Iowa Supreme Court Case Demonstrates Significance of “Vulnerable Person” Standards in Elder Abuse Cases
Protection laws may be predicated on proof that victims were unable to protect themselves because of a “mental or physical condition.” Or sometimes the laws define a right to protection as arising when the person is of a certain age and “because of that age” is unable to protect him- or herself.
The Iowa Supreme Court explained Iowa’s vulnerable person exploitation standard in a recent case arising from a request for an order protecting a 69 year-old woman from her son:
We find the following elements need to be proved by a person claiming elder abuse to qualify as a vulnerable elder as defined in [Iowa Code] section 235.F.1(17): (1) The person must be sixty years or older, and (2) is unable to protect himself or herself from elder abuse as a result of one of the following: (a) age, (b) a mental condition, or (c) a physical condition. Id. The statute makes it clear that if a person is sixty years or older and age alone, without a mental or physical condition, makes someone unable to protect himself or herself from elder abuse, then that person is a vulnerable elder as defined in section 235F.1(17). . . .
The district court viewed the testimony and concluded Chapman’s age alone made her a vulnerable elder. In our de novo review, we give weight to the district court’s finding and find Chapman’s age made her unable to protect herself from elder abuse. She gave all her assets to her children. She was unemployed with a fixed income. [Appellant son] demanded $35,000 from her to stay in the mobile home [she had originally owned]. At her age, she was unable to pay him. She voice a concern that she was to old to handle the eviction notices [he] was giving her.
In summary, [the son] took advantage of Chapman due to her age and financial condition. The evidence supports a finding Chapman was a vulnerable elder. The purpose of the elder abuse statute was to allow our elderly population to seek relief from actions such as Wilkinson’s without the expense of a more costly and time consuming action that others argue are appropriate under the circumstances.
For the full opinion, see In re Petition of Chapman, 890 N.W. 2d 853 (Iowa 2017).