Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-gtxcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T03:27:33.670Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Trends in Guardianship Reform: Implications for the Medical and Legal Professions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 April 2021

Penelope A. Hommel ,
Lu-In Wang  and
James A. Bergman
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In recent years, there has been a slow but dramatic change in society's attitudes toward persons with disabilities—an evolution away from traditional paternalistic approaches which foster dependency, toward policies focused on maximizing the potential for autonomy and independence among individuals of limited capacity. This change is clearly reflected in efforts across the country to revise state guardianship statutes. This article analyzes significant trends in these reform efforts, and highlights important practice implications for physicians and attorneys whose practices include serving persons who are limited in their capacity to make informed decisions.

Type
Article
Information
Law, Medicine and Healthcare , Volume 18 , Issue 3 , Fall 1990 , pp. 213 - 226
Copyright
Copyright © 1990 American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Black's Law Dictionary 635 (West, 5th ed 1979).Google Scholar
Horstman, Peter M., “Protective Services for the Elderly: The Limits of Parens Patriae”, 40 Mo L Rev 215, 218–221 (1975).Google Scholar
Id. at 221.Google Scholar
See id.; Alexander, George, “Premature Probate: A Different Perspective on Guardianship for the Elderly”, 31 Stan L Rev 1003, 1004 (1979).Google Scholar
Indeed, some statutes listed “advanced age” as a basis for a finding of incompetence, even though the link between old age and dysfunction is highly controversial. See Alexander, , 31 Stan L Rev at 1009 (cited in n. 4); Horstman, , 40 Mo L Rev at 215–216 (cited in n. 2).Google Scholar
Mitchell, Annina M., “Involuntary Guardianship for Incompetents: A Strategy for Legal Services Advocates”, 12 Clearinghouse Rev 451,460 (1978).Google Scholar
In some states, the guardian was given the power that a parent has with respect to an unemancipated minor child. For example, ND Cent Code 30.1-28-12.1 (1976); Mich Comp Laws Ann 700.455(1) (1980).Google Scholar
See, for example, Alexander, , 31 Stan L Rev at 1005–1006 (cited in n. 4); Nolan, Shapiro Bobbe, “Functional Evaluation of the Elderly in Guardianship Proceedings”, 12 L, Medicine & Health Care 210 (Oct 1984).Google Scholar
Dudovitz, Neal, “Protective Services and Guardianships: Legal Services and the Role of the Advocate”, Representing Older Persons 77 (National Senior Citizens Law Center, 1985).Google Scholar
Preamble to Florida Guardianship Law, Fla Stat Ann 744.101 et seq (1989).Google Scholar
Mitchell, 12 Clearinghouse Rev at 460 (cited in n. 6).Google Scholar
Reported in Abuses in Guardianship of the Elderly and Infirm: A National Disgrace, a report by the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Health and Long-Term Care of the House Select Committee on Aging, House of Representatives, 100th Cong., 1st Sess, (Dec 1987).Google Scholar
In this article, the person who is the subject of guardianship proceedings may be referred to as the “proposed ward,” “alleged incapacitated person”, or “respondent.”Google Scholar
Many of these reforms parallel the recommendations of the July 1988 National Guardianship Symposium, reported in ABA Commission on the Mentally Disabled and Commission of Legal Problems of the Elderly, Guardianship: An Agenda for Reform (1989).Google Scholar
The District of Columbia guardianship law states that “[a] finding… that an individual is incapacitated shall not constitute a finding of legal incompetence.” DC Code 21–2004 (1989).Google Scholar
Although these reforms are not specifically addressed in this article, they may have important implications, especially for attorneys for proposed wards. See pp. 26–27.Google Scholar
Seen. 16.Google Scholar
