By Levi Bakke
Published October 2, 2024
Part 1: Denied. Delayed. Dismissed. Amanda's Story
In a recent guardianship case, the misuse of ORS 125.323 resulted in the severe restriction of a wife’s access to her husband, referred to here as the Resident, during the final stages of his life. After being locked out of the facility, the Resident’s wife was allowed only 30 minutes of visitation per week and two hours on their anniversary. Following the lockout, the Resident was placed on hospice care and subjected to a heavy regimen of PRN medications, raising significant concerns about the decision-making process that led to his isolation and overmedication.
This case reveals serious inconsistencies in testimonies, questionable actions by the Guardians and Facility staff, and illegal attempts to cover up critical information that should have influenced the court’s ruling. The use of ORS 125.323 to restrict spousal visitation under such circumstances not only sets a dangerous legal precedent but also highlights the ethical failures that occurred at the facility.
The Resident's lockout occurred shortly before he was placed on hospice care, following a plan that had already been in motion. As soon as the Wife was barred from visiting, the Resident was placed on sedative medications, including Haldol and Lorazepam, used to manage his behavior under hospice care. This sedation regimen, however, raises questions about the facility's motives—whether these drugs were being used for comfort or for behavioral control. Especially since these medications were used prior to hospice placement. The timing of the decision suggests that the lockout was part of a broader plan to exclude the Wife from involvement in the Resident's care during his most vulnerable moments.
The testimony presented by the Guardians and the Facility's Administrator during court hearings was fraught with inconsistencies and misrepresentations. The Guardians claimed that the Resident's condition improved after the Wife was locked out, testifying that he gained weight, slept better, and was less agitated. However, staff logs show a different reality, where the Resident exhibited violent behavior, attempted to elope from the facility, and experienced serious health issues, none of which were mentioned in the court proceedings.
Moreover, there were illegal and immoral actions undertaken by the Guardians, to be revealed later, including planning and executing a lockout of the Wife, were followed by attempts to cover up their behavior. This calls into question the credibility of all testimonies given by the Guardians and staff, as their actions were clearly aimed at excluding the Wife from the Resident's care.
Further complicating the case is the testimony provided by the medical provider, who relied heavily on information from the Guardians and staff rather than conducting in-person evaluations of the Resident. Under oath, the provider admitted to making care decisions based on the Guardians' assessments and the facility staff rather than their own direct observation. This testimony, combined with the biased reports from the Guardians, the collusions of the staff with the guardians, tainted the hearing and led to a flawed decision based on inaccurate and incomplete information.
The facility's Administrator also played a key role in the misinformation. During testimony, they misrepresented the Resident's condition, falsely claiming that he gained weight and became less agitated, while omitting critical information about the Resident's placement on hospice and the heavy sedation regimen used to manage his behavior.
After the Wife was banned from the facility, the Resident was heavily medicated with PRN drugs, a practice that has raised serious concerns about the facility's management of his care. The overuse of sedatives like Haldol every two hours in various forms, Morphine, Quetiapine and Lorazepam, typically reserved for controlling aggressive behavior in extreme cases, became routine following the Wife's exclusion. Sedation can be directly linked to weight loss, dehydration, skin issues, agitation, anger and violent outbursts. This overmedication raises ethical questions about whether the drugs were used to sedate and control the Resident, rather than provide him with appropriate care during hospice.
Staff logs show multiple instances of overmedication, which were omitted from the court's review. These logs documented violent episodes, elopement attempts, and health issues that contradicted the claims made by the Guardians and facility staff. The Resident's declining health, coupled with the overuse of sedatives, further underscores the inaccuracy of the testimony used to justify the Wife's exclusion.
The court's reliance on ORS 125.323 to restrict the Wife's visitation rights during the Resident's final stages of life was based on biased, inaccurate, and false information. The combination of illegal actions, misrepresentation of facts, and overmedication created a deeply flawed case that resulted in the wrongful isolation of the Resident from his Wife. The decision to limit her access—especially during such a critical time—was based on a hearing tainted by false testimony and manipulated evidence.
This case represents a significant failure in the application of ORS 125.323, a statute now being used in ways that set a troubling precedent for the rest of the state. The Resident's wishes were considered based on biased and incomplete information, and the court’s decision to limit his Wife’s visitation was based on manipulated testimony and false reports. The Resident’s isolation, overmedication, and exclusion of his Wife were the result of misrepresented facts and unethical actions by the Guardians and Facility staff. The hearing was tainted by inaccuracies, and justice was not served that day.
More details will be released soon, including transcripts and recordings totaling over 200 hours from approximately 300 visits, so the Resident’s voice will finally be heard. This evidence will be shared piecemeal with the public to demonstrate the manipulation of records, overmedication, and the misuse of legal statutes that took place. Additionally, the actions and inactions of local DHS and APS will be examined, showing the systemic failures that allowed this situation to unfold.
The judge cited that justice means all voices being heard and all evidence being considered, yet justice was not found that day. Future publications will be released as part of a series, with evidence made available alongside each release. The public deserves transparency, and these releases will ensure accountability and prevent similar injustices in the future.
Levi Bakke lives in the beautiful Pacific Northwest, in the Grande Ronde Valley, located in Eastern Oregon — a community filled with wonderful people, self-thinkers, and neighbors you can count on. As I became more involved and met more people, the issues facing our valley became clear. With an innate need to help those who cannot help themselves, I took up the mantle of a journalist, driven by my background as a Marine Corps veteran, entrepreneur, and justice seeker. I chose this path to leverage the power of the First Amendment and the protection of Oregon's Shield laws to expose those who are corrupt and hold accountable those who are complicit and complacent. Some wrongs can be corrected, but when they cannot — when someone in a position of authority is causing harm — they must be removed and stripped of their power. My mission may sound simple, but the path is complex: to root out corruption in our community for as long as I am able. A dear friend once told me, "First, you serve God, then your family, and then your community." So here I am, reporting for duty. Semper Fidelis.