Setup: Veterans And Project Safe Harbor

Michael 0:00

Welcome back to the Holding It Together Kinda podcast. I'm your host, Michael Macknack, and today we're talking about a group of people we supposedly hold in the highest of all regards, that is, our veterans. But there's a new policy coming out of Washington that suggests we might be ready to thank them, thank them all for their service by taking away their right to choose where they live. The headlines are calling this project Safe Harbor. It's a new partnership between the Trump administration, the Department of Justice, and the Veterans Administration. On the surface, it seems compassionate and like it's a great idea. They say they're looking for a way to help veterans who are quote unquote stuck in hospitals or on the streets because they're lacking the capacity to care for themselves and they have no families to step in. So the solution they came up with is this concept of mass legal guardianships. So, as an attorney, you know, working for 30 years in the probate court systems, working with uh mental health issues, and as somebody who has worked with hundreds of people, thousands of people around conservatorship issues, and still does, this makes my hair stand up. Even though I don't have any hair, it makes it stand up anyway. I know what guardianship looks like when it's done right. It can be a really good clinical tool used with a scalpel, so to speak, to protect someone's life and their interest. But when you hear that the federal government is talking about a broad initiative to clear the streets, this isn't a scalpel, this is a sledgehammer. Today we're gonna dissect a New York Times article on this policy. Uh, we're gonna talk about why homeless doesn't mean incapacitated, why the VA is claiming that they lack authority to get involved in these matters, which is legally questionable, and why this ghost of the 1980s uh Reagan-era deinstitutionalization is haunting this entire conversation. Is this really about care or is it about making a perceived problem uh go away? Who's the problem about? Is it perception that we're concerned about? So let's get into it. All right, welcome back, everybody. You know, we've all seen these headlines about cleaning up our streets, but lately the Trump administration has done something that even I didn't think they would do. They put a target on the back of a very specific group, our veterans in this case, our you know, heroes, the people that we hold on these pedestals. And the fear that it raises with me is that if they're willing to put this target on the back of a group like our veterans, what does it mean for the rest of us? What does it mean for your son or daughter who may be struggling? And we're gonna get into it. There's there's a new partnership that's been announced between the Department of Justice and the VA, the Veterans Administration, that's pushing for increased legal guardianships. Essentially, they're gonna strip individuals of their right to choose where they live and how and when they get treated. And I'm not being hyperbibola, how do you say it, Beck? Hyperbolic. Well, not trying to be hyperbolic. That is what the proposal uh calls for. This is the question becomes is this a lifeline to our most vulnerable, or is it really a fast track to institutionalization for people that we don't want to see on the streets? There was an article written, a really good article written by a woman by the name of Ellen Barry and a guy by the name of Jason DeParle. It was back in mid-March, and that's why the urgency of getting this out here, because I really reacted like viscerally to this. And the article was it's in the New York Times. It's called VA Begins Drive to Put Some Homeless Veterans into Guardianship. It was out on March 11, 2026, if you want to look it up. And

Guest Rebecca Iantuonni Joins

Michael 4:20

it really gave me pause. But before I get into that, I want you guys all to meet one of my favorite people, a friend for over 40 years. Now I I will slip up and call her Beck Becky throughout this broadcast because I can't fix what I've known for 40 years. So that in the real world now she's called Rebecca. So the attorney Rebecca Iantuonni joins me. And I couldn't be happier because she is somebody that I look up to. I always have looked up to since we were teenagers, and look up to now in terms of what she does as a profession and who she's become. And just she's just an all-around great person. So what are you doing with yourself these days, Beck? Who are you working for? Who are you who's working for you?

Rebecca 5:17

Not enough people are working for me, Michael. Um thank you. That was such a nice introduction. And you know, I feel the same about the work that you've done over the years too. And and uh it's just uh so I am a lawyer in New Haven. I am a partner in a firm, a large law firm, Deep Hitney. And my practice is focused on special needs planning, but in the context of really, you know, any type of disability planning, folks with any kind of special needs. I do a lot of sort of medical legal partnership work where we introduce the legal assistance into the medical environment with the idea that you know, if you can address some of these social determinants of health with folks, you can actually improve health outcomes. So there's a a vast array of stuff that we're able to do in this context. And like you, I had my practice start in the early days and serving as court-appointed conservators and guardians. And so this has always been an issue, a topic that's close to my, close to my heart and you know, really also alights a visceral reaction like it did for you. So when you raised this article, I was I was super concerned about it as well for for the reasons that you're talking about and just kind of what the messaging is that we are we're putting out there as almost sort of the baseline attempt or the baseline, baseline reaction to a problem, in quotes, that is not necessarily a problem that gets solved with the with with this idea that has been thrown out there of, you know, hey, we're gonna take away your autonomy and and your rights, and we're just gonna make you take these services that have not worked on a voluntary level. So we're now we're gonna force them on you and see, see if that works.