These laws may be found, respectively, at: DC Code 21–2001 et seq. (1989) (effective Feb 28, 1987); Fla Stat 744.101 et seq. (1989) (effective Oct 1, 1989); Mich Comp Laws Ann 700.441 et seq. (1989 Supp) (effective March 30, 1989); NM Stat Ann 45-5-301 et seq. (1989) (effective June 16, 1989); ND Cent Code 30.1-26-01 et seq. (1989 Supp) (effective July 1, 1990). Unless otherwise indicated, all subsequent statutory citations are to 1989 volumes or supplements. A number of noteworthy bills have been introduced in other states, but will not be examined in this article.Google Scholar
Mich Comp Laws Ann 703.1(4) (1980).Google Scholar
NM Stat Ann 45-5-101.F (1978). This definition is very similar to the definition contained in the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws’ 1969 Uniform Probate Code. See Mitchell, 12 Clearinghouse Rev at 456 n 47 (cited in n. 6).Google Scholar
Nolan, , 12 L, Medicine & Health Care at 210 (cited in n. 8).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hafemeister, Thomas L. and Sales, Bruce D., “Interdisciplinary Evaluations for Guardianships and Conservatorships”, 8 L & Human Behavior 335, 338 (1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ND Cent Code 30.1-28-04.2.a.Google Scholar
DC Code 21–2011(11), (15), (16).Google Scholar
Fla Stat Ann 744.102(10).Google Scholar
NM Stat Ann 45-5-101.F,G,H. But see NM Stat Ann 45-5-401 B(1) (in a conservatorship proceeding, incapacity must be evidenced by “gross mismanagement of his income and resources” attributable to a cause such as mental illness, mental deficiency, or chronic intoxication).Google Scholar
Preamble to the Florida Guardianship Law, Fla Stat Ann 744.101 et seq.Google Scholar
DC Code 21–2044. See also DC Code 21–2055 (conservatorship); Fla Stat Ann 744.1012; Mich Comp Laws Ann 700.444(2),(3); NM Stat Ann 45-5-303.1; ND Cent Code 30.1-28-04.1 (almost identical to provision in DC Code).Google Scholar
This point is discussed further below.Google Scholar
NM Stat Ann 45-5-301.1. See also Fla Stat Ann 744.331(5); ND Cent Code 30.1-28-04.5.Google Scholar
ND Cent Code 30.1-28-04.3.Google Scholar
Hommel, Penelope A. and Lisi, Lauren Barritt, “Model Standards for Guardianship: Ensuring Quality Surrogate Decision Making Services”, 23 Clearinghouse Rev 433 (1989).Google Scholar
Horstman, , 40 Mo L Rev at 227 (cited in n. 2).Google Scholar
Id at 228–229.Google Scholar
Jost, Dean Timothy, “The Illinois Guardianship for Disabled Adults Legislation of 1978 and 1979: Protecting the Disabled from their Zealous Protectors”, 56 Chi Kent L Rev 1087, 1100 (1980). See also, for example, Horstman, , 40 Mo L Rev at 225–230 (cited in n. 2); Alexander, , 31 Stan L Rev at 1016–1018 (cited in n. 4).Google Scholar
For example, Hafemeister, Thomas L. amd Sales, Bruce D., “Interdisciplinary Evaluations for Guardianshps and Conservatorships”, 8 L & Human Beh 335 (1984); Scogin, Forrest and Perry, James, “Guardianship Proceedings With Older Adults: The Role of Functional Assessment and Gerontologists”, 10 L & Psych Rev 123 (1986). See also Goodenough, Gerald K., “The Lack of Objectivity of Physician Evaluations in Geriatric Guardianship Cases”, 14 J Contemp L. 53 (1988).Google Scholar
Horstman, , 40 Mo L Rev at 229 (cited in n. 2).Google Scholar
Id.; Nolan, 12 L, Medicine & Health Care at 211 (cited in n. 8).Google Scholar
For example, Nolan, , 12 L, Medicine & Health Care 210 (cited in n. 8); Scogin and Perry, 10 L & Psych Rev 123 (cited in n. 36).Google Scholar
Nolan, , 12 L, Medicine & Health Care at 211 (cited in n. 8)Google Scholar
Id. at 211 (emphasis in original). Nolan cautions, however, that functional assessments could infringe on subjects’ rights because of the intrusive nature of their inquiries. Id. at 214.Google Scholar
Fla Stat Ann 744.331(3)(a). The old Florida law also provided for an examining committee, but it was to be composed of “one responsible citizen and two practicing physicians”. Fla Stat Ann 744.311(5)(a) (1984).Google Scholar
On the other hand, the committee must consult with the attending or family physician if s/he is available for consultation.Google Scholar
NM Stat Ann 45-5-303.D, 45-5-407.B (conservatorship).Google Scholar
NM Stat Ann 45-5-101.T.Google Scholar
Mich Comp Laws Ann 700.443 (3), (4).Google Scholar
Mich Comp Laws Ann 700.8 (4).Google Scholar
