Roberts, the Republic columnist, has been exposing what seems to be a deep and systemic problem in how the local courts handle guardianship cases.

She’s detailed some odd stories (see “PHXated hearts Laurie Roberts”). What seems to be happening is that certain adults for whatever reason come under the guardianship of the courts. The court appoints a network of lawyers and caregivers to watch the person—but it’s all paid for out of the person’s assets. At a certain point, the assets are gone. The lawyers and caregivers melt away, and the subject ends up under taxpayer care.

Today she goes after judge Lindsay Ellis, who studied one such case Roberts had been reporting on — but delivered a blistering defense of the status quo:

In a take-no-prisoners 21-page ruling issued Monday, Ellis described the fees that put Marie Long into the poorhouse as “reasonable, necessary and for the benefit of the ward.” She blamed Marie’s court-appointed attorney Jon Kitchel along with Dan Raynak and Pat Gitre, attorneys for Marie’s sisters, for driving up costs, saying their “venomous” and “hateful” attacks on the trustee, the guardian and their attorneys forced the other side to defend themselves.

With Marie’s money, of course.

The opinion was lauded by Sun Valley Group, which withdrew as Marie’s guardian when her money ran out in November. Says Sun Valley’s CEO, Peter Frenette: “I am grateful for the court’s decision as it finds ‘there is no legitimate dispute about SVG or its performance of its duties as guardian for Long.’ The court confirmed that this has been an unfair attack not just on SVG but also the guardianship process.”

Roberts continues:

I, too, am grateful for the court’s decision as it proves my point all along which is simply this: the court that is supposed to be protecting people like Marie Long is doing no such thing. Instead, the court is allowing a cozy group of lawyers and fiduciaries who are appointed to help vulnerable people help themselves to a nice pile of cash — until the money is gone, at which time the “ward” is dumped onto the taxpayers.

Then the court approves the spending, in this case in a ruling I like to call “Ellis in Wonderland.”