Goldsmith v. State, Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs.
| Decision Date | 17 July 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. 42070–8–II.,42070–8–II. |
| Citation | 169 Wash.App. 573,280 P.3d 1173 |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Thomas GOLDSMITH III, Appellant, v. STATE, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERVICES, Respondent. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Don W. Taylor, Owens Davies Fristoe Taylor & Schultz PS, Olympia, WA, for Appellant.
Stephen Sloan Manning, Brost Law, Olympia, WA, for Respondent.
[169 Wash.App. 575]¶ 1 Thomas Goldsmith III appeals the conclusion of the Department of Social and Health Services Board of Appeals, as affirmed by the superior court, that he mentally abused his father, a vulnerable adult. Goldsmith argues that the Department lost jurisdiction over this action after his father died and that the Board erred in affirming the Department's abuse finding. Because the Department did not lose jurisdiction when Goldsmith's father died, and the Department's mental abuse finding is supported by the law and facts, we affirm.
¶ 2 In April 2008, Thomas Goldsmith Sr. (hereafter Thomas Sr.) was 98 years old and suffered from several physical ailments, including a heart condition. He and his wife Helen, who had suffered a recent steep decline in cognitive ability, required 24–hour home care. Thomas Sr. enjoyed a distinguished career as an electrical engineer. As late as November 2008, he was intellectually active with others and characterized as “very sharp.” Administrative Record (AR) at 18. By January 2009, however, Thomas Sr. suffered mild cognitive impairment and wanted a guardian. The superior court established a full guardianship over his estate.
¶ 3 Thomas Sr. and his wife have three grown children: Goldsmith, his brother, and a sister. Goldsmith's sister-in-law managed his parents' investment portfolio until her untimely death. In 2003, Thomas Sr. asked Goldsmith to help manage their considerable estate and he agreed to do so. Goldsmith charged his parents $25 per hour plus expenses for the several trips he made from his home in Boston to Washington each year. Thomas Sr. paid these fees through Capital Guardianship Services (CGS). In March 2006, Thomas Sr. executed a durable power of attorney naming Leesa Camerota, Executive Director of CGS, as his attorney-in-fact, and granting her power over his assets and liabilities. Thomas Sr. designated Goldsmith as successor attorney-in-fact.
¶ 4 Goldsmith had significant disagreements with CGS over the handling of his parents' finances. He believed that CGS was overpaying for caregiver services and should have been liquidating real property so that his parents would have adequate funds to maintain their lifestyle.
¶ 5 As a result, Goldsmith and his father had heated discussions about finances in person and by phone that deteriorated into yelling. According to one caregiver, these fights caused Thomas Sr. to cry, refuse to take his medication, and otherwise become noncompliant with caregiver instructions. The stress would become so great that the caregivers themselves felt threatened.
[169 Wash.App. 577]¶ 6 Goldsmith's constant financial pressure on his father led Camerota and the assistant director of CGS, Janet Franklin, to file a declaration in October 2008 in support of a vulnerable adult protective order. Their declaration described Thomas Sr. as becoming visibly shaken when Goldsmith would not honor his request to stop arguing about financial matters. They further described Goldsmith's actions as intolerable and abusive and stated that his relentless pressuring affected his parents' eating. The resulting protective order eventually led to an agreed visitation order limiting Goldsmith's visits to four hours per week and ordering him to refrain from discussing finances with his parents.
¶ 7 In the meantime, on October 30, 2008, the Department's Adult Protective Services program received an allegation that Goldsmith was mentally abusing his father. After an investigation, the Department issued a substantiated finding of mental abuse of a vulnerable adult and notified Goldsmith. He requested an administrative hearing at which two of Thomas Sr.'s caregivers testified, as did Camerota, Franklin, Department social worker Jacqueline Heinselman, and Goldsmith. Thomas Sr. died on March 5, 2009, a few months before the June 2009 hearing.
¶ 8 Heinselman testified about investigating the abuse allegation and interviewing Thomas Sr. The protective order was in effect by then, and Thomas Sr. told her that he did not want further orders but wanted Goldsmith's visits to be shorter. Despite his earlier complaints about Goldsmith, as set forth in the CGS declaration, Thomas Sr. told Heinselman he had no problems with his son. Heinselman opined that it was common for people in abusive relationships to recant, and she believed that Thomas Sr. was “covering up.” Report of Proceedings (RP) at 66, 80. As a result of her investigation, Heinselman concluded that Goldsmith had yelled at and harassed his father to the point where Thomas Sr. was visibly shaken and upset and that Goldsmith should have known his conduct was harmful.
[169 Wash.App. 578]¶ 9 Franklin testified that she witnessed heated exchanges between Goldsmith and his father about finances and that after Goldsmith stated once that his life depended on his parents' money, Thomas Sr. put his head down on the table and said he could not go on like this. When Thomas Sr. informed CGS that he feared he was facing bankruptcy, Franklin and Camerota assured him he was not. Franklin testified that all five caregivers reported yelling between Goldsmith and his father.