Michael 7:09

And and and the degree to which that can be done is completely suspect. And we're gonna talk about that. Yeah. Uh, yes, folks, buckle your seat belts. It's just crazy to me that that we started out together in high school, and here we are all these years later, and we're still we're both interested in the same thing. It's just crazy how that our paths divert re re-emerge together. Um and and yes, I am already scheduled and scheduling Becky to come back and talk to us about special needs planning because that's a really important topic that I hope everybody that's listening or watching has considered and has given some thought to. So we will be hitting that record button maybe even later today. Who knows? All

Reading The New York Times

Michael 7:59

right. So, what I'm going to do during the course of this discussion, because I think it's that important, is I'm going to actually read from this article and to make life easy for everybody. I will put a printed version of the what I'm reading, a caption on the screen if anybody wants to read along. But that way we can know the context for what we're we're discussing with with in this regard. So I think what what Rebecca is saying and what I'm saying is that we've been practicing for 30 years. We've been in the mental health field, we've been in this part of the industry, we've acted as conservator for hundreds of people, we planned with thousands of people. The fine print of this article really raises alarms for me. Because rather than taking a little scalpel to an issue, as Rebecca points out, we're basically taking a sledgehammer to our homeless veterans, and and we are targeting them. And you will hear this in this in this article. So

Homelessness Does Not Equal Incapacity

Michael 9:03

let's let's start there with the homelessness issue. And folks, I don't know how to say this any clearer than this. Homelessness is not a disability. Right. So let me read this. Okay, it says the Trump administration on Wednesday announced a new effort to initiate legal guardianship for hundreds of veterans, including some who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. And that could be used to force more of them into involuntary or institutional care. So here's the issue with that. This this rhetoric links homelessness to the need for guardianship. It it links automatically, it says that homelessness means you need care and we're and we can force this care upon you. So let's talk about that first. Let's talk about that first, Beck, in terms of homelessness equaling incapacity.

Rebecca 10:04

Yeah, yeah. I mean, and it's not even, I mean, I think it's it even goes like almost a one step further saying like homelessness equals like involuntary institutional care. It says it in the article. Like you're homeless, so you have you have lost all your ability to make any decisions, and you now, you know, you now have to subject yourself to, or not even subject yourself, you are going to be subjected to this involuntary process, and you're gonna end up in institutional care because you you no longer have the right to make decisions over yourself, which is just because you're homeless, period. Full stop. Like that's it.

Michael 10:41

And and yeah, I'll push push it one step further. The thrust of this initiative, which they're calling it Project Safe Harbor, Project Safe Harbor Safe Harbor. So with this initiative, you are basically homeless. Oh, and by the way, you're also a veteran. If you match those two criteria, you now get to go into we're we're gonna we're gonna put a target on your back, as I said earlier, and and we have you have the risk of being institutionalized because you meet those two those two criteria. So are we are we running the risk here of creating basically institutionalized are we institutionalizing pro poverty here? You know what I'm saying?

Rebecca 11:24

Yeah, I mean I I think that the message is too, it's like, you know, thank you for fighting for our freedom. Now we're gonna take yours. You know, I mean, I think I think that's that's the dangerous. That's that's one message that I will never, never stand by. Like I could never let that be the message, you know, like my feeling is like, thank you for fighting for our freedom, even when you may not have agreed with the cause, but you did it because you you you you stand so much for the US. And you know, how do we how do we in turn support you? What do we do for you? It's certainly not locking you down in an institution just because you know you you can't locate suitable housing. I mean, it's just it's it's just madness, I think. And the fact that it's gained any traction.

Michael 12:13

It's scary. And and I think that the the and by the way, I'm gonna steal that line of yours just for me because this is the holding it together kind of podcast. And I am your host, Michael Mackniak, and therefore I think that I have the right to be stealing uh because the intellectual property we're talking about. So what it you you brought up something that I wanted to talk about, but I you brought you brought up so many points right in there, and it was just I was so hit with that. Thank you for fighting for our freedom. Now we're gonna take yours. It's so strong. And I, you know, my son is in the military now. I don't know if I told you that, but yeah, he's 22 years old, he's in the air force and loving it. He's doing really well, and you know, yeah.

Rebecca 13:00

So thank you for his thank you to him for for fighting for our freedom.

Michael 13:05

Seriously, like that is a huge that's a huge let's let's now so I hope that people that are listening can understand not only how this affects the the homeless, not only how it affects our veterans, but also if if we're now saying that because you're homeless, because you're a veteran, we we have we have the ability to come in and and institute these these new policies. One thing that we need to point out is the link between homelessness and mental illness, which does exist. We need to point out the homelessness versus criminality, which does exist. I think the number is somewhere like 40%. People who are homeless are 40% more likely to engage in criminal behavior than those who are not. So I want to make sure that we point out all sides of that. And I and I don't know, I don't do you have a feeling for what the number of people who are homeless are also struggling with mental illness is.

