I was told to obtain a guardianship order for my wife. I don't have time with all of her care. Is there a way around this?

Can you hire a nurse and/or an aide to come in for a day and do all of the errands you have on your 'to do' list? How about another family member? If that individual can't handle the care, he/she may be able to be the 'known face' for your wife while the hired team does the actual care. I don't know how long you have been at this, but no one person can handle 24/7 care for extended periods of time. And there are outside matters that need to be handled. Alternatively, some attorneys will come to your home (at an additional charge). But that will mean you are away from your wife anyway. Good luck.

I agree with geewiz. You need to get some additional help whatever happens or doesn't happen with the guardianship. You can't be the only caregiver 24/7 and keep your own physical and mental health. Start making some phone calls to see what help there is available for you. How old is your wife? If she's not a senior, I'd start with the United Way or your local congress person to see what help there is available. If she's a senior, then call your local Area Agency on Aging to see if you can get her some help. Is she on Social Security Disability? Tell us more and you'll get some very good advice from the other caregivers on here who have experience with your situation.

Even here in the US, if you have a case pending, your attorney will advise you NOT to press your case in social media, talk to the press or characterize the defendant in any way. Initially they will ask you to Cease and Desist and the court will uphold the request. Should you continue to post videos, they will ask that you be held in contempt of court (=jail) and attempt to recover damages for defamation that can destroy your hope of settlement. Tread carefully, once you sue in court, you are bound to the agreement to settle only in court and not seek trial-by-youtube.

Look. Let's take this paragraph as an example. You say:

"Well I was totally ignorant to the whole scenario of brain injury, after listening to the neuropsychologist I started to read all about civil procedure rules by Lord Woolf he warned solicitors on their behaviour."

Ok. So:

Who referred your wife to the neuropsychologist? Barts? Your GP? Who?
This referral resulted in an appointment one year following the injury, correct?
So, between your wife's discharge from Barts and the appointment with UCH, what happened with regard to her rehab? Nothing? Or something? Who was co-ordinating your wife's post-discharge care?

This is the type of important information that is missing. This is what people need to know if they are to understand your profound sense of grievance.

But in any case, leaving that to one side: your consultant is concerned about the delay and tells you that your wife should have been referred immediately for rehabilitation. And - seriously? - your first thought is to look at the Woolf Report? Why? What's that got to do with your wife's medical care? What solicitor are you holding responsible for a failure to refer your wife promptly WITHIN the NHS?

Mate, seriously, you're all over the place.

But to use your own analogy, if you discover that the engineer who fitted your new gas boiler was not CORGI registered, no you don't rip it out and get a new one. You get an engineer who definitely is CORGI registered to check the work and see if there was anything wrong with it.

In your case I suspect the second, third, fourth engineers told you the boiler was fine, once they'd had a chance to look at it properly, and you didn't like what they told you. And then someone else whose completely different boiler in a completely different context had blown a hole in his kitchen wall told you they were all out to make sure you die of carbon monoxide poisoning…

But this is too important for all that kind of argy-bargy. What do you want to achieve?

Colin, your wife's becoming essentially a Ward of Court is not the same thing as her becoming - as you put it - a non-person. Try seeing it on the contrary as her entitlement to additional protection in view of her vulnerability, protection which will among other things prevent her funds being used for any purpose other than her own welfare. In all of the bureaucracy that has been making your life hell, at the core of it is Mary's best interests. That's what it's for. A mighty messy job they can make of it sometimes, but nevertheless at the end of the day they want the same outcome that you want: Mary's welfare.

If you feel that this is personally insulting to you, I can understand that: it would hurt my pride too, if I were in your shoes. However, presumably, the aim of suggesting that you apply for guardianship is that you would then take charge of spending on her behalf and thus become more fully involved in managing her affairs. In that case, everything you do would be closely supervised, and would have to be accurately accounted for. Of course. What else would you expect?

You've spent the last ten years annoying and alienating the various authorities; now you're hoping there will be some way for you just to get on with looking after Mary unchallenged, in your own way? Not. A. Chance.

Listen. Costco has settled. The court is satisfied that your wife has been adequately compensated for her injuries. That is the court's decision to make, not yours. So far so good.

Costco has paid the compensation. The money was paid and taken into trust by the court. At that point, the story ceases to have anything at all to do with Costco. They owned up, they paid damages, end of story as far as they're concerned.

I expect it does baffle you that various officials would not discuss with you what is happening with the money. The stark reality is that this is none of your business, because it is not your money, it is your wife's money; and not having POA, which she couldn't give you because she allegedly lacked capacity, you have no right to act on her behalf. I know she's your wife, but that's how it works. Her compensation is her compensation, and nothing to do with you in the eyes of the law.