¶ 10 According to Franklin, Goldsmith would visit his parents for a week or two and then return four to eight weeks later. Caregiver Beata Bryl testified that Goldsmith would have daylong visits with his parents that included verbal fights about their finances. Thomas Sr. would be very upset after his son left. On one occasion, a “very angry” Thomas Sr. told Goldsmith to leave or he would call the police. RP at 135. When Goldsmith stayed and continued to argue, Bryl persuaded him to leave, after which Thomas Sr. was “really upset.” RP at 135. Thomas Sr. would display anger and anxiety only after arguing with Goldsmith; he was otherwise calm. Bryl added that after the protective order was in place, Thomas Sr. was heartbroken but remained very specific about the need for limited visitation with his son.
¶ 11 Ava League, a nursing assistant who also cared for Thomas Sr. and his wife, testified that Goldsmith would visit his parents four to five times a year, at a minimum, and that Thomas Sr. stopped wanting him to come. Thomas Sr. and his son would argue “a lot,” sometimes for up to two hours, and Thomas Sr. would cry and become noncompliant afterward.
¶ 12 Camerota testified that she completed the declaration in support of the vulnerable adult protective order because Thomas Sr.'s well-being was in danger due to the stress and tension concerning his legal and financial issues. She overheard a heated conversation between Thomas Sr. and Goldsmith, during which Thomas Sr. slammed the table. She also saw Thomas Sr. become withdrawn and acquiescent to Goldsmith's demands. After Camerota e-mailed Goldsmith at Thomas Sr.'s request and asked him not to visit because of the stress he created, Goldsmith spoke with his father and came out.
¶ 13 Goldsmith acknowledged that he and his father did not have the “best discussions” about finances and that Thomas Sr. once told him to keep his voice down. RP at 190. Goldsmith found the lack of results following these discussions very frustrating. He denied yelling at his father in the way his father yelled at him. He did admit to yelling at his father, however, and he also admitted that Bryl had asked him to leave and that his father had asked him not to come out.
¶ 14 The administrative law judge concluded that by continually bombarding his father with predictions of financial doom, Goldsmith harassed and verbally assaulted a vulnerable adult:
Mr. Goldsmith's stridency and perseverance over hours, days, weeks, and months elevated his genuine concern for Thomas, Sr.'s estate plan to the level of harassment. As part of the harassment, Mr. Goldsmith repeatedly yelled at Thomas, Sr. As manifested in Thomas, Sr.'s tone of voice, body language, and behavior, Mr. Goldsmith's pattern of harassment induced anger, frustration, resignation, depressed mood, and self-neglect in Thomas, Sr.
AR at 92–93. The administrative law judge affirmed the Department's finding that Goldsmith mentally abused a vulnerable adult.
¶ 15 The Board affirmed the administrative law judge, entering findings of fact and conclusions of law in support of its conclusion that because Goldsmith willfully yelled at and harassed his father and thereby injured him, Goldsmith mentally abused a vulnerable adult.
¶ 16 Goldsmith sought judicial review in superior court, and the court denied his petition for review and his motion to vacate the Board's review decision and order.
¶ 17 Goldsmith argues that the Department lost jurisdiction of this action when his father died in March 2009. He contends that the subject matter of the case was his father's protection and that when his father died, the action ceased to exist.
¶ 18 Jurisdiction is the power to hear and determine a cause or proceeding. State v. Golden, 112 Wash.App. 68, 72, 47 P.3d 587 (2002). Jurisdictional challenges are questions of law that we review de novo. Golden, 112 Wash.App. at 72, 47 P.3d 587. A tribunal's lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time in a legal proceeding. Inland Foundry Co. v. Spokane County Air Pollution Control Auth., 98 Wash.App. 121, 123, 989 P.2d 102 (1999). Without subject matter jurisdiction, a court or administrative tribunal can do nothing other than dismiss the action. Inland Foundry Co., 98 Wash.App. at 123–24, 989 P.2d 102.
¶ 19 Goldsmith's argument is based largely on RCW 74.34.210 and the cause of action RCW...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- State v. Pierce
-
Crosswhite v. Wash. State Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs.
...it was construing what is required to commit abuse.¶32 The Department also argues that this court's decision in Goldsmith v. Department of Social & Health Services cites Brown and holds that specific intent to cause harm is not required. Br. of Resp't at 16-17 (citing Goldsmith, 169 Wash.Ap......
-
Karanjah v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs.
...chapter 34.05 RCW directly to the agency's record without regard to the superior court decision." Goldsmith v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs. , 169 Wash. App. 573, 584, 280 P.3d 1173 (2012). When reviewing an administrative agency decision, we review issues of law de novo. Ames v. Health Dep......
-
Brown v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs.
...of chapter 34.05 RCW directly to the agency's record without regard to the superior court decision. Goldsmith v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs.,169 Wash.App. 573, 584, 280 P.3d 1173 (2012); Burnham v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs.,115 Wash.App. 435, 438, 63 P.3d 816 (2003).¶ 43 We hold that ......
-
An Ethical Dilemma: Attorneys' Duties Not to Reveal Elder Abuse in Washington State
...240, 244 (1999). 277. See Madden, supra note 88, at 2. 278. See Statistics/Data, supra note 28 (impact of elder abuse). 279. 169 Wash. App. 573, 280 P.3d 1173 (2012). 280. Id. at 576, 280 P.3d at 1175. 281. Id. 282. Id. 283. Id. at 576, 280 P.3d at 1175-76. 284. Id. at 576, 280 P.3d at 1175......