Rebecca 14:06

I don't know the percentage, but I know that it's I know that it's pretty significant. I I will say too that there's an agency here in New Haven that I've I've worked with closely, the Fellowship Police, and they are, they deal with these exact exact exact issues with homelessness and mental health issues and and sometimes a comorbidity of substance abuse, which you know is is not an uncommon, uncommon factor. But, you know, I think it's interesting because when you talk to a lot of the agency social workers and and team there, they will say most people that are homeless, you know, most people that you see or that are panhandling or you know on the streets and stuff, that they're known to an agency and that they have they've decided not to take those services. They've they've, you know, so they're they're if you can say they're homeless by choice, but like they they have been offered, they've been offered something and they've chosen not to. So I think that is, and and of course that raises the question of like, well, can they really be, you know, exercising? Like who would, who would, who would choose homelessness, I guess, is like what the judgment call is that we're making, right? Like we're saying, like, how can you, you know, that's gotta be your mental illness speaking, that you don't want to take services because like who in the right mind would want to sleep on the green in New Haven? You know, and I think that that's and that's what's scary about that's what's scary about this, this potential, the you know, this potential program, Project Safe Harbor, is like it's gonna go in and it's just gonna say, like you said before, two criteria. You're homeless and you're a veteran. Oh, you know, you meet our criteria. Like get it right.

Michael 15:50

Because that's that's basically the federal government and the VA, which are both federal, yeah, yeah, coming in and saying, guess what? We're gonna change what the law says. And now this is our only criteria. We don't have to meet gravely disabled, dangerous self or others, etc. etc. So we have this overreach that I'm concerned about where we we and and I don't know why this should should surprise me or anybody else at this point in time that we're seeing under this administration the willingness for the federal government to overstep its bounds and get involved with state uh rights and what the state would normally have. Because let me read again from the article. Under

VA Authority And Due Process

Michael 16:33

the new arrangement, the justice the justice department would give officials at the veterans affairs department authority they currently lack to initiate guardianship proceedings in state courts for veteran veterans who have no family and are unable to make their own health care decisions. Well, now we just I think we just added two more criteria, didn't we? Now you have to have no family and you've got to be unable to make your own health care decisions, but the feds are going to give the VA the ability, they're gonna somehow wave a magic wand and say that you have the ability to go in there and do this.

Rebecca 17:09

Well, and and how do you how do you know somebody doesn't have doesn't have the ability to make their health care decisions unless you've adjudicated their capacity? You know, I mean, like that's that's the bigger thing. Like we're giving them authority they don't have. Well, I wonder why you don't have that authority. You don't have that authority because who the hell are you to make this decision?

Michael 17:26

Like but I would also push back on that because you know, in in I speak around the country, as you know, yeah, and I do a lot of talks with people who are involved with guardianship, conservatorship, and and we call it conservator in Connecticut, they call it guardianship in the vast majority of states. And I don't know of anywhere where a veterans administration who theoretically is an interested party, right? A social worker, a lead social worker, or administrator at the VA hospital, or wherever, would have the authority or the ability to go to our local court and say, hey, we really think this guy needs a fiduciary of some kind. Right. Am I wrong? I mean, that was the first I jumped. I was like, this is crazy.

Rebecca 18:11

They of course not have authority. Right, right. No, I mean, absolutely. I there's, you know, I and I think that that goes back to sort of the, you know, the the fundamental concern here is like this just takes away due process. Like it completely eliminates due process, completely eliminates. I mean, aside from the whole voluntary and you the other criteria and stuff, like one of your fundamental rights is due process, you know, and and so this just this just says, eh, we've we have determined, we we some governmental agency, you know, working in conjunction with another governmental agency, have decided that, you know, where we have no locked, this is we have no jurisdiction or no authority over this, we are now going to decide that you cannot even avail yourself of these due process of rights that you are constitutionally guaranteed, because you know, we have decided that sitting here that you're homeless, you know, you're living on a church porch and you're a veteran. And you're a veteran, and we don't have a family, we can't track down your family.

Michael 19:13

You know, and how do you track down your family? How are they gonna do this? I mean, how are they gonna do this without having the due process that you're talking about? How can they possibly then say, we've determined you're homeless, we determined you don't have a family, we determined you're unable to make your own decisions? I could see how they could figure you're a veteran, but all those other things would require some kind of adjudication, wouldn't it?

Rebecca 19:36

Yeah, some research. And like, what about HIPAA? Like, what about HIPAA? Like, how do you how do you know somebody can't make their med their medical decisions without intruding on their HIPAA? So now are they uh because they're a member of the VA, that like they can go into their VA files and like and look to see what kind of decision making they've made or not made.

Michael 19:53

Well well, I would not be surprised, would you?

Rebecca 19:55

No, no, of course not.

Michael 19:56

But look at the authority that look at the authority that the Social Security Administration gave back at the the outset with the Elon Musk debacle and what was going on there. So anyway, all right, I want to go back to the article because this doesn't end up.

No Family, HIPAA, And Definitions

Rebecca 20:11

I just have one other one other thing that I want to say too, is that like, you know, you and I both know, like there are there are lots of uh, you know, family. How do you define that somebody has no family? Because no family, like there's absolutely no family living or no family that's willing to step in. Because we know that like our our folks with with severe mental health issues can, you know, exhaust family considerably and resources and everything, but they still have family. And many times that family comes back around, you know, at some point. And and certainly when the person is, you know, is is in a crisis that you see family, you know, often pop back in and stuff. So, like, what does no family mean?

Michael 20:51

Like that is on the other side of the other side of that coin is that we also now do this investigation into what is our past preferences? What is our our lifestyle been like? So totally I live under a bridge, but you know what? Whenever I need a good meal or I need somebody to drive me to the doctor or whatever, I go over to to to Rebecca's house, and she's my family, she's my my right.

