i. Id. at 110-111
          110-111 (emphasis added).
                  (emphasis added)
j.j.    Per Petitioner, when I.M.R.
                             IM.R. received the $ 250,000 check from her
                                            the $250,000
        husband's life insurance policy,
                                 policy, she simply signed it over to him and
        gave       him. Id. at 112. Petitioner testified that he put the funds into
        gave it to him.
        the joint bank account, put I.M.R.'s
                                    L.M.R.'s name on the property in Huntingdon
        County, and then used the funds to build aa50x80x16 shop building and
        automotive paint
                   paint booth on the property. He also testified that he put an
        addition on the house that doubled its size, but then clarified that this
                       L.M.R. had been removed. Id. at 113.
        occurred after I.M.R.
 k. Petitioner believed that the additions greatly improved the value of the
        property in Huntingdon County, and that it could be sold
        property                                            sold (along
                                                                 [along with
        other property
              property he owns) if he ever needed funds to pay for IM.R.'
                                                                   I.M.R.'s
                                                                         s long-
        term care. Id,
                   Id. at 114.
                          114
 I.1.   Petitioner closed his direct testimony with the following troubling
        admissions:
        admissions
            Q:
            Q:     Anything
                   Anything in relation to mom's finances that we didn't
                   cover here today that you want to make sure?

            A:     No.
                   No. Mom's finances are very simple,simple. It's
                                                              It's $1357
                                                                   $ 1357 and
                   $25,000 for farm rental,
                                       rental. That's her finances. So when
                   they
                   they   are confused     about the money
                                                      money coming in and
                               account,it's very simple,
                   out of the account,             simple .The money going
                   into the account is mine. The money coming out of the
                                $ 25,000 and
                   account is $25,000     and $$1357,
                                                1357, which those are for her
                   hair, to do her nails, doctor appointments. Whatever she
                   needed is covered.

            Q:
            Q•     Is it true that mom liked
                   Isit                lilted to
                                              to gamble as well?

            A:     Oh absolutely. I       take $
                                  I would take   10,000 out of the bank,
                                               $10,000
                   and we would go to the casinos. That's why there is
                   cash withdrawals all over the place.
                                                  place

        Id. at 117
               117 (emphasis added).
                   (emphasis added].

                                        43
         73. On cross-examination by the Agency's counsel, Petitioner exhibited aa
         73.0n
            significant degree of confusion regarding what property was in
                                                                        in the trust for

            I.M.R., swearing
                    swearing that he thought the farm was in it, but also claiming he had
            not transferred title to it. Id,
                                         Id. at 119, 120.
                                                     120. He claimed that he was given no
            explanation as to how the Alleged
                                      Alleged POA was supposed to work, and could
            not recall if he had ever signed it as I.M.R.'s
                                                   IM.R's agent. Petitioner went so far as
            to attempt
               attempt to have his counsel answer whether there existed aasigned copy
            of the Alleged
                   Alleged POA. Id,
                                Id. at 120-122. He was unaware of any of the

            requirements
            requirements for exercising aafinancial power of attorney, such as keeping

l           separate accounts
            separate accounts for his own and I.M.R.'s property,
                                          and IM.R's   property, keeping
                                                                 keeping records
                                                                         records of all
            transactions, and fiduciary duties generally. Id,
                                                          Id. at 122-123
                                                                 122-123.

         74. Petitioner confirmed that the $$360,000
         74.                                 360,000 deposited from Mr. Weaver was a
                                                                                   a
            loan to him, stating
                         stating ""IIborrow money off of Weaver any time IIwant to." He

            claimed that there was no full agreement for Mr
                                                         Mr. Weaver to buy the farm,

            but that there was an option to buy in
                                                in the lease agreement and
                                                                       and "Weaver
                                                                           "Weaver will
            probably
            probably end up
                         up with the farm because he bought
                                                     bought all the rest of it." Id,
                                                                                 Id. at

             126-127. Petitioner further confirmed that he believed the farm was in the
             126-127,
            trust, even though
                        though it was still held in the name of I.M.R.
                                                                IM.R. and her deceased
            husband. Id,
                     Id. at 128.

         75. Cross-examination by I.M.R.'s
         75.Cross-examination     LM.R.'s counsel largely affirmed the testimony
             Petitioner provided the Agency's counsel. He once again confirmed that he

             did not have aacopy of the Alleged POA that he had signed, this time
             claiming that he would have to call Attorney O"Toole.
             claiming                                     O'Toole. Id,
                                                                   Id. at 131-133. He

             further claimed that he had done everything according to her wishes or in
             her best interest before providing the following testimony regarding the

             improvements to the Huntingdon County property.
                    Q:
                    Q:     You testified that you built a
                                                        a 50 by 80 by 16 building?
                    A:
                    A.     Yes.
                           Yes
                    Q:     On the property?
                    A:     Yes.

                                               44
                                               44
    11
                     Q:     It has aapaint
                            Ithas    paint booth in
                                                 in the back?

                     A:     Yes.
                            Yes
                     Q:
                     Q:           paint booth is for refurbishing cars, for painting
                            That paint
                            cars?
                     A:
                     A.     Yes.

                     Q:      Does your mom paint cars?
                     A:      My mom? No.
                     Q:      But you have used money from her to build that building?

i'                   A:      No.
                             No. I used my money that my mom gave me to build the
                                  ]used
                             build the garage and put the big addition on the house.
                             That's when II put my mom on the property
                     Q:
                     Q:      How was that building
                                          building benefitting your mom?
                     A:      It doesn't have to benefit mom,mom. Everything in that
                             building
                             building is sellable stuff,
                                                     stuff. If mom needs any kind of
                             care, that is how I I make money. That's how—set
                                                                          how--set up
                             for me to make money. It has nothing to do with my
                             mom. Other than mom lives there. IIasked mom what
                             were we gonna
                                       gonna do.
                                              do. She said you have got the money; use
                             it. And that's what II did.
                      Id. at 133-134
                      Id,    133-134 (emphasis
                                     (emphasis added).
           76. On re-
           76.0n      direct, Petitioner alleged that he had
                  re-direct,                             had $ 250,000 worth of cars in the
                                                             $250,000
              building
              building that could be sold
                                     sold "within two weeks" to raise money to fund care
              for I.M.R. Id. at 134.
                  LM.R. Id      134
           77. Finally, follow-up questions from the Court revealed that Petitioner had not
           77Finally,
              filed aafederal income tax return since at least 2015
                                                               2015 ("
                                                                     ("IIdon't file a
                                                                                    a tax return
 l            because I'm disabled.
                          disabled. I
                                    I stopped doing that."),
                                                    that.") had not notified the IRS that
 ,1
              he had received significant funds from I.M.R., and likely had not even

               accounted for income from the sale of IM.R's
                                                     I.M.R.'s properties appropriately for

              tax           Id. at 137-138.
              tax purposes. Id,
           78.
           78. The Court ordered that transcripts be prepared of all of the hearings, and
               allowed the parties
                           parties 30 days
                                      days after the filing of the transcript for the Third

               Hearing
               Hearing to file proposed
                               proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The
     ,1'
     u
     I

