Guardianship - A device to be avoided

Guardianship is created so that one person can take over the decisions of another -- another who has been determined to be incapable of making decisions for him/her self. This imposition is the total antithesis of self-determination principles. Although some still see guardianship as having a benevolent purpose, we must:

Recognize guardianship for what it really is:

the most intrusive, non-interest serving, impersonal legal device known and available to us and, as such, one which minimizes personal autonomy and respect for the individual, has a high potential for doing harm and raises at best a questionable benefit/burden ratio. As such, it is a device to be studiously avoided.

Claude Pepper, U.S. Representative from Florida in the 70’s, and a champion of the rights of older people, made the following statement in a study of guardianship conducted by the Pepper Commission:

"The typical ward has fewer rights than the typical convicted felon. They no longer receive money or pay their bills. They cannot marry or divorce ... It is, in one short sentence, the most punitive civil penalty that can be levied against an American citizen, with the exception ... of the death penalty."

Guardianship frequently removes constitutional rights of individuals. Over thirty states have statutes that deny the right to people under guardianship to marry or vote. The simplest of decisions that we all take for granted can be taken away from the individual and given to another under guardianship. This includes the right to decide where we want to live, what kind of work we may wish to pursue, where we’d like to travel, how we’d like to spend our money, even who we want to spend our time with.

Source: Guardianship is Not Self-Determination by Kathy Harris