Rebecca 21:15

Yeah, it's just yeah, I'm with you.

Michael 21:18

So it's let me just read let's read from the article again. Back to the article, Jennifer Mathis. I hope I'm saying her right. And by the way, I did reach out to some of these people to join us today for this conversation, and I did not hear back. Um and I figured I gave them enough time. So, Jennifer uh Mathis, the deputy director of the Bazelon, I think it's pronounced the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, said she believed that VA officials are seeking to have people placed under guardianship so they can have a person appointed who will force them into congregate or institutional settings when there isn't anything else available. If there are veterans sitting in VA hospitals, unable to be discharged. As the Veterans Administration says, this Ms. Mathis is saying, it is almost certainly because there are long waits for intensive community services or independent housing. She added that it is highly unusual for the Justice Department to take a role in guardianship proceedings, which are governed by state laws, which is what we just said. And to her point, and she here she finishes by saying, I don't know what their authority is. The federal government has very little to do with guardianship. And they always they always have.

Rebecca 22:34

And they they should, they shouldn't have anything to do with guardianship of individuals.

Michael 22:39

Except to the extent that they're gonna help us to get more beds and to get as as she says, right? Get more beds, get more funding, get more private institutions so that we can have a place for these folks to live if they so choose.

Rebecca 22:52

Yeah. Yeah, but that's a very different, that's a very different help. That's a very different assistance model than going in and just federal government saying, you, you know, you are in cap in, you know, you haven't don't have capacity to make these decisions. Coming in and identifying a systemic problem that, you know, we don't have enough housing for people. Like, and so let's let's structure a program where we we fund we fund these housing supports and then the states then figure out who gets it. It's you know, it's like the very definition of Medicaid. Medicaid says, you know, federal money comes in and then the states figure out how to use it. So they create their own programs and stuff. Like, I'm all for that. Like that's that's where I want my tax dollars going. Like I will I will pay that all day long, you know. But you talk you start talking about like them coming in, the feds coming in now and and and taking personal liberties, personal rights. Like that's where that's where it gets very scary. And that's you know, what's what's a dangerous, uh, a slippery slope that we're creating if that if that passes.

Michael 23:57

No, it's slippery, it's greasy, it's yeah, and we've been creating it for the better part of the last 10 years because it's almost you get a feeling, and I'm sorry, guys, that this is just over the top beating you over the head with a with a political hammer, because I'm not trying to do that. I think that that these issues are raise, the issues we're talking about here raise issues on a broader spectrum that really impact a lot a lot of us. I mean, you know, this impacts this impacts my my father, veteran, who thank God isn't homeless and does, you know, is doing well and he's 84 years old and he's doing he's doing great. But this really can be seen. This is not it's not far-fetched to see how where this can go. I'm not getting more well-in on you or anything like that, but yeah, but this is this this isn't far-fetched because you get to the point where you're starting to feel like it's a quid pro quo. If you want this federal money, then you got to do something back for me. And that is going to your homeless, you know, and I just don't like that.

Rebecca 25:01

So anyway, yes.

Michael 25:04

There's a

The 700 Veterans Claim

Michael 25:05

there's a discrepancy that I that I caught inside this article, too, because it I called the the 700 veterans discrepancy. All right, so let me read again. The initiative comes amid a push by the Trump administration to compel more homeless people into institutional treatment for mental illness and drug addiction. President Trump identified homelessness as a priority during his 2024 presidential campaign, and he brought it back up again last July in an executive order that called on agencies to use civil commitment to move homeless people into long-term institutional settings. Now, that movement that that missive by our fearless leader did not seem to gain much traction back then, but it's the little nips, it's the little tucks that he that he that they want to keep taking away in the seeds that get planted. And this obviously was planted hard enough with you and I to get us riled up about it, right?

Rebecca 26:09

Right.

Michael 26:10

So, yeah, so here's a here. So the the VA claims this is only for 700 veterans who are stuck in hospitals without families. So wait a second, are we talking about homeless people or are we talking about people these 700 who are stuck? It's like again, it's it's we're talking about one thing here, but don't look because this is what I'm doing over here.

Rebecca 26:33

Yeah, yeah, you're talking about one tiny little tiny little grain of population versus a systemic, a broad systemic systemic usurption of your your due process rights and your, you know, your your right to, I mean, it it it it it people who who read this should be like constitutionally outraged. Like it restricts your freedom of travel. It like, you know, it restricts it restricts every single fundamental liberty that you are guaranteed as a as a U.S. citizen, you know.

Michael 27:03

In theory, in theory, it can. In theory, not wrong. In theory, you are not wrong. And and we will talk about that in a little bit more depth in a minute, because I think there is a great misconception on the part of a lot of people who are listening right now in terms of what a fiduciary can or cannot do. I think that you know they think it's a magic wand too, and and frankly, it isn't. And you and I both know that from 30 plus years of dealing with this. But yeah, so here's my critique of this, and it goes back to what Ms. Mathis said. I I again I hope I'm saying her name right. But if they're stuck in a bed in the hospital and we're worried about the money that that's costing us, we should be putting money into creating more beds out in the community, especially for these folks, especially for the 700 that they've identified as as needing a place to go from the hospital.