                                                  45
             transcript
             transcript was filed on February 28, 2022, meaning the parties had until
             March 30, 2022, to make their filings.
                                           filings.
          79. On March 30, 2022, the Agency filed an emergency petition for relief,
          79,0n
             seeking to set aside and vacate an alleged transfer by Petitioner of the farm
             seeking
.",
             from I.M.R.
                  IM.R. to the trust. The transfer was evidenced by aadeed executed by
             Petitioner on March 16, 2022, allegedly acting as power of attorney for

             I.M.R., and recorded in the Dauphin County land records on March 18, 2022.
                                                                                  20Z2.
          80. A
              A hearing
                hearing was
                        was held
                            held on the
                                    the emergency
                                        emergency petition
                                                  petition on April    2022 (the
                                                              April 7, 2022 (the ""Fourth
                                                                                   Fourth

             Hearing").
             Hearing"). The Agency
                            Agency presented the testimony of Ms. Hughes,
                                                                  Hughes, and
             Petitioner presented the
             Petitioner presented the testimony
                                      testimony of
                                                of himself.
                                                   himself
          81. Per Ms. Hughes, the Agency learned of the transfer from the Huntingdon
             County
             County Assistance Office, which was evaluating
                                                 evaluating I.M.R.'s
                                                            IM.R.'s eligibility
                                                                     eligibility for
             medical assistance. As of the date just prior to the transfer, I.M.R.
                                                                            IM.R. had aa
                       of $748.269.60,
             "penalty" of $ 748.269.60, which would mean she was not eligible for
:I           medical assistance for 4.24 years. The transfer made by Petitioner added
11

      I      $699,660 to the penalty amount, and extended the period of ineligibility to
             eight years. N.T., Fourth Hearing, at 1-3.
          82. After claiming that he had made the transfer solely to address the matter of
             the farm not being in the trust that was raised at the Third Hearing,

             Petitioner
             Petitioner testified
                        testified that
                                  that he
                                       he had
                                          had searched through
                                                       through I.M.R.'s
                                                               IM.R's documents and
             found not one but two prior powers of attorney.
                                                   attorney, The first was from 2008
             and the second was from 2016. Both had been signed by him. Id,
                                                                        Id. at 10-12.

              He was able to locate it in aapile of papers
                                                    papers "in
                                                           "in my truck" which apparently
              also included I.M.R.'s
                            IM.R's will. [d,
                                         Id. at 12, 13. After further examination by

              counsel for all parties regarding
                                      regarding matters surrounding the execution and

              notarization of the powers
                                  powers of attorney, and hearing legal argument from
              counsel for the Agency and for I.M.R.,
                                             IM.R., the Court took aa15- minute recess to
                                                                     15-minute
              perform legal research. Id,
              perform                 Id. at 13-28. Upon return from recess, Petitioner's

              counsel submitted to the court an executed copy of the Alleged POA, which
              Petitioner claimed he had also found in the pile of documents in his truck.

              Id. at 28.
                     28. After making clear on the record that it was not making any

                                                46
           determinations regarding
                          regarding the validity or invalidity of any of the three
            powers
            powers of attorney that had been presented
                                             presented (including
                                                       [including the Alleged POA),
            the Court set aside and vacated the transfer of the farm due to the alleged

            agent's failure to act in good
                                      good faith and failure to act loyally for the
            principal's benefit. Id. at 28-29. This was set forth in aawritten order
            principal's benefit.
            entered          day.
            entered the same day
            On the following day, April 8, 2022, the Court entered the order appealed
        83. 0n
            from, finding
                  finding I.M.R.
                          IM.R. totally
                                 totally incapacitated
                                         incapacitated and appointing
                                                           appointing the Agency as
            guardian of her person and estate.

                                    III.
                                    It. ANALYSIS

     A. Standard of
                 of Review and Pertinent Statutes

•           Here, the bulk of Petitioner's claims of error, though characterized as issues

     of law, are actually attacks upon this Court's determinations regarding the

     credibility of witnesses and the weight given to their testimony. This means he has
     a
     a very
       very high
            high bar to overcome.
                        overcome. The findings of an orphans' court judge, sitting

     without aajury,                                                           a jury. In
               jury, are accorded the same weight and effect as the verdict of a        In

     re: Jackson, 174 A.3d 14, 23
     re;                       23 (Pa.              (citing and quoting In re:
                                              2017) (citing
                                  (Pa. Super. 2017)                        re: Paxson

     Trust
     Trust1,I, 893 A.2d 99, 112-13
                            112-13 (Pa.        2006). They cannot be reversed by an
                                   (Pa. Super. 2006).
     appellate court in the
     appellate          the absence of an abuse of discretion or lack
                                                                 lack of evidentiary
              Id. This rule is of particular
     support. Id,                 particular importance when applied to findings of fact
     predicated on the credibility of witnesses and the weight
     predicated                                         weight to be given to their
     testimony. Id. It is not sufficient for an appellant to persuade the higher court that
     testimony.

     it might
        might have reached a
                           a different conclusion on the evidence than the one reached
I
     by
     by the orphans' court, as an abuse of discretion is not merely an error in judgment.
     Id. Rather, to establish an abuse of discretion the appellant must establish:
     Id,                                                                establish: (i)
                                                                                   (1) that
     the orphans'
         orphans' court overrode or misapplied the law;
                                                   law; (ii)
                                                        [ii) the determination of the
     orphans' court is manifestly unreasonable; or
                                                or (iii)
                                                   [iii) the orphans' court acted based
     on partiality, prejudice, bias, or
        partiality, prejudice,       or ill-will, as shown by
                                                           by the
                                                              the evidence of record.
                                                                              record. Id.
     The orphans' court's findings will be upheld if they are supported by competent

                                                 47

11
     and adequate evidence, and will be overruled only if they are predicated upon

I capnc1ou� d1�bel1ef of competent and credible evidence kl.
     capricious disbelief of competent and credible evidence. Id.

                   Under 20 Pa. C.S. $§ 5601(d), aapower of attorney, other than one that is
                   Under20Pa.CS.
     limited to making
                making decisions regarding
                                 regarding health care or mental health care, is valid

 I only if accompanied
           accompanied by an acknowledgment signed by the agent using the form
     specified in the statute. 9

,:
           ""~"..do-otoo
            Under 20 Pa. C.S. § 5601.3(a), an agent who has accepted appointment

     under
     under a
           a power    attorney (other
             power of attorney (other than
                                      than one that
                                               that is limited to malting
                                                                  making decisions
     regarding
     regarding health care or mental health care) shall do the following, regardless of
     any provisions in the power
                           power of attorney to the contrary:
                   (1) Act in accordance with the principal's reasonable expectations to
                   (1)Act
                   the extent actually known by the agent and, otherwise, in the
                   principal's
                   principal's best interest.
                                    interest
                   (2) Act in
                   (2)        good faith.
                           in good
                   (3) Act only within the scope of authority granted in the power of
                   attorney.
                   attorney

 I' !JI.
     Id.

