Chapter 13 - THE CAREGIVER DEFENSE
Marcus’s attorney hired a geriatric-care expert.
Expected.
The expert reviewed:
Pneumonia.
Medication.
My fall history.
Burner incident.
Driving.
Grief.
Then said in pretrial report:
A family caregiver could reasonably have safety concerns and may use temporary containment only in extreme imminent danger? The cage not appropriate though. Let's phrase:
The report did not endorse locking someone in a kennel.
It said caregiver concern can arise before formal diagnosis and family observations may differ from clinic presentation.
Fair.
Then defense theory:
Marcus believed I was having acute behavioral episode.
He prevented me leaving because I was unsafe to drive.
I fell in mud.
I entered/approached kennel during confusion.
He closed door briefly to stop wandering.
Used hose to clean mud.
Rachel misinterpreted.
The prewritten draft?
He was documenting anticipated risk.
The “one documented incident” language?
Care planning.
The papers outside?
He intended to discuss them after I calmed.
The forged POA?
Separate bad financial judgment, not proof cage motive.
They would separate.
Prosecution would connect.
Jury decides.
Then Marcus’s lawyer emphasized my anger.
I had thrown a coffee mug two months earlier.
True.
At wall?
No.
Into sink.
It broke.
During argument over keys.
Marcus photographed shards.
Listed as:
Mother violent.
I admitted.
Not proud.
Then I once slapped his hand away when he took my phone.
True.
No injury.
He wrote:
Aggressive toward caregiver.
Again.
Normal conflict turned into clinical evidence.
But I had done it.
Then Samuel prepared me:
“Do not say ‘I never got angry.’”
“I got furious.”
“Good.”
“Not good.”
“Good for credibility.”
Fine.
Then Rachel’s background.
She had a black belt? That could make kick issue. Let's avoid cliché. She did CrossFit? not important.
Defense found she worked as physical therapist assistant? She was strong. Could say she coached fitness classes. No need.
They argued she was predisposed to intervene.
She admitted:
“I thought Marcus was abusing Helen before I went out.”
Bias.
Why?
His messages and sounds.
Then:
“You crossed private fence.”
“Yes.”
“Kicked property.”
“Yes.”
“Kicked Marcus.”
“Yes.”
“Could have waited for police.”
“I believed Helen was cold, locked, and he was threatening her.”
The jury would hear later.
No perfect witnesses.
Then adult protective services investigation.
They interviewed me.
Assessed house.
Finances.
Supports.
Recommendation:
Independent living with voluntary services.
No guardianship needed.
Case substantiated for abuse? Agencies use terms. Let's say they found credible evidence of physical and financial exploitation and closed after safety plan/coordination.
Then Marcus filed no guardianship petition.
Couldn’t plausibly after cognitive evaluation and criminal charges.
Draft remained evidence.
Then his bail motion requested limited communication for reconciliation.
Denied/not necessary.
We could later choose.
I did not.
Then I received a birthday card from him? No indirect contact prohibited. Through lawyer maybe not.
He asked court permission to send letter.
I said no.
Not ready.
My therapist asked:
“What are you afraid the letter will do?”
“Make me mother him.”
There.
If he cried:
I would comfort.
If he apologized:
I would soften.
If he blamed:
I would rage.
I needed distance before words.
So no.
That was my first clean no to Marcus that did not require explanation.
May you like
It felt terrible.
It also worked.