Rebecca 27:58

Yeah, 700's such a small number. Right. How it, yeah, yeah. And and I mean, so the other thing is is like, okay, so this all passes, and you now put these folks in, you they they you know hit the criteria. They don't have family, whatever that, whatever that's defined as. They, you know, they're homeless, whatever that's defined as. They, you know, have mental illness and stuff. And so you get a lot of people.

Michael 28:24

They're unable to make their informed decisions.

Rebecca 28:26

And they are unable to make their informed decisions.

Michael 28:28

Whatever that's defined.

Rebecca 28:29

However, they've determined that. So you get these people that have like hit these magic markers, and you put them in the institute in the institutional setting, because apparently that's the only place we can have them live, because all of these four markers only set them up for living in an institutional setting. Okay. So once they're there, like, do they ever get out? Like, or do they stay there for like once you're there, you're there? Like, and if you get out, like, are you on a trial basis? Like, let's go see if you can have your freedoms back and see what you do with them, or like, do we throw them back in?

Michael 29:04

That has any extensive experience with working with the mental health field, and rightfully so. They always, I don't know that they they always want to, they say that their goal is to keep people moving forward, right? That we're not just gonna, and whether that happens or not, that that's a whole discussion for that's why I have a job, right? That's why both of us have jobs, I think.

Rebecca 29:27

Exactly.

Michael 29:28

Because that doesn't always happen. But but the idea is that we want to keep moving people forward, helping people to realize their next goals and and dreams, and and instead of just locking them away and throwing away the key, that's what we're talking about here.

Rebecca 29:42

And I think, I think also, I think, you know, it's not even it doesn't even have to be like like moving forward, because moving forward also means not moving back, you know, not not not regressing. Like if you're keeping somebody stable, that is also moving forward. Like that is also progress in my mind, anyway. If I have somebody who's stable and who's not who's not like you know, volatile and and having major issues, like that to me, so so I think like you also have to kind of think about what you measuring the right and putting the right bar there to measure a lot of.

Michael 30:20

That's a great right. What is our bar? You know, yeah. Sometimes, sometimes baseline is a great place to be.

Rebecca 30:26

Right. Exactly. Exactly. When somebody who hasn't done hasn't had a baseline or has been so off that baseline and is now managing to be stable, like in in in the the minor, you know, in a very minor, minor way that we would consider minor, but it's huge that this person is actually like, you know, even I tell the story all the time.

Michael 30:49

One of the when when Angela first came to work with me, which has to be, my God, 20 years ago or so now, right? One of the very first cases that she had with me is we went out and we met with this gentleman and sat down at the dining at the kitchen table in the congregate setting, congregate living setting, and and we had a conversation with this guy for you know six, seven minutes, something like that. And we're getting ready to leave, we're walking out, and the director of the program comes over to us and says, You guys don't have any idea what a giant leap you just did. Like, what are we talking about? We just talked to the guy. Yeah, yeah, we can't get that guy to come out of his room, and you just sat there and had a conversation with him for almost 10 minutes, and that so again, where is our bar? What is the success, you know? So this guy, VA press secretary. I feel bad for this guy because in the article, his name is Mr. Kasperowicz, Kasperowicz, Kasperowicz, probably saying it wrong, but Mr. Kasperowicz, he contradicts this a little bit, which we know what happens to people who contradict the public policy. Yes, he says that the primary focus of the current effort was not homeless veterans, but a group of around 700 veterans who are currently in VA facilities and have no family or legal representation to help them transition to a new setting. And there's the key word transition. That's the word we want to keep transitioning. So this guy, the VP uh press secretary, is kind of contradicting what the original Project Safe Harbor was aiming for, right? I don't know, it's kind of all over the place, but that's where I came up with this number of 700. So you guys know that I'm that's not pulling this out of the air. Please go to the article. It's it's a it's a short article, but it's well written in terms of it's not really taking a position, it's just saying, hey, here's some issues, and tries to lay out the issues for you. My job and Rebecca's job is to point out to you the issues from the reality, from here's the real perspective.

Deinstitutionalization And Civil Liberties

Michael 32:53

So yeah, you touched on this a little bit before, and we it we'd be we'd be remiss if we didn't bring it up because we are still dealing with the ghost of the early 80s de-institutionalization concept that was that was really championed by Ronald Reagan and and and and that administration way back then. The concept there, folks, was that we got all these people in institutions, we could save ourselves a lot of money if we get those people back out into our communities. Uh I agree with that. Okay, theoretically, I agree with that. The problem that we saw in this country with deinstitutionalization that we continue to see today, and this goes back to the 80s, so 80 to 88, when I was in my formative years and I was a Reagan guy back then. By today's standards, I probably still would be. But the problem with these deinstitutionalization is that we did move the people out, right? We did close these institutions, we did think there was a better way, but when they got out into the community, the money that we had already earmarked for them, or half that money, or a quarter of that money, didn't go with them. So they didn't have a bed, they didn't have care in the community. So this is what deinstitutionalization has looked like. So critics of the policy, this is back in the article. Critics say the policy shift raises significant civil liberties concerns, which is what we've been talking about. Noting that in earlier generations, people with severe mental illness were routinely stripped of their legal rights and confined to state hospitals, which it sounds like so we're going back away from the institution. Am I right, back?