     B. Granting of
                 of the Records Petition Without Notice and Opportunity to Respond
                   Petitioner's first and second claims of error address the issue of the Court

     granting the Records Petition ex parte. Although Petitioner takes aaslightly
     granting
     different tack here, these are the same claims he raised in his February 3, 2022,

     9 See   id.

                   (d) Acknowledgment executed by agent-An
                   (d)Acknowledgment                agent.--An agent shall have no authority to act as agent under
                       power of attorney unless the agent has first executed and affixed to the power of attorney
                   the power
                   an acknowledgment inin substantially the following form;
                                                                      form

                            I,   , have read the attached power of attorney and am
                            l. ...,have                                         am the person
                            identified as the agent for the principal,
                                                            principal. I
                                                                       I hereby acknowledge that when I
                                   agent;
                            act as agent

                            IIshall act in
                                        in accordance with the principal's reasonable expectations to the
                             extent actually known by me and, otherwise,
                                                                 otherwise, in the principal's best interest,
                             act in good
                                    good faith and act only within the scope of authority granted to me by
                             the principal in the power of attorney.
                                                            attorney

                                                          (Agent)                                  (Date)

                                                                 48
      motion in limine. In the motion, Petitioner sought relief in the form of exclusion of

      all of the evidence obtained as aaresult of the Records Petition. Here, Petitioner
      proffers
      proffers no solution, but makes the bare claim that the granting of the Records
      Petition was
               was "an
                   "an abuse of discretion and/or an error of law." The Court believes
      that appropriate and thorough discussion of the issues raised, and explanation of
'     its reasons for denyrng
                      denying the
                              Lhe motion, occurred in open court at the beginning of the
            Hearing. See N.T., Third Hearing, at 1-11. However, aabrief treatment is
      Third Hearing.
      appropriate here
                  here.

                 As stated at the Third Hearing, the Court agrees with Petitioner that the

      Records Petition should not have been granted ex parte without notice and
      opportunity to respond for I.M.R.
                                 LM.R.IO10 This holding is based on In the          of M.B
                                                                       the Interest of M.B.,

          A.2d 877
      686 A.24 877 (Pa. Cmnwlth. 1996).
                   (Pa. Cmnwth.  1996). The Court does not, however, agree that

      Petitioner himself had aaright to notice and opportunity to respond. Despite being

      I.M.R.'s son!'
      IM.R's   son 11 and despite allegedly having aapower of attorney to manage her

      affairs, he did not have aadirect interest in preventing disclosure of LM.R.'s
                                                                             I.M.R.'s records

      to the Agency.
             Agency, First, the fact that an individual has aapower of attorney does not
      mean that they
                they are automatically substituted for their principal in all legal matters.
      Rather, it only permits the holder to act on the principal's behalf. Second, and

      more significantly,
           significantly, the simple fact that Petitioner is I.M.R.'s
                                                             IM.R.'s son does not give him aa
      direct interest in protecting her records.
                 Having established that the Records Petition should not have been granted

      without notice to I.M.R.,
                        IM.R., the question turns to the appropriate resolution.
                                                                     resolution
      Petitioner would have the entirety of the evidence thrown out, the matter
      dismissed, and I.M.R. dropped off on his doorstep. This is nowhere close to
      appropriate. Such drastic action does not even occur in criminal matters without
      appropriate.
      careful consideration and analysis. Here, the Court, after finding no controlling
    I• caselaw, looked to
                       to the
                          the nature
                              nature of the
                                        the error and
                                                  and the impact it            case. The
                                                                 it had on the case

    I ·,- ,Th-,-�-�--,-ro-�-•-.-., -,-,.-=- r
                   •• corrected this error lo
      to The Court has                        procedure for records
                                           in pl'O«dn..,             ""!"•st•
                                                            r,rords requests und,r
                                                                             under th•
                                                                                   the DAl'M In future matters, and
                                                                                       OAPSA in
      does not take the issue lightly,
                              lightly

      11 Because the records request
                              request falls under the 0AP'SA,
                                                        OAPSA, and not
                                                                   not §$5511
                                                                         SS 11 of the Probate, Estates and Fiduciaries
      Code (the
      Code  (the "PE
                  PEF Code;
                      Code"; 20 Pa, C.S. §§ 101,
                                 Pa.CS.$8        etseq.),
                                            101 et  seq.) the expanded standing provision of $§ 5511(a)
                                                                                                 SS11(a) does not apply
      to the Records Petition
                     Petition.

                                                             49
     most reasonable approach was to place the Agency
                                               Agency in the position it would have
     been at the time of the filing of the Emergency Petition had the Records Petition

     not been granted,
              granted, and then determine whether the remaining evidence was
     sufficient to support the emergency
                               emergency guardianship. This would mean that the
     Agency would have the testimony of Ms. Parks
                                            Parks (conditions
                                                  (conditions inside the home, I.M.R.'s
                                                                               IM.R.'s
     care needs and cognitive impairment, and lack of round-the-clock care), Ms.
     Hughes
     Hughes (report
            (report of walkaway incident from PSP,
                                              SP, denial of access to I.M.R.
                                                                      IM.R. by
     Petitioner, intimidating and aggressive behavior by Petitioner at the home), and

     Ms. Heaton
         Heaton (attempts
                [attempts by Petitioner to intimidate the Agency into backing down,
, retaliatory
  retaliatory actions against the Agency
                                  Agency by Petitioner). These were more than
                                  I.M.R. was incapacitated and in need of an emergency
     sufficient to establish that IM.R.

°    guardian of both her person
     guardian             person and her estate. As soon as the Agency was appointed
     as emergency guardian,
                  guardian, it had
                               had full
                                   full right
                                        right and authority
                                                  authority to access the
                                                                      the records
                                                                          records at
     issue. As aaresult, it was inevitable that the medical and financial records in

ii question
     question would have been discovered by the Agency and entered as evidence in
            would have been discovered by the Agency and entered as evidence in
     this matter. The error was therefore harmless.
   this matter, The error was therefore harmless.
,.          It must be noted that there are equitable considerations at play here. As

     noted by both counsel for the Agency and counsel for I.M.R.,
                                                          IM.R., the motion in limine
     ultimately
     ultimately amounted to the
                            the ""alleged
                                  alleged perpetrator
                                          perpetrator...• of financial exploitation asking
     that the Court enforce the victim's rights so that he doesn't get in trouble for what

     he did to the victim." NT.,
                            N.T., Third Hearing, at 6-7
                                                    6-7 (argument
                                                        (argument of Attorney Kipphan);
     see al
     $Re    so id.
         also         8-10 (argument
               id, at 8-10 (argument of Attorney Ghaner).
                                                 Ghaner). The focus of this matter is

     I.M.R., and not Petitioner. Allowing him to enforce her rights to shield himself so

     that he may
             may continue his abusive behavior toward her and her property would
     amount to an abuse of the law and of the courts.

     C.   Granting of the Emergency
          Granting of     Emergency Petition
            Petitioner's third and fourth claims of error pertain
                                                          pertain to the granting of the
     Emergency
     Emergency Petition. The third claim is that the Court erred in granting the
     Emergency
     Emergency Petition without aahearing
                                  hearing "when
                                          "when there was no adequate proof of an
     actual emergency." The fourth claim pertains
                                         pertains to the granting of the Petition

                                               so
                                               50
     "without any medical expert testimony or any medical evidence showing aaneed
     for guardianship."

