Supreme Court issues opinion on guardianship case involving former legislative candidate Matthew Monfore.

Matthew Monfore is a name that we haven’t heard in a while; not since he came in last in a primary election for District 30 House.   Yet, he’s back in the news today as a result of a messy guardianship battle involving him in a South Dakota Supreme Court Decision that was handed down today in the matter of GUARDIANSHIP AND CONSERVATORSHIP OF FLYTE, 2025 S.D. 21.

It’s worth a read if but for to note the parts involving Monfore, and what the opinion had to say about some of his activities. But as always, don’t take my word for it – read it yourself:

Guardianship and Conservatorship of Flyte by Pat Powers on Scribd

In the spring of 2018, Charlene’s younger son, Matthew, age 28, moved to the ranch to help Charlene care for Gerda. Matthew lives in Gerda’s 3-bedroom, 1,700 square foot ranch house with Gerda and Charlene and does not pay rent. Matthew attended the Cornerstone Bible Institute in Fall River County and identifies himself as a minister.

and..

Roger also testified about his concerns that Gerda was not receiving necessary medications because Charlene and Matthew did not believe in conventional medicine. Gerda had a history of mini-strokes and took several prescription medicines including Warfarin, a blood thinner. Gerda had a history of mini-strokes and took several prescription medicines including Warfarin, a blood thinner. Charlene testified that she and Matthew, based on advice of doctors Matthew found online, decided to take Gerda off her prescription medications and put her on supplements instead. However, none of the online doctors ever met or examined Gerda, nor did they have access to her medical records.

and..

During the evidentiary hearing, the court also heard testimony about Matthew’s role in the family and his activities on and off the ranch. Matthew testified that he operates a church headquartered at the ranch called Jesus is King Mission. Several witnesses testified that Matthew regularly posts religious signs on Gerda’s property and hosts church services in Gerda’s house, with Charlene’s permission. Matthew testified that he used to publicize the services at the ranch but stopped posting the address because of “terrorist threats” that he received because of his evangelization activities. The court heard testimony that Matthew’s religious fervor led the Oglala Sioux Tribe to banish him from the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation and to require all future missionaries operating on the reservation to register with the Tribe.

In addition to holding services, Matthew invited numerous individuals associated with the church to stay at the ranch. Matthew testified that some, but not all, of those people paid rent. The proceeds from those who did pay rent were split between the church and Charlene. Both Roger and Jesse testified that Matthew’s religious fervor and aggressive demeanor, including constantly recording Roger with his cell phone, had become a point of contention between Matthew, Roger, and Charlene. Jesse testified that he lived in Arizona and used to frequently visit South Dakota, but no longer does so because Matthew makes him feel unsafe. Jesse also testified that Matthew’s controlling presence has changed Charlene, including the way she cares for Gerda.

….

Charlene, Roger, and Matthew’s contentious relationship led to law enforcement involvement on at least two occasions. Roger testified that on September 25, 2021, he called the police because Matthew was threatening Gerda and Jay. The incident began, according to Matthew, when he showed Jay and Gerda a video comparing certain groups to Nazis. Roger testified that Gerda grew up in Nazi Germany, and this video was traumatic for her to watch.

and..

Matthew then made fun of Roger for having previously contemplated suicide, which led to Roger “pushing Matthew against a wall.”  Roger was charged with simple assault but eventually pled to a reduced charge of disorderly conduct for which he served a short jail sentence and was ordered to have no contact with Matthew.

and..

The circuit court also found Matthew’s involvement in Gerda’s care was a significant factor affecting Charlene’s ability to care for Gerda, concluding that only a third-party would be able to protect Gerda from Matthew. The court found that Matthew, who operated a religious entity and website, displayed large signs and banners on Gerda’s property and regularly held religious services in her house without her permission. Matthew admitted these services provoked threats against him and others, placing them in physical danger. Matthew also allowed people related to his religious entity to stay on Gerda’s property without paying rent.

and..

Charlene also takes issue with the circuit court’s discussion of Matthew’s conduct because he “was and is not the applicant for Guardian or Conservator.” However, the circuit court explained its concerns about Matthew’s impact on Charlene’s ability to act in Gerda’s best interests. The circuit court found that “[n]ot only does Charlene allow her son to exploit his grandmother’s property and safety, but she does so while admitting that Matthew’s religious beliefs are contrary to Gerda’s beliefs.” The circuit court was “very concerned that Charlene will continue to encourage his behavior if she is allowed to serve as Gerda’s guardian or conservator.”

Charlene also argues that the circuit court impermissibly considered Matthew’s religion in its decision to appoint BHA as guardian and conservator. However, the circuit court did not base its determination on Matthew’s religious views, but on the concrete effects that his presence and religious activities had on Gerda and the use of her property. Matthew’s religious services provoked terroristic threats aimed at Gerda’s home address.

The bottom line is that the court found the following:

• There is ample evidence to support the circuit court’s findings.
• SDCL 29A-5-110 does not authorize the appointment of for-profit entities to serve as guardians and conservators, so Circuit Court has to go back and try again.
• And they awarded partial attorney fees to the uncle.

Maybe it’s just my impression, but I read this as they not being able to keep the current guardian (BHA) ONLY because law does not permit a for-profit entity to serve in that role. Otherwise, they might have let the decision stand.

Seriously, go read if for yourself, as it sounds like kind of a madcap environment to be receiving elder care as a dependent adult. And not in a good way.