Scogin, and Perry, , 10 L & Psych Rev at 125 (cited in n 36).Google Scholar
Fla Stat Ann 744.331 (3)(b)-(d). Under the former law, the examining committee was to ascertain the person's “mental and physical condition”. If the committee considered the person to be incompetent, it was to “determine his age, whether his condition is acute or chronic, and the apparent cause of this condition”. 744.331(5)(b) (1984).Google Scholar
NM Stat Ann 45-5-303.D; 45-5-407.B (conservatorship); Mich Comp Laws ann 700.443(5); ND Cent Code 30.1-28-03.5.Google Scholar
NM Stat Ann 45-5-303.D, 45-5-407.B (conservatorship).Google Scholar
DC Code 21–2041, 21–2054(a) (conservatorship); Fla Stat Ann 744.107 (called “court monitor” rather than “visitor”), Mich Comp Laws Ann 700.449; NM Stat Ann 45-5-303.E; ND Cent Code 30.1-28-03.3.Google Scholar
NM Stat Ann 45-5-101.V.Google Scholar
Mich comp Laws Ann 700.449. See also ND Cent Code 30.1-28-08 (nursing or social work).Google Scholar
For example, Fla Stat Ann 744.107; NM Stat Ann 45-5-101.V; Mich Comp Laws Ann 700.449.Google Scholar
DC Code 21–2033(c).Google Scholar
ND Cent Code 30.1-28-03-6.Google Scholar
Mitchell, , 12 Clearinghouse Rev at 453 (cited in n. 6); Nolan, 12 L, Medicine & Health Care at 210 (cited in n. 8).Google Scholar
Indeed there was no guarantee that the proposed ward would actually receive the notice, for methods other than personal service were commonly permitted. Mitchell 12 Clearinghouse Rev at 453 (cited in n. 6).Google Scholar
See id.; Horstman, , 40 Mo L Rev at 253 (cited in n. 2). Most statutes required only a notice of hearing, so the proposed ward would learn only that a hearing was to be held on a certain date. For example, Mich Comp Laws Ann 700.451(1) (1980); ND Cent Code 30.1-28-09-1 (1976).Google Scholar
See generally, Hommel, Penelope A. and Lisi, Barritt Lauren, “Model Standards for Guardianship: Ensuring Quality Surrogate Decision Making Services”, 23 Clearinghouse Review 433 (1989); Horstman, , 40 Mo L Rev at 235–236 (cited in n. 2); Mitchell, 12 Clearinghouse Rev at 453–455 (cited in n. 6); Nolan, 12 L, Medicine and Health Care at 210–211 (cited in n. 8).Google Scholar
Horstman, , 40 Mo L Rev at 235 (cited in n. 2).Google Scholar
Nolan, 12 L, Medicine & Health Care at 210 (cited in n. 8).Google Scholar
See Mitchell, 12 Clearinghouse Rev at 454–455 (cited in n. 6).Google Scholar
Mich Comp Laws Ann 700.443(7), 700.443a; Fla Stat Ann 744.331(2); DC Code 21–2041(h), 21–2054(a), (e) (conservatorship); NM Stat Ann 45-5-303.C, 45-5-407.B (conservatorship); ND Cent Code 30.1-28-03 (court appoints attorney to act as guardian ad litem, but attorney may act as advocate).Google Scholar
See, for example, Fla Stat Ann 744.331(4) (1984) (right to appointed counsel); Mich Comp Laws Ann 700.443(2) (1980) (right to counsel).Google Scholar
For example, Fla Sta Ann 744.331(6); Mich Comp Laws Ann 700.443a.Google Scholar
Fla Stat Ann 744.102(3). See also DC Code 21–2033(b) (duty of counsel is to “represent zealously (the) individual's legitimate interests”); NM Stat Ann 45-5-303.1 45-5-404.1 (conservatorship).Google Scholar
DC Code 21–2033(b). See also NM Stat Ann 45-5-303.1, 45-5-404.1 (conservatorship); ND Cent Code 30.1-28-03.4.Google Scholar
Mich Comp Laws Ann 700.443(2); ND Cent Code 30.1-28-03.3 (attorney is appointed to act as GAL).Google Scholar
Mich Comp Laws Ann 700.443a(2) – (4); ND Cent Code 30.1-28-03.4.C.Google Scholar
DC Code 21–2033(a).Google Scholar
NM Stat Ann 45-5-303.C and 45-5-303.1, 45-5-404.1 (conservatorship).Google Scholar
NM Stat Ann 45-5-303.1.B, 45-5-404.1.B (conservatorship).Google Scholar
See, for example, Mich Comp Laws Ann 700.443 (1980); NM Stat Ann 45-5-303 (1978).Google Scholar
NM Stat Ann 45-5-303.A.Google Scholar
NM Stat Ann 45-5-404.Google Scholar
Mich Comp Laws Ann 700.443(1).Google Scholar
Fla Stat Ann 744.3201.Google Scholar
Fla Stat Ann 744.334.Google Scholar
For example, Mich Comp Laws Ann 700.451(2); ND Cent Code 30.1-28-09.2.Google Scholar
Generally, DC Code 21–2031; Fla Stat Ann 744.331(1); Mich Comp Laws Ann 700.451; NM Stat Ann 45-5-309, 45-5-405 (conservatorship); ND Cent Code 30.1-78-09.Google Scholar