              The Court has reviewed the extensive record and filings in this matter, and
     has not found aapoint at which Petitioner has raised these specific issues before.

     This means that they
                     they have been waived.
                                    waived. However, in the event that the Superior
     Court finds that they have not been waived or are non-waivable, the Court
     addresses them here
                    here.

              As an initial matter, it must be noted that while
                                                          while §$ 5513 of the PEF Code
     incorporates the requirements for full guardianship proceedings under
                                                                     under §$ 5511, it
     also provides
          provides an exception for those requirements in situations where
                                                                     where "the
                                                                           "the court
     has found that it is not feasible in the circumstances" to satisfy them prior to

     granting the emergency guardianship. See.&.g
                                          See, e.g., In re:
                                                        re; Sylvester, 598 A.2d 76, 78,
  82 (Pa. Super. 1991)
/ 82(Pa.         199 1) (orphans' court properly dispensed with
                                                           with §$ 5511 notice to the
• appellants, both holders of powers of attorney executed by the incapacitated
     person
     person and both executors under his will, under the exception set forth in $§ 5513;
     appellants were alleged to have been isolating the incapacitated person from his
     friends, disposing of his assets against his wishes, and misappropriating his assets
     for their own benefit; notice to the appellants under such circumstances would
     have provided them with time to take additional harmful actions toward to the
     incapacitated person
                   person and hide assets so they could not be recovered).
                                                               recovered).A?
                                                                           12 Thus,
     there are situations in which the requirements of
                                                    of 8§ 5511 may be waived.
                                                                      waived.13
              Turning to the analysis of Petitioner's third and fourth claims, these claims
     of error present aaquestion that is somewhat convoluted, but ultimately easily
' resolved. Specifically, Petitioner is arguing from aaposition that assumes his late-
Ii
 '------
        Seealso
     1zSee  also hare:  Estate of
                 In re; Estate of Dorone, 517 Pa.
                               Doro4,          Pa. 3,7,
                                                     7, 9
                                                        9 (1987)
                                                          (1987) (The
                                                                  (The orphans' court properly disposed of notice to the
     Incapacitated person's parents and conducted aabrief hearing via telephone with the administrator and
     incapacitated
     surgeon
     surgeon for the
                   the hospital
                       hospital where
                                where the incapacitated
                                           incapacitated person
                                                           person was
                                                                   was aapatient
                                                                         patient before granting
                                                                                        granting the
                                                                                                 the emergency petition
     to appoint
        appoint aa temporary
                    temporary guardian
                               guardian to consent to medical procedures; the incapacitated person had been
     seriously injured in an accident, was unconscious, needed emergency surgery, was lying on the operating table
     at the time of the telephone
                         telephone hearing, and his parents refused to give permission for aablood transfusion
     necessary for the surgery
                         surgery to occur
                                    occur; the orphans' court's actions were reasonable under the circumstances]
                                                                                                      circumstances).

        The Court
     13The  Court notes       it recognizes
                  notes that it  recognizes and respects the need to follow
                                                                     follow the
                                                                            the requirements    § 5511 in regard
                                                                                requirements of 65511in     regard to
                                                                                                                    to
     emergency guardianships
     emergency   guardianships in the absence of circumstances that render such compliance not feasible.      Involving
                                                                                                   feasible. Invoking
     this exception is not the standard practice of the Court, and the issue should have been noted clearly n in the
     order granting the Emergency
                         Emergency Petition.
                                      Petition

                                                             51
     filed motion in limine precludes any consideration of the information the Agency

     obtained using the records request.
                                request. This is significant because the Agency
                                                                         Agency based
     the Emergency Petition exclusively on the medical information obtained from Dr.

     Sellers, and did not include any of the information obtained from Ms. Parks or by

     Ms. Hughes's
         Hughes's and Ms. Heaton's interactions
                  and Ms.          interactions with
                                                with I.M.R.
                                                     IM.R. and Petitioner.
                                                               Petitioner.

            1. Analysis of the Emergency Petition as filed.
            The Court believes that the equities of this situation, including the facts that
     the motion in limine was filed late in the action and that the Agency's
     unprecedented difficulty in obtaining records and information regarding IM.R.
                                                                             I.M.R.

II   was
     w.1� due to Petitioner's
                 Petitioner'� own actions, do not merit excluding the information from
     Dr. Sellers in analyzing the Emergency Petition. Moving forward on this basis
                                                                             basis (i.e.,
                                                                                   (i.e.
     on the information the Court was actually presented with at the time the
     Emergency Petition was filed), Petitioner's claims have no merit. The Emergency
     Petition clearly alleged that I.M.R.
                                   l.M.R. was in
                                              in immediate need of round-the-clock
                                                                   round-the-dock care,
     did not have such care, and could not provide for her own care and safety due to
     her cognitive impairment. That is an emergency situation by any objective
     measure, and thus the Court appropriately moved forward prior to conducting aa

     hearing so that appropriate housing
                                 housing and care could be provided for I.M.R.
                                                                        IM.R.
     immediately. This addresses Petitioner's third claim. As for his fourth claim, the
     immediately.
j: Emergency
   Emergenly Petition was supported
                          supported by the statement from Dr. Sellers, which is
     sufficient to meet the requirements of
                                         of $§ 5518 of the PEF Code.

            2. Analysis in the absence of information obtained using the Records
               Petition.

            Assuming, arguendo, that Petitioner's position is correct, and that the

     Emergency
     Emergency Petition must be evaluated without the benefit of information obtained
     using the Records Petition, the only fair and equitable way to address the situation

     is to evaluate the position the Agency would have been in without the Records
     Petition, and therefore what information it could have included in the Emergency

                                               52
 Petition. 14 Even proceeding on this basis, Petitioner's third and fourth claims of
 Petition.IM
 error fail.
       fail
          As noted above, Ms.
                          Ms. Parks provided significant, credible testimony
 regarding
 regarding the degree of I.M.R.'s cognitive impairment, her need for constant
 monitoring and care, the failure of Petitioner to provide such constant monitoring

  and care, and the deplorable living conditions in Petitioner's home. Ms.
                                                                       Ms. Hughes

  provided credible testimony regarding Petitioner's tight control over IM.R.,
                                                                        I.M.R., his

  intimidation of I.M.R.,
                  LM.R., his attempts to intimidate Ms. Hughes, his refusal to allow
  I.M.R. to be interviewed separately, his refusal to allow anyone from the Agency
  inside the home, and his refusal to provide any information regarding IM.R.'s
                                                                        I.M.R.'s

  medical condition and financial resources. Ms.
                                             Ms. Hughes's testimony was supported
  by the testimony of Ms. Heaton, which further included Petitioner's attempts
                                                                      attempts to
  harass and intimidate the Agency into dropping its investigation. Finally, there
  was the highly concerning nature of the walkaway that occurred in September
  2021. This information is more than sufficient to establish that IM.R.
  2021.                                                            I.M.R. was at risk

  and an emergency situation existed, such that she needed to be removed from the
  home prior to aahearing being held. This negates Petitioner's third claim.

