Thursday, July 17, 2008

Regulating Guardians

If family or friends are not available, state probate courts appoint guardians — also called conservators and fiduciaries in some states — to protect incapacitated seniors and dependant adults from self-neglect, predators and scam artists. But in some cases, society’s most vulnerable adults are left in the hands of unscrupulous or incompetent guardians, and until recently, states were not looking over their shoulders.

To address this growing potential for fraud, theft and abuse:

* California joined six other states — Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Nevada, Texas and Washington — in regulating professional guardians appointed by courts to manage the finances and day-to-day needs of those who can no longer help themselves.

* All 50 states have adopted laws governing how and when courts appoint guardians and every state except Nebraska provides public guardians for those who cannot afford to pay.

* Some states also allow payment of guardianship fees through Medicaid, the federal and state health program for the poor.

* Idaho and North Carolina — have legislative committees that are considering industry regulation.

* Colorado, New Mexico, Oregon and Utah are revamping their guardianship laws and may include some form of certification and oversight.

In all, Arizona has licensed more than 300 fiduciaries, Florida has certified 137 guardians, Texas has certified 241, Nevada 86, Alaska has licensed 49 and California has tested 161 conservators for licensing, according to Sally Hurme of the Center for Guardianship Certification, who is working with states to develop training and certification programs.

Full Article and Source:
States move to regulate senior guardians

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Probate judges are SUPPOSED to monitor Conservators of the person, but actually, they depend on the conservators/ guardian' s reports. Who's going to give a report that might lose themselves a paycheck? Well functioning people don't need guardians. So, they need to say they're
NOT well. For instance, I know of someone who has a Conservator, who
is greatly improved from an episode of decompenstion, and she is just about able to care for herself in every respect. However, her physician, her conservtor and her attorney reported to probate court that there has been no change. The judge never saw her, but he's responsible for making decisions. Which he did. I paraded her into another attorney's office who said to her, "It's so nice to see you looking so well." I took her to the probate court (just for a visit) and without any prompting, a surprised court clerk said, "gee, she's changed, she's gained some weight. She looks good." If the judge had been there, she'd be without her job. Patient had been kept on the
wrong medication for over a year, and her physician wouldn't change it despite reports from the patient and myself that a particular med was causing the problems. The patient realized that the only way to get it
changed was to go to a hospital emergency room where she was admitted and then put on the correct medication.

In my opinion, much of what was said in the article is propaganda speak and sounds like a PR blurb.