Rebecca 34:36

Yeah. Yeah, we're going full circle. Yeah, we're going away from it only to go right back to it. Yeah.

Michael 34:41

So we're going to take well, and I guess the question is well, do you think that that money is still sitting there then that we didn't spend in the community? So we can just open up the doors of these institutions again?

Rebecca 34:53

No, I think we're spending a billion dollars a day, not not in the US.

Michael 34:58

Yeah, right.

Rebecca 34:59

Not not on our not on these veterans. We are sending it a million dollars a day on something else.

Michael 35:04

Yeah, now we gotta start. Now we have now we're spending on creating new veterans.

Rebecca 35:08

Right, right. Yeah. Which, you know, which is it's an interesting thing too. So you I I also think another inherent kind of conflict with this as well is like, so we have all these veterans that are over fighting, whether they agree with with the war they're fighting now. I mean, they they you we've create we create these sort of trust issues, and we know veterans have can can have a trust issue. I mean, I think we all have a lot of trust issues, but so now you're taking a veteran who may already have a trust issue with the government because they've been put in places where they don't think that they belong. And now we're saying, okay, that same system now is going to have even more control over you. So like when you get home, you better have a home to get home to, uh, and a family, and you better be able to make your healthcare decisions. And and you better not be living on the streets because then we are just going to you know lock down hard on you. Um yeah.

Michael 36:01

Yeah, it's that's that that does. I didn't even think about that from that perspective, but that does and it also it also makes me think, and it I get this feeling a lot where we we have this mindset of this utopian society that we had in the 40s and 50s. If we want to get back to that, but we're not really taking a look behind that curtain to see what did life really look like inside those institutions back then, and how yeah, how you think that this is a better option is is is beyond me. So

Guardianship Myths And Least Restrictive

Michael 36:32

I want to get back to something that we talked, we touched on earlier, this blanket authority concept.

Rebecca 36:37

Yeah.

Michael 36:39

So in the article, they write that guardianship powers are broader and longer lasting than civil commitment. True. This is what we use to compel someone to accept medical treatment. Okay, guys, there's a difference between civilly committed and being medically forced to undergo. That's number one. There are two completely different causes of action that have to be brought separate from each other. Very often they're heard on the same day, but you would number one have to move to get somebody kept in an institution because this isn't general. And number two, if you wanted to force medications on them, involuntary medication also requires a hearing. So there's problem number one. All right, now we say guardians can control a person's assets where the person lives and whom he or she sees. I have a problem with that. Me too. Me too. Unlike civil commitment rulings, which expire after a specific time period, guardianships are intended to be durable. True. Though they are revisited periodically and can be terminated or dissolved. That's true too.

Rebecca 37:51

Yeah.

Michael 37:52

But the reality is this, and you said it earlier acting as a fiduciary, guardian, a conservator, or any other kind of fiduciary is not a dictatorship. If you think you can go into this and act like a dictator, you are losing right from the get-go. Because without the cooperation of the individual and the team of people and the fiduciary, this cannot work. I mean, I we've seen it time, I've seen it in my career hundreds of years.

Rebecca 38:22

You're dead, you're dead in the water. You're dead in the water. You're dead in the water with with the the person, with the person you you know you have conserved, the conserved person, you are dead in the water with with the team of professionals that are around them. Like you, you didn't, and I I think you said it before as well, like where you're talking about like you always have to be cognizant. Whenever you're standing in as a fiduciary, you've been appointed as a fiduciary, you know, you always have to be cognizant of how that person lived before. I remember I had this case like years and years and years ago. I was appointed as a conservator for a woman who was like 95 years old. And the son came out of the woodwork. Once I was appointed, the son came out of the work, and I was appointed because somebody had made an application because she, you know, her her mail was, you know, kind of the traditional older, older folk. Mail was piling up, somebody called and and I was I got appointed. And the son came in and he did nothing but like, like challenge, challenge me, you know, and he said, he said, well, she should be swimming. She should be swimming every day. And I was like, and I said, well, did your mom, did she ever swim? Because I'm like, if she did, like, great, I can figure out a way to get her to the Y. Like, he's like, no, but but swimming is really good for older people. And I was like, well, why should she start swimming now? Like, and that always stuck with me that, like, you know, just because you think something is good, if that person has never has never done that before, like, why would that be a goal now?

Michael 39:48

You know, well, I say I I use the analogy all the time that, you know, there's 30 of us sitting around a room, we're setting goals for other people, and we say, I want Rebecca to quit smoking. Yeah, that's a great goal. That's an admirable goal for Beck. Yeah, well, guess what? She don't want to quit smoking.

Rebecca 40:04

Right, right.

Michael 40:05

So what's the chances that it's gonna work, right?