           With respect to Petitioner's fourth claim, Petitioner's assertion that the
  Agency was
  Agency was required
             required to
                      to present
                         present the
                                 the Court
                                     Court with
                                           with medical
                                                medical expert
                                                        expert testimony
                                                               testimony and
                                                                         and

I'i medical
  medical evidence showing aneed for an emergency guardianship is false as a
            evidence showing a need for an emergency guardianship is false as a
  matter of law.
    matter of law.
           Medical testimony is of great significance since it assists the trial court
           in determining the nature, severity, and consequences of an alleged
           incompetent's disability,
                           disability. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has stated
           in dicta that
                     that "[e]xpert
                          "[e]xpert testimony is needed when transactions fall
           within the penumbra between competence and incompetence, when
           the light
                light of reason may may come andand go
                                                     go unbidden." Hagopian
                                                                        Hagopian v   v.
           Eskandarian, 396 Pa.         404,153
                               Pa. 401, 404,                899 ( 1959),cert
                                             153 A.2d 897, 899(1959)     cent. denied,
           361 U.S.
                 0.S. 938, 80 S.Ct. 381, 4 4 L.Ed.2d
                                              LEd.2d 358 ((1960).
                                                              1960). However, the
           appellate  courts  have  never adopted aa rule  of evidence  which would
           require
           require the use of expert testimony in in all incompetency
                                                         incompetency proceedings
                                                                        proceedings
           without exception. The testimony of lay witnesses who have
           observed the alleged incompetent is admissible and highlyhighly probative
                                                                            probative

    To do
  4To
  14   do otherwise
          otherwise would
                    would reward
                          reward Petitioner
                                    Petitioner for
                                               for his behavior in
                                                   his behavior in stonewalling
                                                                   stonewalling the Agency and
                                                                                the Agency and ignore the
                                                                                               ignore the
  overwhelming evidence of I.M.R.'s
                           IM.R's incapacity and need for aaguardian of both her person and her estate
                                                                                                   estate.

                                                        53
            since "[o]ne's
                  "[o]ne's mental capacity is best determined by his spoken
            words, his acts, and his conduct." Urquhart Estate, 431 Pa. 134, 142,
            245 A.2d
                 A2d 141, 146146 ((1968).
                                   1968). See also Weir
                                                    Weir by
                                                         by Gasper v.v. Ciao, 364
            Pa.Super.
            Pa.Super, 490, 494-495, 528 A.2d        619-620 ((1987)
                                          A2d 616, 619-620     1987) (court
                                                                      (court may
            base finding of competency on evidence provided
                                                    provided by
                                                              by lay
                                                                 lay witness).
                                                                     witness].
            Although
            Although the introduction of expert testimony from psychiatrists,
                                                                    psychiatrists,
            psychiatric nurses, and other health care professionals is to be
            encouraged, we cannot say that lay testimony alone can never be
            sufficient to meet the heavy burden of establishing
                                                   establishing incompetency.
     In re:
     ln re; Estate of Wood,
                      Wood, 533 A.2d
                                A.24 772, 774 (Pa.
                                     772,774  (Pa. Super. 1987)
                                                          1987) (internal
                                                                (internal quotations
                                                                          quotations
     and citations as in the original).
            Here, the core allegations of the Emergency Petition were that I.M.R. was an
     83 year- old woman who suffered from debilitating cognitive impairment, was in
        year-old                                                                 in

     immediate need of round-the-clock care, and was not receiving that care.
                                                                        care. The

     Agency was in possession of, and presented to the Court at the First Hearing,

     evidence in support of those allegations from:
                                              from: ((1)
                                                      1) Ms. Parks, a
                                                                    a lay witness with
     direct and extensive knowledge of I.M.R.'s
                                       LM.R's day-to-day care needs, mental condition,
     and
     Ad living situation; and
                          and ((2)
                                2) Ms. Hughes,
                                       Hughes, a
                                               a lay witnesses experienced in the field of
 I cider care, who had personally seen the nature of the interactions between l.M.R.
     elder care, who had personally seen the nature of the interactions between I.M.R.

     and Petitioner; and
                     and (3)
                         (3) Ms. Heaton, aalay witness experienced in the field of elder
I• care who has investigated countless cases of elder abuse and neglect, who
     personally interacted with Petitioner and observed his actions in response to the
     Agency's attempts to investigate the situation and determine if LM.R.'
                                                                     I.M.R.'s
                                                                           s needs were

     being met.
           met. That evidence is
                              is sufficient both
                                            both to
                                                 to meet
                                                    meet the requirements
                                                             requirements of $§ 5518 and
!I
     to establish that I.M.R.
                       LM.R. was in need of an emergency guardian.
                                                         guardian.
I
     D.        ofAttorney O'Toole's Petition to Represent LM.R
     D. Denial of                                         I.M.R.

            Petitioner's fifth claim of error arises from his first avenue of attack against
                                                                                     against
     the guardianship proceedings, which was to attempt to have Attorney 0"Toole
                                                                         O'Toole

     appointed as counsel for I.M.R.
                              IM.R. The Court addressed this issue at length in its
     order and opinion filed January
                             January 24, 2022,
                                         2OZ2, and incorporates that order and opinion
     by reference here. The Court will not provide further analysis of the issue here.

     However, it is appropriate to note that Attorney O'Toole's petition, which was

                                               54
     requested and directed by Petitioner, is aarather bold attempt by Petitioner to take

     control of
     control of the
                the proceedings and, ultimately,
                    proceedings and, ultimately, retain control over
                                                 retain control over I.M.R. and her
                                                                     LM.R. and  her assets
                                                                                    assets.

     E. Failure
        Failure to Appoint
                   Appoint Petitioner
                           Petitioner as Guardian Based on Alleged
                                                           Alleged Weaknesses in the
l       Agency's
        Agency's Evidence
                  Evidence

"           Petitioner's sixth claim of error contains aanumber of issues, and thus bears
] repeating here.
11
            The trial court abused its discretion and/or made an error of law
            when it failed to appoint William Cardwell as guardian of Iva  lva M.
'           Roush's person despite no Area Agency on Aging observing inside
,I          their home; only oneone ((1)
                                      1) caretaker witness who observed William
            Cardwell and Iva
                           lva M. Roush together inside the home over aaspan of aa
I
            few months; and Ivalva M. Roush walking away from the home on one
            (1) brief occasion three months before the guardianship petition
            (1)brief                                                petition was
            filed?

