Hi -
I am having trouble understanding (AND accepting) the difference between INCOMPETENT and bad judgement -

Where, when and how does one draw the line (outside of the courtroom) between bad judgement and incompetency - does a person have to be incompetent in EVERY aspect of their lives or just a selected few? Does the # and/or frequency of bad decisions have any impact or are just the consequences considered?

When it comes to financial decisions - I tend to feel that people who Constantly make bad financial decisions are not just exhibiting bad or poor judgement, they are FINACIALLY incompetent - maybe not in the strictest legal definition, but certainly in the financial realm - knowing their name, the date and who the president is, in my opinion is NOT indicative of their competence to handle their own finances! -

How then do we protect the needs of the other family members from a person who otherwise seems OK, but nevertheless is causing unnecessary hardship on them because
Legally, you cannot be considered both competent and financially incompetent at the same time?

Thanks,
Hic

If a person presents the facts, in a common sense way, to protect and look out for the interests of those who need it, it should over rule the incompetence, or lack of good judgement, by another. If you could be a lot more specific with your problem, it may be easier to answer your question.

[QUOTE=hic1957]hi -
I am having trouble understanding (AND accepting) the difference between INCOMPETENT and bad judgement -

Where, when and how does one draw the line (outside of the courtroom) between bad judgement and incompetency - does a person have to be incompetent in EVERY aspect of their lives or just a selected few? Does the # and/or frequency of bad decisions have any impact or are just the consequences considered?

When it comes to financial decisions - I tend to feel that people who Constantly make bad financial decisions are not just exhibiting bad or poor judgement, they are FINACIALLY incompetent - maybe not in the strictest legal definition, but certainly in the financial realm - knowing their name, the date and who the president is, in my opinion is NOT indicative of their competence to handle their own finances! -

How then do we protect the needs of the other family members from a person who otherwise seems OK, but nevertheless is causing unnecessary hardship on them because
Legally, you cannot be considered both competent and financially incompetent at the same time?



You've posted the same question on different threads which makes this confusing. I also see that this a fairly long-standing problem involving your mother's estate, your father and a trust or two.

That being said - the legal definition of incompetence is: "The inability, as determined by a court, to handle one's own personal or financial affairs. A court may declare that a person is incompetent after a hearing at which the person is present and/or represented by an attorney. A finding of incompetence may lead to the appointment of a conservator to manage the person's affairs. Also known as "incompetency."

Notice it is personal OR financial affairs, not both.

So, yes, a Court can determine you incompetent if you can handle your money but cannot handle your personal affairs (or the other way around). If your father continues to be of concern to you and you believe he is incompetent, then you have to request a competency hearing and let the Court decide.

And outside the Courtroom it's just your opinion against mine... or your father's... or someone else's, more a moral judgment, perhaps, than a legal decision.

First, I merged your threads here, please don't post the same question in different forums.

Second, asking hypothetical questions isn't the best way to get help. It is better to gives us the facts so we can make a judgement based on them

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottGem

First, I merged your threads here, please don't post the same question in different forums.

Second, asking hypothetical questions isn't the best way to get help. It is better to gives us the facts so we can make a judgement based on them

---

Right, I had to sort through a whole bunch of old posts to figure out what's going on here.

THANKS -
I am under the impression that even IN the court room, it comes down to nothing more than opinion - that of the judge! - having said that, what if the problem is not one of inability, but rather plain refusal? - if someone wants to quickly end their life by jumping off a bridge, we deem this person "suicidal", and try to protect them from themselves - but if the same person decides to SLOWLY kill themselves by freezing to death because they'd rather throw their money down the toilet than pay to fix their boiler - I'm told that a judge may see this not as incompetent, but merely as poor or bad judgement, to which the law does not apply - herein lies my TWO (2) quandary's:

First - irrespective of the "courts", I would think that that the only criteria for incompetency would be not doing (or caring to do) what you know is better - an example - how can anyone not believe, in today's age, that SMOKING is nothing more than bad judgement? -
If a person was seen trying to ingest any number of OBIVIOUSLY labeled poisons - they would immediately be stopped and we'd call the guys in the white coats - we wouldn't stand there, watching them do this to themselves and think - gee, that's bad judgement - we'd think - hey! There's something wrong with this guy! - we wouldn't need the expense and opinion of any outside "court" to know this! So why and/or how is SMOKING any different? - I contend that a person who WILLING digests poisons into their body via smoking, is an incompetent person unable to be trusted to make decisions - whether the guy Believes it or not - eventually the smoke, due to related diseases, WILL kill him - even if it it can't be proven that it WILL kill him - we all agree that it is BAD and NOT it his best interest - and even if we don't care about HIM - what about protecting his children, et al from the problems with second hand smoke? I have been told that I would get laughed out of court if I tried to bring an incompetency case against someone who smokes!

2nd - the word - ability - suppose the person HAS the ability, but REFUSES? - to me, that's incompetence! Some who CAN save, but refuses to do so and racks up huge credit card bills and then needs to declare bankruptcy, is, in this writer's opinion - not showing bad judgement - this person is incompetent!

Erstwhile - how would one go about discovering the exact criteria a judge would consider, BEFORE going to the expense? (as in the case of the smoker)?

Thanks all
H

First - I think the bulk of your post is on the wrong Board. Perhaps a general discussion board or morals board is the place for the discussion of right vs wrong, smoking vs non smoking and so forth. When I'm in a mood for “what do you think” I go there - as probably do many other people. Otherwise I come here. Same with what the Courts should do.

Okay, so back to the incompetency hearing. By law a person is incompetent if he/she is a danger to himself/herself or others. After that it is up to Judicial interpretation. I am not aware of any rule, policy, law which states, “If you do X, Y or Z you are incompetent.” You can be bizarre, you can be irresponsible, neither makes you incompetent.

There are cases that set precedent; there are frivolous cases. It is up to you to determine the difference.

Thanks for the input - in the future I will try to post to the board which most closely resemble the problems!