Rebecca 40:07

Absolutely, absolutely. But and and where where does least restrictive come into all of this, too? Like, how do we, you know, that is always, I mean, we we have to be operating on that. I mean, that was part of the deinstitutionalization as well, like getting somebody in the least restrictive environment. And we're always supposed to be looking at least restrictive, you know, because of all that stuff we were just talking about, due processing, our constitutional rights, and our freedom to do this and our freedom to do that. Like you start, you start putting people in the the highest, most extreme level of care that is for somebody who is like, when I think of like permanent institutionalization, I think of the person that is just like, you know, like a five-person hold that is like, you know, is so volatile and and has exhibits such, you know, outrageous behaviors that they can't live, you know, they cannot be supported in any other setting, other than where there's you know, 10 people on staff at all times. Like that's what I think of when I think of institutional care.

Michael 41:04

Those are our those are our those are our forensic psychiatric units, the worst of the worst in our forensic psychiatric units.

Rebecca 41:10

Exactly. And even some of those people, given the planning and and proper attention and stuff, you might be able to get that person out in the community. You might be able to. I mean, sometimes you can't, but you know.

Michael 41:24

And that's uh hopefully the goal here, but they don't talk about that. They they they don't talk about it. They're saying that basically guardianship and institutionalization is a fix-all that's gonna get people off the streets, yeah. And and it's gonna allow us to say they can't have these visitors, we're gonna force this medication, we're gonna force them to live here, and and and guys, the law uh is pretty clear. We we can't do that. We can't do that, and we shouldn't be able to do that. So so this article uh circles back on itself and does uh I think so does so intentionally, I hope so, because it really to me it is a it's a call for resources, not restrictions. There's a guy by the name of Michael Figlioli. That's the only way I can see to pronounce it. He's a director of National Veterans Services for the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and he says, if thoughtfully carried out, guardianship could provide more structured support for vulnerable veterans, though he noted important considerations regarding veterans' privacy, potential potential implementation gaps, and a need for sufficient resources. So that's exactly what we've been saying. This guy is just what we're what we keep saying. Then this this Mark Tak- Takano, I don't know how to pronounce his name either. He's he's the top Democrat in the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, he's out of California, and his quote is you know, guardianship should always be a last resort after all less restrictive options have been exhausted to ensure veterans' rights are respected. Never mind, veterans' rights, all of our rights, right? Right. One of the things that that restricts and and and busts up this fallacy that we that some people do have, that if we get a guardian or we get a conservator appointed, they're bam, it's like a magic wand, and now we could do we could force people to do whatever. This concept that you just brought up, this least restrictive means of intervention concept uh overarches everything.

Rebecca 43:33

Yeah.

Michael 43:33

So if you have the means to get yourself groceries, you have the means to get yourself fed, but we don't have the right to come in here and get groceries for you and get you fed. Um that's a bad example, but you but you understand. Yeah, I and I I've said all along, you know, a guardianship, you said it earlier, is is the it's it's uh a civil taking of liberties like nothing else we have in this country. Yeah, okay, this isn't going to. Jail. Well, I guess there's there is civil jail. So other than civil jail, this is you know, going to jail jail for civil crime. I'm talking about.

Rebecca 44:08

Yeah.

Michael 44:08

Um civil crime? Is there such a thing? I don't know. Anyway, anyway, conservatorship should not be taken lightly, but when you do use it in an appropriate clinical fashion as part of a comprehensive team, my work has shown, your work has shown over the years that it could be very effective, but it should be a last resort, not the first, not the first response to a housing crisis in our country.

Rebecca 44:37

Right. No, absolutely. Yeah. I mean, I I think I think the idea is that that the core idea is that we need more support. We do don't need more control. You need more support in the in in in the communities and in the world. You don't need you don't need to just give people, some random people, more control over this, this population that meets these markers. You know, it's just not, it's not, it's not, it doesn't, it doesn't match up. It doesn't shore up in terms of what the problem is. Like, I was just, you know, my son who's autistic, you know, and has cognitive impairments, he will have a reaction and I'll say, like, what size is your problem? Like, your problem is this big, and what how big is your reaction? Your reaction is this big. So your reaction should meet your problem. And this just seems like this is a huge reaction, especially if we're only dealing with 700 people. You know, not only, I mean, like I I take every every life as usual. We take them very seriously and and want to protect the liberties of each person. But like, if we're talking solving for these 700 folks should not cause this type of reaction, because this is an extreme overreaction to a problem that seems to be, you know, smaller.

Michael 45:52

I mean, the the ways that the end don't justify the means.

Rebecca 45:55

Yeah, yeah.

Michael 45:56

And that's and that seems to be a a common theme that we discuss things very regularly now, unfortunately.

Federal Versus State Solutions

Michael 46:03

You know, and again, it's just a call for community-based services.

Rebecca 46:06

Right.

Michael 46:07

You know, if we want to honor our veterans, we don't start out by stripping them of their rights that they have that you said they've been fighting for, yeah, you know, and and dying for, frankly, for right.