            The first item of note is that this claim of error contains an implicit
                                                                           implicit
     admission—that IM.R.
     admission--that I.M.R. is incapacitated and in need of a guardian. This admission
                                                            a guardian.
     alone should be sufficient to negate
                                   negate the previous
                                              previous four claims of error raised by
                                                                                   by
     Petitioner, because he is attempting to argue out of both sides of his mouth.
                                                                            mouth. On the
     one hand, he argues that this Court erred in
                                               in finding I.M.R.
                                                          IM.R. incapacitated and in
                                                                                  in

     need of aaguardian based on the overwhelming evidence presented. On the other
     hand, he now says that the Court rightfully
                                      rightfully found I.M.R.
                                                       IM.R. to be incapacitated
                                                                   incapacitated and
     erred only with respect
                     respect to its judgment as to who should be her guardian. Only
     under the application of the most twisted and disingenuous pretzel logic can these

     two positions
         positions be reconciled.
            Turning to the claim itself, what Petitioner is really challenging is this
     Court's determinations regarding
                            regarding the
                                      the credibility of the
                                                         the witnesses and the
                                                                           the weight
                                                                               weight to
                                                                                      to
     be given to their testimony. The Court found Ms. Parks to be credible, and her

     testimony alone is sufficient to find that Petitioner was not providing I.M.R.
                                                                             IM.R. with
     the care she needs. 'The
                         The Court found Ms. Hughes and Ms. Heaton to be credible as

     well, and their testimony regarding Petitioner's behavior and actions only

     bolstered the Agency's argument that Petitioner is not aafit caretaker and guardian
     for IM.R,
         I.M.R. 'To
                To the extent that Petitioner claims this evidence is weak because

                                               55
     neither Ms. Hughes nor Ms. Heaton ever entered the home, he has only himself to

     blame. He blocked all of their attempts at entry.
                                                entry. Finally,
                                                       Finally, it is both troubling
                                                                           troubling and
     telling that Petitioner continues to attempt to downplay IM.R's
                                                              I.M.R.'s walkaway in

     September 2021 as aaminor event
                               event. His 83 year-old
                                             year- old mother, aawoman who must use

     aawalker to get
                 get around, cannot perform tasks of daily living as simple
                                                                     simple as preparing
                                                                               preparing
     food for herself, has significant cognitive impairment, and has serious
     hallucinatory episodes, left the home, walked an unspecified distance along busy
                                                                                 busy
     roads
     roads+15 until someone stopped to help
                                       help her, and wound up being transported
                                                                    transported to the
     Huntingdon PSP station. It is only by the grace of God that I.M.R.
                                                                 IM.R. did not end up hit
     by a
        a car or lost in the woods surrounding the area.
               While Petitioner does not specifically mention the witnesses who testified
     in his favor regarding his care for I.M.R.,
                                         IM.R., he will undoubtedly tout their testimony
                                                                               testimony
     in his brief. The Court found the testimony of Petitioner's cousins, Terry Lynn
                                                                                Lynn
     Lumbard-Monnat and Valerie Scott, to be generally credible, but of little weight.
     They each certainly believed that Petitioner took good and appropriate
                                                                appropriate care of
     I.M.R., but they did not have enough awareness of her day-to-day needs and the
     situation in Petitioner's home to provide significant testimony on those matters.
     They                               I.M.R.'s cognitive decline, focusing primarily
     They also downplayed the extent of I.M.R's                              primarily on
     what she can still do as opposed to how her limitations affect her ability
                                                                        ability to make

     decisions and take care of herself. With respect to the testimony
                                                             testimony of Dr. William
     Kauffman, the Court found it to be largely irrelevant and worthy of little weight.

1: Dr.
   Dr. Kauffman
       Kauffman has
                has never treated I.M.R,
                    never tre.ited I.M.R., h.i�
                                           has not evaluated her, has only "read
                                                                  has only •read her
     charts" occasionally when she was in the hospital,
                                              hospital, and the primary
                                                                primary thrust of his
     testimony
     testimony was an attempt to weaken the findings
                                            findings of Dr. Roscoe, I.M.R.'s
                                                                    LM.R's current

 I treating physician
     treating physician.
,I             There remains, of course, Petitioner's own testimony
                                                          testimony regarding
                                                                    regarding the care he
'!   provided for IM.R.
                  I.M.R. Petitioner certainly appeared to believe his repeated,
                                                                      repeated, self-
 '
     serving, and conclusory statements that he tools
                                                took excellent care of I.M.R.,
                                                                       IM.R., gave her

     isThe
        The Court takes judicial notice
                                  notice of      fact that while
                                          of the fact      while Tussey
                                                                 Tussey Lane,
                                                                          Lane, the
                                                                                the road that
                                                                                           that Petitioner's home is
                                                                                                                  is located
     on, maybe     low-trattic road, it leads to State Route 26.
         may be aalow-traffic                                  26. State Route 26 is the major north-south route on the
     western side of Raystown Lake,
                                 Lake, the only route that leads from Petitioner's home to the Huntingdon PSp     PSP
     station, has
              has a
                  a prevailing
                    prevailing speed                             definitely "high-traffic."
                               speed limit of 55 MPH, and is definitely     high-traffie."

                                                               56
     exactly what she needed, and that she
                                       she "wanted
                                           "wanted for nothing." Yet his testimony
                                                                         testimony also

 j showed that he is not cogmz,rnt
                         cognizant of I.M.R.'s
                                      L.M.R.'s care needs, did not provide
                                                                   provide round-the-
     clock care, left her on her own in the house often
                                                  often (regardless of the fact that he or

     his mechanic were elsewhere on the property), and downplayed
                                                       downplayed the very
                                                                      very real risks
     to her safety. And all the while, he was reducing
                                              reducing her net worth by hundreds of
     thousands of dollars, significantly benefiting himself and harming
                                                                h.1rmmg her best interest.
                                                                                 interest
II
     On these facts it is unquestionable that Petitioner is not an appropriate guardian
                                                                               guardian
     for
     for I.M.R.
 i       IM.R

     F.   Failure
          Failure to Appoint
                     Appoint Petitioner
                              Petitioner as Guardian Based
                                                       Based on the
                                                                the Claim that I.M.R.
                                                                               LM.R. Desired
                      of Her Assets to Petitioner and that He had Authority
          to Give All of                                          Authority to Do
                                                                               Do With Them
          as He Pleased

             As with Petitioner's sixth claim of error, his seventh claim of error contains
     aanumber of issues, and bears repeating here.
                                             here
             The trial court abused its discretion and/or made an error of law
             when it failed to appoint William Cardwell as guardian of Iva   va M.
             Roush's estate in light of four
                                        four (4) witnesses and the estate planning
             documents presented clearly stating lva
                                                   Iva M. Roush's desired intention
             for William Cardwell to inherit everything from her and the ability
                                                                           ability to
             make gifts to himself?

             It is axiomatic that the law recognizes the right of a
                                                                  a competent person to do

     as they wish with their assets, even if they spend or distribute those assets to the
     point of insolvency, and whether they
                                      they take such action while alive or in aa
     testamentary capacity after death. And, the law establishes a
                                                                 a strong preference
                                                                          preference for
     choices made by individuals prior
                                 prior to incapacity
                                          incapacity when appointing
                                                          appointing guardians.
                                                                     guardians. 20 Pa.