NM Stat Ann 45-5-309.C, 45-5-405.B. See also ND Cent Code 30.1-28-09.3 (not less than double spaced 12-point type).Google Scholar
Fla Stat Ann 744.331(1). Although the statute does not specify who is to read the notice to the person, it implies that it must be read when it is served. Many of the other statutes further insure that the proposed ward will understand the nature of the proceedings by requiring that court-appointed guardians ad litem explain the hearing procedure, as well as the purpose and effects of the appointment of a guardian. For example, Mich Comp Laws Ann 700.443a(1).Google Scholar
Fla Stat Ann 744.331(4)(a). This statement contrasts with the provision in the former statute that “hearings shall be conducted in as informal a manner as may be consistent with orderly procedure…” Fla Stat Ann 744.331(4) (1984). The new Florida statute lists a litany of rights to which the proposed ward is entitled. Some of these rights resemble the rights of criminal defendants. See 744.1095.Google Scholar
For example, Fla Stat Ann 744.109 (mandatory; if appeal is taken, transcript must be furnished to indigent ward at public expense); NM Stat Ann 45-5-303.I (if requested by proposed ward or counsel or ordered by court), 45-5-407.I (conservatorship; same).Google Scholar
DC Code 21–2041(h), 21–2054(e) (conservatorship); Fla Stat Ann 744.331(4)(b); Mich Comp Laws Ann 700.443(6); NM Stat Ann 45-5-303.F 45-5-407.C (conservatorship); ND Cent Code 30.1-28-03.7.Google Scholar
For example, DC Code 21–2041(h), 21–2054(e); ND Cent Code 30.1-28-03.7.Google Scholar
ND Cent Code 30.1-28-03.7.Google Scholar
Mich Comp Laws Ann 700.443(6); NM Stat Ann 45-5-303.G, 45-5-407.C (conservatorship). See also ND Cent Code 30.1-28-03.8.Google Scholar
DC Code 21–2041(h), 21–2054(e) conservatorship; Fla.; Stat Ann 744.1095(2)-(5); Mich Comp Laws Ann 700.443(7).Google Scholar
NM Stat Ann 45-5-303.H, 45-5-407.H (conservatorship).Google Scholar
DC Code 21–2003; Fla Stat Ann 744.331(4)(c); Mich Comp Laws Ann 700.444(1); NM Stat Ann 45-5-303.H; ND Cent Code 30.1-28-04.2.b.Google Scholar
Matter of Westchester County Medical Center, 534 NYS2d 886, 892 (1988) (a “right to refuse treatment” case).Google Scholar
See Fla Stat Ann 744.331(7) (1984); NM Stat Ann 45-5-304 (1978); ND Cent Code 30.1-28-04 (1976).Google Scholar
Mitchell, , 12 Clearinghouse Rev at 455 (cited in n. 6) (although Mitchell considers “clear and convincing” to be a low standard).Google Scholar
Fla Stat Ann 744.331(5)(a); NM Stat Ann 45-5-304.C(1), 45-5-407.F(1) (conservatorship); ND Cent Code 30.1-28-04.2.b(1). See DC Code 21–2044(b); Mich Comp Laws Ann 700.444(1).Google Scholar
NM Stat Ann 45-5-304.C(3); ND Cent Code 0.1-28-04.2.b(2). See NM Stat Ann 45-5-407.F(3) (conservatorship).Google Scholar
Fla Sta Ann 744.331(5)(b); NM Stat Ann 45-5-304.C(4); ND Cent Code 30.1-28-04.2.b(4). See NM Stat Ann 45-5-407.F(4) (conservatorship).Google Scholar
NM Stat Ann 45-5-304.C(2); ND Cent Code 30.1-28-04.2.b(3). See DC Code 21–2044(b); Mich Comp Laws Ann 700.444(1). See NM Stat Ann 45-5-407.F(2) (conservatorship).Google Scholar
NM Stat Ann 45-5-304.C(5), 45-5-407.F(5) (conservatorship).Google Scholar
DC Code 21–2044(c); Fla Stat Ann 744.344; Mich Comp Laws Ann 700.444(2); NM Stat Ann 45-5-304.C, 45-5-407.F (conservatorship); ND Cent Code 30.1-28-04.2–5.Google Scholar
ND Cent Code 30.1-28-04.5.Google Scholar
See n. 30.Google Scholar
See, for example, Fla Stat Ann 744.331(3)(c), which states that the examining committee's examination, while an essential element, is not to be the only element used in making capacity and guardianship decisions. On the other hand, if the examining committee finds no incapacity, the court must dismiss the petition. 744.331(3)(e).Google Scholar
McLaughlin, Charles, “‘Doing Good;’ A Worker's Perspective”, Public Welfare 29, 30 (Spring 1988).Google Scholar
See generally, Tremblay, Paul R., “On Persuasion and Paternalism: Lawyer Decisionmaking and the Questionably Competent Client”, 1987 Utah L Rev 515; Smith, Linda F., “Representing the Elderly Client and Addressing the Question of Competence”, 14 J Contemporary L 61 (1988).Google Scholar
Olmstead v United States, 227 US 438, 479 (1928) (Brandeis dissenting).Google Scholar