Rebecca 46:21

Yeah. No, absolutely, absolutely. And and I think community is a really important piece of that too, because you know, if somebody wants to live in downtown New Haven, you know, they they should community resources in New Haven should support them. You know, you should have community resources is such a such a relevant factor because what happens in, you know, this institutionalization that they're talking about too, like, does everybody that gets institutionalized under this project, like, do they have to go to, you know, like an institution? Like, I keep thinking of like the ice situations and like how the ice, the detention centers are in like Massachusetts. So anybody who gets pulled, you know, who gets pulled in the ice in Connecticut has to go to Massachusetts. Like, I is that what's gonna happen is you're gonna go to like they're gonna go to Guantanamo Bay. Right. They're gonna go to the closest, the closest institution for these, which may be so so. If you had any person that didn't meet the family definition, but that could have been family, they're now not gonna be able to go and see you because you know, you're you are in the system somewhere, institutionalized in the system somewhere.

Michael 47:24

This this guy, Stephen Eide, I believe is how you say his name, he studies homelessness at the Manhattan Institute. He cautioned that, and this is the article again, guys, uh cautioned that successful implementation could be challenging since it requires coordinated efforts among police officers, social workers, clinicians, and lawyers, often employed by different levels of government or private. Uh, and it's hard to change big systems. And we're certainly not going to change a system by a broad brush stroke against never mind 700, but also the the number of people who are veterans in this country, you know, is relatively small given the number of people in the country, and the number of people who are homeless veterans is even smaller. So, you know, you're really trying to tackle a a mountain with with rhetoric. And it it sh it scares me. And for those listening who are listening because they have family that they're caring for, this should be of concern. The idea that we're we can more readily take away a person's basic civil rights that are guaranteed to them because of of basically no real due process should it should scare us and and and and it should be should be something that we really all balk about.

Rebecca 49:00

Yeah, and I think I think too, like to that point, like and just another kind of slant on it too, like we're talking about federal, we're talking about a federal solution to what is a state problem. And we're, you know, and so so what do you do? Like if you don't agree, if the fed feds put in this solution, like, you know, one of the one of the things we like about you know the state police power is that if we don't like what the state is doing, the state police power is doing, we move to a different state. We can move to a different state, you know, that may have a different, like, you know, you you may like the politics in Florida better. So you move to Florida, you know, like wherever. But like when it happens federally, like you have to, you know, you have to become a refugee in another in another country. You know, because you can't escape. I mean, that's that's a federal law, and that's not that's not what was intended, I don't think, when we, you know, by by our our our system. I just don't think that that was ever the intention. Is that the federal government we're doing?

Michael 50:03

And then you also get into the idea of are we are we furthering that gap between red and blue? And I mean, we've seen court orders that come out that are just just you know, I'm not gonna follow that court order. The lessons that we're that were that are coming out of our federal government right now are if I don't like what you have to say, I'm gonna just ignore it. And you know, I know Massachusetts has been given a lot of pushback on a lot of these federal mandates, and that remains to be seen where that how that shakes out. But yeah, I mean, and then when did this when does it become a red versus a blue argument? And that is completely not where this should be.

Rebecca 50:44

Yeah, no, I I agree. I mean, it's it's not, it's a it's it's a purely a people, and it's it's it is on the the community on the state level, you know. I don't think that somebody in, you know, like in a different community even should be making determinations over New Haven residents because you don't know what what's available here. You don't know who who is here, what you know what what what resources and what people do in New Haven. Like, you know, it's it's it's so specific to to each state that I think it's a very dangerous, a very dangerous. I mean, for a million reasons that we've said, but just such a dangerous approach for the federal government to just come in and say, you know, broad stroke, broad, broad wipe of the brush to to make this problem go away.

Michael 51:30

I think we beat the hell out of this horse.

Rebecca 51:32

Right. It's a good one, though.

Michael 51:34

It's a good thing. Thank you to Rebecca, Iannantuoni for being here with me. And thanks, Beck. And you know you're gonna have to be here a lot with me having these types of discussions.

Rebecca 51:44

So Michael, I love it. Okay, cool.

Michael 51:57

Before

Closing: Homes, Not Court Orders

Michael 51:58

we wrap up today, I want to leave you with a thought from the perspective of someone who sits in these courtrooms every week. In this Times article, VA Secretary Doug Collins said that the partnership is about ensuring timely and appropriate care. But here's the reality that the administration isn't mentioning. You don't need a guardian or a conservator to provide care. You need resources, you need beds, you need staffing. If a veteran is quote unquote stuck in a VA hospital, it's rarely because they don't have a guardian to sign a paper. It's because there's nowhere for them to go that's safe or affordable or supportive. Stripping a veteran of their civil liberties just because the system's too broken to provide a community-based apartment is a moral failure. It's using the law to cover up a lack of funding. And if you take this out of the realm of how this impacts our veterans and impacts our lowly everyday citizenry, us, it becomes even scarier because we don't have that hero status of veteran. We don't have the purse strings of the Veterans Administration, which by the way are enormous. Guardian should always be a last resort. This isn't a shut cor uh uh, I'm sorry, it's not a shortcut for some kind of urban renewal or a way to clean up our street corners. These men and women fought for our freedom. The very least we could do is protect theirs. Thanks for joining me on the Hold It Together podcast, Holding It Together, Kinda, as I say. Let's keep fighting for the 95% of the homeless population this plan ignores. And let's ensure our veterans get the care they earn. Let's keep demanding that care actually looks like a home, not a court order. I'll see you all next time.