     C.S. $5511(f)("If
     CS.  § 5511(f) (" If appropriate, the court shall give preference
                                                            preference to aanominee of the
     incapacitated person. "). However, the law does not recognize: (i)
                   person.").                                       [i) aaright
                                                                          right for agents
     acting under aapower of attorney to take actions that are both against an
,I   incapacitated person's best interests and contrary to their previously
                                                                 previously expressed
                                                                            expressed

     wishes; (ii)
     wishes; (ii) aaright
                    right for heirs
                              heirs having control of an incapacitated
                                                         incapacitated person's
                                                                       person's property
                                                                                property to
                                                                                         to
     take their inheritance prior
                            prior to
                                  to the incapacitated
                                         incapacitated person's        or (iii)
                                                       person's death; or (iii) a
                                                                                a right
                                                                                  right for
     trustees to take trust property and use it as their own. Yet all of these actions
     occurred in
              in this case
                      case.

                                                57
            As aapreliminary matter, the Court notes that Petitioner's count of witnesses

11
     for this claim of error is incorrect. Presumably the four witnesses to which he
     refers
     refers are
            are himself, his
                         his cousins
                             cousins Terry
                                     Terry Lynn
                                           Lynn Lumbard-Monnat
                                                Lumbard-Monnat and Valerie
                                                                   Valerie Scott,
                                                                           Scott, and
 ' Attorney 0'Toole.
            O'Toole. However, Attorney O'Toole never testified as aawitness, and his

     comments and filings regarding I.M.R.'s
                                    IM.R.'s actions and intent were purely
                                                                    purely in the form
     of allegations and argument intended to support
                                             support his petition
                                                         petition to represent I.M.R.
                                                                     represent IM.R.
     Petitioner attempted to testify as to what I.M.R.
                                                IM.R. told him her wishes were, but that
I evidence was not admitted because it is hearsay. See, e.g., N.T.,
                                                   See.&.g.   N.T, Third Hearing, at
l
ii   106, 111. Even if admissible, such testimony has little weight, not only
     106,111.                                                            only because of

     Petitioner's own self-interest
                      self-interest (his
                                    [his interests with respect
                                                        respect to the financial issues are
'I   adverse to IM.R.'s),
                I.M.R.'s), but also because:
                                    because: (i)
                                             [i) there is aavast difference between the
             statement ""IIwant you to have everything" and the alleged implication
     general statement                                                  implication ""II
     want you to take everything I
                                 I have now, use it for your own benefit, and leave me
     with minimal income and no eligibility for medical assistance despite
                                                                   despite my
                                                                           my
     progressively worsening condition"; and
                                         and (ii)
                                             (ii) the competency of I.M.R.
                                                                    LM.R. when she
     made the statements is highly suspect, particularly
                                            particularly since she had already
                                                                       already been
     suffering from dementia for four years when her husband died and Petitioner took
     control of her life and property.
                             property
            As
            As such, there were only two witnesses— Ms. Lumbard-Monnat and
                                         witnesses-Ms.
     Ms. Scott--who
         Scott—who provided testimony
                            testimony to the effect that I.M.R. had expressed
                                                                    expressed aadesire
     to
     to give
        give all
             all of her property
                 of her property to Petitioner. However,
                                 to Petitioner. However, their testimony on
                                                         their testimony on this point has
                                                                            this point has
     only nominal weight. First, aside from the matter of self-interest, their testimony
                                                                               testimony
Ii   suffers from the same issues as identified for Petitioner's testimony
                                                                 testimony above.

     Second, their primary interactions with I.M.R.
                                             LM.R. have been short, periodic
                                                                    periodic visits, and
     the time period covered by their testimony is well after I.M.R.
                                                              I.M.R was diagnosed
                                                                        diagnosed with
     dementia and began
                  began suffering cognitive impairment.
                                            impairment.
            Turning to the core of Petitioner's seventh claim of error, that the Court
     erred in not appointing him as guardian of LM.R's
                                                I.M.R.'s estate, the issues raised by
                                                                                   by
     Petitioner are largely irrelevant. This is because the preference
                                                            preference for the
     incapacitated person's chosen agent or guardian is strong, but not absolute.

                                               58
            When a a patient has executed a [durable
                                              [durable power of attorney]
                                                                  attorney] and
            named a a personal representative, that choice is given paramount
                                                                     paramount
            importance. In Re Sylvester, 409 Pa.Super,
                                                Pa.Super. 439, 598 A.2d 76, 83
            (1991). Under these circumstances, Section 5604(0)(2),
                                                          5604(c)(2), regulating
                                                                      regulating
            durable powers of attorney, must be read in conjunction with Section
            5511. Id. Read together, these Sections require the court to give
            effect to the patient's selection of aa guardian,
                                                    guardian, except for good
                                                                           good
                                        Id.
            cause or disqualification. Id
     In re:
        re: Duran, 769 A.2d 497, 506
                                 506 (Pa.
                                     (Pa. Super. 2001)
                                                 2001) (internal
                                                       (internal citations as in the
                        added).
     original; emphasis added)].
            Assuming, arguendo, that I.M.R.
                                     IM.R. clearly     competently expressed
                                            dearly and competently expressed an

     intent for Petitioner to take the
                                   the $$250,000
                                         250,000 life insurance payment
                                                                payment as aagift,
                                                                             gift, and for
     him to be able to make other gifts of her property to himself via aavalid power
                                                                               power of
     attorney, his actions were so noncompliant
                                   noncom pliant with the Alleged POA, trust document,
     and controlling law as to be nearly unfathomable.

            Petitioner maintained no separation between his own funds and I.M.R.'s.
                                                                          IM.R.'s.
     He stated many times that her assets were his, and that she had no assets other
     than her income from the farm rent and social security. He spent hundreds of

     thousands of dollars of her money to buy
                                          buy things
                                              things that benefitted only
                                                                     only himself.

 I          The Alleged POA and the trust document contain clear provisions regarding
                                                                            regarding
I,
     the importance to IM.R.
                       I.M.R. of obtaining and maintaining eligibility for medical
                                               maintaining eligibility
     assistance benefits. Yet, Petitioner's actions led to an ineligibility
                                                              ineligibility period
                                                                            period of over
          years (which
     four years [which would have been extended to eight if the transfer of the farm
     had been upheld). Nothing in the trust document or the Alleged
                                                            Alleged POA authorized
     Petitioner
     Petitioner to
                to avoid placing
                         placing any
                                 any of
                                     of the real
                                            real estate properties
                                                        properties transferred
                                                                   transferred to
                                                                               to I.M.R.
                                                                                  IM.R
l
 I after her husband's death into the trust, and even if Petitioner actually
                                                                    actually believed the
 '
i    farm had been transferred into the trust, nothing
                                               nothing authorized him to sell the
     remaining properties
               properties in the trust and keep
                                           keep the proceeds
                                                    proceeds for himself
                                                                 himself.

            Finally, even if it is true that Petitioner undertook the above actions
                                                                            actions (and
                                                                                    (and
     others) based on the innocent belief that I.M.R.
                                               LM.R. wanted him and had authorized
     him to do so, the testimony established that he is singularly
                                                        singularly unfit to manage
                                                                            manage her
     financial affairs. He had no awareness of the medical assistance eligibility
                                                                      eligibility issue, no
     idea about his recordkeeping obligations, no awareness of the risk of converting
                                                                           converting

                                               59
                 assets (land)
    appreciating assets (land) into depreciating assets
                                                 assets (cars,
                                                        (cars, building,
                                                               building, paint
                                                                         paint shop),
                                                                               shop), and
    no awareness of the fact that was a
                                      a poor idea to allow an 83 year- old dementia
                                                                 year-old
'ppatient
   atient in need of long term care to spend hours at aatime sitting
                                                                sitting in a
                                                                           a casino losing
                                                                                    losing
I
  $10,000 aavisit. He also likely created significant federal income tax risk for

    himself and I.M.R.
                LM.R. by failing to properly report the alleged gift transfers and failing
                                                        alleged gift               failing
'   to file income tax returns.