This "for instance" might make it easier to accept their attitude: suppose, just suppose, that instead of being you, you were a completely different type of husband, a really nasty piece of work. Suppose your wife had always lived in fear of you, and now was suffering from a disability, and had received a large lump sum from the people who had injured her. And suppose then that the court cheerfully gave you complete control of her affairs, saying "there you go - look after her, mind." What would you think of a court that would do that to a helpless, injured person? And even if the hypothetical wife said to the court that she agreed to her husband's taking charge, would you just take her word for it?

There are many less good husbands and wives than you and Mary out there. The courts have to assume the worst, or they will be taking terrible risks with people who desperately need their protection. And how are they to know what kind of husband you are? They can't tell by looking, you know.

So you either learn to play nice, and co-operate with the people whose duty is to protect your wife, or you give up and let them take over altogether. Nothing in law obliges you to stay with your wife unless you choose to, actually - you could leave tomorrow and the state in all its glory would step in to care for her (if you can call what they do caring). But the law definitely is obliged to make very sure that anybody, including you, who goes anywhere near your wife's money is monitored closely. That's their duty.

Lastly, maybe you don't see why all this has to happen. I agree that it's very possible that none of this safeguarding rigmarole has any relevance to the reality of your and Mary's relationship. But what does that change? What difference does it make if you or Mary or I think it's a good system? It changes nothing. You play the game by the rules, or you don't play.

Colin, if you already have a decade's experience of dealing with this then clearly you're having problems with the OPG, your local authority and the various brain injury charities, carers' organisations and so on that I would otherwise recommend. What's the difficulty with arranging for a carer to come to your home, while you're there, to give you the time you need for the paperwork?

You're rather implying some kind of skulduggery back there, I assume it's related to your wife's claim for compensation. What went on?

Country mouse you certainly know your onions - I am impressed

Here in the US my son and daughter-in-law will need to go to court to establish guardianship of their developmentally disabled son for when he reaches the age of majority (18). They can do this when he turns 16. Sounds odd considering he will be unable to care for himself as an adult and he is their child, but that is the law. I am sure it has to do with being able to receive Social Security Disabilty when he reaches 18 and making sure those payments are utilized for the disabled individual.

Colin, what I've given up is any hope of getting to the point of what you would like to achieve.

Actually I have been thinking that what you need is an advocate. But who you could persuade to take on the role, especially since you have seem to have trouble trusting anyone in an official position, is a difficult question. I assume you've no faith in social services; what about PALS? I also assume that you've had the CAB running for cover long ago; but you could always approach them and ask; the worst that can happen is that they say no. But it's always going to be true: unless you're clear in your own mind about what you're expecting and would like to happen, how can anyone help you?

In any case, if you do decide to ask someone to act as your advocate, please remember that any person prepared to do it will be a working professional with only 24 hours in the day. It may be distressing when people don't seem to take time to listen, but they simply haven't got that time: they need to get on with whatever it is you're expecting them to do.

Write down a factual summary sheet, stating events, decisions, parties directly involved, facts and numbers, get it down in date order. Do not wander off the point. Do not include your opinion of the legal and medical professions. For God's sake do not treat them to your personal thesis on brain injury. Anyone trying to help you achieve anything is going to need to see clearly what has happened in fact, not hypotheses and suppositions; and they simply will not have time to mine the data for themselves. Do not omit incidents where you worry that people might think, correctly or otherwise, that you yourself made an unwise move; even if your advocate does think you have at times been in the wrong, that will not stop him or her wanting to help you move forward from here, and he or she needs to have that information too.

If you grit your teeth and go through the guardianship process, Mary's money will be available for spending on her - but you will have to follow all guidance to the letter, like it or not, or it'll be out of your hands again so fast it'll make your head swim.

Your own compensation: it's a guess, but is this tied up in a dispute about costs? If so, you might as well wave it goodbye. Then the worst that can happen is that you're pleasantly surprised if there is anything left at the end of the dispute (we should live so long…).

I'm sorry that I can't help. I hope you'll find someone who can. Best wishes to you both,

Well the interesting thing about life, the truth shall set you free, unfortunately due to the pressures I'm under, I had a stroke but still carrying on taking care of my wife, still loving her as much as I ever have with no regrets. but I feel that there is an education to be learned here, we all somehow are victims to the way life is on this planet.

I would like to give you this advice, https://youtu.be /TB0k7wBzXPY in case the link is remove, Google this (I am FishHead) we have all been victims and have paid a dear price for our ignorance, but let's try not to take that ignorance to our graves with us.