           The sum total of all of these issues is that it is beyond
                                                              beyond aareasonable doubt
    that there is good cause to override I.M.R.'s
                                         IM.R.'s selection of Petitioner as her agent
                                                                                agent
    with respect to her estate, and that he should be disqualified from serving
                                                                        serving in
                                                                                in that
    capacity.
    capacity.

    G. The Court's Order Vacating and Setting Aside Petitioner's Attempt
                                                                 Attempt to Transfer
                                                                            Transfer the
       Farm Into the Trust

           The Court
               Court first notes
                           notes that, as identified by
                                                     by the Superior
                                                            Superior Court in
                                                                           in its
                                                                              its March
                                                                                  March
    16, 2020 opinion remanding the case to this Court for the entry
                                                              entry of aafull Rule 1925
    opinion, Petitioner did not file aatimely appeal from the separate order regarding
                                                                             regarding
    the property transfer, and that issue has therefore been waived. See Superior
                                                                         Superior

    Court Opinion, Docket No. 728 MDA 2022, March 16, 2023, at 3-4 n. 1.
                                                               3-4n.
           In a
              a separate order, the orphans' court invalidated aaMarch 18, 2022
           transfer of land stating that
                                    that "if there was aavalid power of attorney,
                                                                            attorney,
           the alleged agent has failed to act in
                                               in good faith and failed to act loyally
                                                                               loyally
           for  the principal's benefit."    Orphans'   Court  Order,   4/7/22.
           for the principal's benefit." Orphans' Court Order, 4/7/22. As          As
           Appellant failed to appeal that order, this Court will not address it or
           the propriety of the deed referenced in Appellant's
                                                          Appellant's statement of
           questions presented.

           Should the Superior Court decide, upon further reflection, to take up
                                                                              up this
    issue, Petitioner's eighth claim of error is meritless.
                                                 meritless. As stated, he bases it on there
    being no request from the Agency to remove Petitioner as power
                                                             power of attorney
                                                                      attorney and

    no
    no order
       order from
             from this
                  this Court removing
                             removing him
                                      him as
                                          as power
                                             power of attorney prior
                                                   of attorney prior to
                                                                     to him signing
                                                                        him signing
    the
    the deed on
             on March 16, 2022.
                March 16, 2022. This is
                                     is a
                                        a red
                                          red herring.
                                              herring. The
                                                       The Court made
                                                                 made no
                                                                      no
    determination regarding whether Petitioner had aavalid power
                                                           power of attorney
                                                                    attorney on

    March 16, 2022.
              2022. Instead, the Court, as noted in
                                                 in the order, found that if there was a
                                                                                       a
    valid power of attorney, Petitioner had failed to act in good faith and loyally
                                                          in good           loyally for

                                              60
                                              60
    I,
 i'
         I.M.R.'s benefit. 16 His act of transferring
         L.M.R's benefit.Io              transferring the farm into the trust was clearly
                                                                                  clearly an

         attempt to wrest control of IM.R.'s
                                     I.M.R.'s sole remaining                   away from the
                                                   remaining significant asset away
         Agency, and to prevent the Agency from potentially using it to pay
                                                            using it    pay for IM.R's
                                                                                I.M.R.'s care,

         as Petitioner is
                       is the sole trustee
                                   trustee of the trust
                                                  trust and admitted that he     already taken
                                                                          he had already
         out loans from
                   from Darren Weaver
                               Weaver in
                                      in anticipation
                                         anticipation of selling
                                                         selling the
                                                                 the farm
                                                                     farm to him in
                                                                                 in the
                                                                                    the
         future. Further, this act risked nearly doubling
                                                 doubling IM.R's
                                                          I.M.R.'s period    ineligibility for
                                                                   period of ineligibility
         medical
         medical assistance to eight           any objective
                               eight years. By any objective measure,
                                                             measure, Petitioner's
                                                                      Petitioner's transfer
         of the
            the farm
                farm was
                     was neither
                         neither in good faith
                                 in good faith nor          I.M.R.'s benefit.
                                               nor done for L.M.R's  benefit.
                  Finally, Petitioner's argument regarding his alleged removal as power
                                                                                  power of

         attorney has aafatal flaw in its logic.
                                          logic. Petitioner did not submit aasigned
                                                                             signed copy
                                                                                    copy of the

         Alleged
         Alleged POA, or
                      or any power
                             power of attorney, to
                                                to the
                                                   the Court prior
                                                             prior to attempting to transfer
                                                                   to attempting    transfer
             farm. Therefore, neither the Agency nor the Court would have had any
         the farm.                                                            any reason
r to address Petitioner's removal. Petitioner's actions were a complete surprise to
         to address Petitioner's removal. Petitioner's actions were acomplete surprise to

11 the
   the Agency, I.M.R.'s
               IM.R's counsel, and the
                                   the Court, as was
                                                 was his alleged location
                                                     his alleged                 one,
                                                                 location of not one,
         but three, signed powers of attorney behind the seat of his truck.
                                                                     truck 17 Petitioner
I        cannot fault the Court and the Agency for failing to anticipate his unannounced and
         surprise attempt to make an end run around the emergency
                                                        emergency guardianship.
                                                                  guardianship.

                                              IV. CONCLUSION
                                              I.
                  The focus of this
                               this case should be I.M.R.
                                                   IM.R. However,
                                                          However, Petitioner
                                                                   Petitioner has
         continuously attempted
         continuously attempted to
                                to make
                                   make it about himself,
                                        it about himself. 'Time
                                                          Time and
                                                                and time again he
                                                                    time again he has
                                                                                  has

         shown that his true concern is maintaining control over I.M.R.
                                                                 IM.R. and her assets,
         rather than acting in her best interest. I.M.R.
                                                  LM.R. is incapacitated
                                                           incapacitated and in need of aa
         guardian. 'That
         guardian. That guardian needs to be someone other than Petitioner, so that he can

·I       no longer exploit
         no longer exploit her.
                           her

    !
                                                                 BY THE COURT:

          As required by 20 Pa.CS.$
         As
         16                 Pa. C.S. § 5601.3(a)
                                       5601,3(a).
                                                                 George
                                                                         ;;2�,,
                                                                 Geo"rge N,  •
                                                                              eu
                                                                         N. Zanic,  ••
                                                                            Zanic, President
                                                                                   President Judge
                                                                                             Judge

          The Court
          Te
         17   Court notes
                    notes its
                          its high degree of
                              high degree of skepticism
                                             skepticism regarding
                                                        regarding the validity of
                                                                  the validity of the
                                                                                  the "discovered"
                                                                                       discovered" powers of attore
                                                                                                   powers of attorney.

                                                              61