HARRISBURG — More than five years ago, Pennsylvania identified
widespread problems with its system of appointing and overseeing
guardians — the legal decision-makers, chosen by judges, who manage the
affairs of adults who are unable to care for themselves.
In response, the state Supreme Court established an office to oversee
the implementation of 130 sweeping recommendations made by experts in
the field. An update from 2019 noted significant progress, marking more
than half as “accomplished.”
But a Spotlight PA review found the report paints an overly rosy
picture of the situation. Experts say that critical changes needed to
better protect vulnerable seniors lack funding, are incomplete, or are
stuck in limbo in the state legislature.
Of the recommendations marked as “accomplished,” many were not actually
put into practice, the review found. One of those recommendations — to
guarantee legal counsel to people who might be put in the care of a
guardian — has been at least temporarily shelved.
Other reforms marked accomplished will be included as “best practices”
in a new guidebook for judges who handle guardianship cases. The book,
still in draft form, was originally slated to be published in early 2019
but is now expected this summer.
The “most significant accomplishment,” the update said, was the rollout
of a highly touted technology to collect data about guardianships and
to automate portions of oversight. One year later, however, there is
little consistency as to how, and how well, counties are using it.
Other recommendations are caught in stalled legislation or unfunded mandates.
“Having protection systems that function properly is a bipartisan,
commonwealth-wide issue,” said Katherine Pearson, a professor of elder
law at Penn State’s Dickinson Law School, who served on the task force
that drafted the recommendations. "Am I frustrated with the Pennsylvania
legislature’s slowness to address and adopt carefully considered
reforms, such as a clear right to counsel for alleged incapacitated
persons? Yes."
Those involved with the guardianship system — from judges to court
clerks to attorneys — say they are impressed with the state’s efforts to
bolster protections in recent years. Court officials are committed to
improving the new tracking and oversight technology, and nearly all
agree the data it provides will offer crucial insights into the system.
“It’s a huge step in the right direction,” said Kathryn Holt, a senior
court research analyst for the National Center for State Courts. From a
national perspective, Holt said, she has been “very impressed” with
Pennsylvania’s progress.
But a lot of work remains.
Stewart Greenleaf, a former Republican lawmaker from Montgomery County,
spent years attempting to pass sweeping changes to the system. But he
was unable to get a bill establishing better guardianship protocols for
courts to the governor’s desk before retiring in 2018.
The legislative process takes time, Greenleaf said.
“It’s as simple as that,” he said. “That it’s not that simple.”
Around the time of Greenleaf’s retirement, Sen. Art Haywood (D.,
Philadelphia) announced his intention to reintroduce and update the
bill, but more than a year later, he still hasn’t. He said he can’t find
bipartisan support.
Asked where Pennsylvania’s guardianship system stands now, Haywood responded with one word: “Stuck.”
In Pennsylvania, there are about 18,400 adults living under guardianship. More than half are age 60 and up.
Commonwealth Media Services
Sen. Art Haywood (D., Philadelphia) said further reforms to
Pennsylvania's guardianship system are "stuck" in the legislature and
lack bipartisan support.
|
In Pennsylvania, there are about 18,400 adults living under guardianship. More than half are age 60 and up.
Guardianships begin when someone is perceived to be unable to care for
themselves. If they do not have an existing legal document describing
their preferences, like a durable power of attorney, their case is sent
to the local Orphans’ Court. There, a judge can appoint a guardian to
take control of financial, medical, and personal decisions.
Unlike many states, Pennsylvania does not require that courts provide
lawyers to represent people facing guardianship. Vulnerable seniors who
cannot find or afford an attorney can be left to navigate the process
alone.
“It’s stressful for courts,” said Karen Buck, executive director of
SeniorLAW Center in Philadelphia and a member of the task force that
made the recommendations. Judges cannot give legal advice, and without
representation, Buck said, people might not be aware of their rights.
In 2014, the task force recommended changing court rules to make legal representation a requirement.
But the Orphans’ Court rules committee dismissed the recommendation,
instead deciding that appointment of attorneys, in cases where someone
doesn’t provide their own, should be left to a court’s discretion. In a
notice, the committee cited concerns about the financial burden and added that “a large majority” of guardianship cases go uncontested.
Haywood, who was previously an attorney for people who could not afford
legal representation, said the committee’s analysis doesn’t cut it.
“Failure to contest is not an indication of the lack of the need for
legal representation,” he said. “In fact, it can be conceived as the
exact opposite.”
Cherstin Hamel is the director of the state’s Office of Elder Justice
in the Courts, which is overseeing the implementation of the 130
recommendations. She said that if a recommendation was considered, but
not adopted, it was marked as “accomplished.”
Hamel added the guidebook for judges will indicate that it is best practice for counsel to be appointed in every case.
Lawmakers could mandate the right to counsel through legislation. But
according to Haywood, there has been “tremendous” pushback to the idea,
primarily over “perceived costs.”
Some judges have taken matters into their own hands.
George Zanic, president judge of the Huntingdon County Court of Common
Pleas, appoints an attorney each time someone facing a guardianship
hearing does not provide their own. In situations where the individual
cannot cover the fees, he said, the county pays upfront and is later
reimbursed by the state.
According to Zanic, who served on the task force, the issue is vital.
“We need to appoint counsel,” he said. “There’s no question about it.”
In 2014, the task force found that nearly 70% of Orphans’ Courts did not track whether they were receiving annual updates from guardians with information about an individual’s finances, health, and well-being.
Sara Simon / Spotlight PA
Old reports and docket books at the Cumberland County Orphans’ Court,
which is still grappling with how to manage a new technology to monitor
legal guardians.
|
In 2014, the task force found that nearly 70% of Orphans’ Courts did not track whether they were receiving annual updates from guardians with information about an individual’s finances, health, and well-being.
The task force recommended a new technology that could automatically
notify Orphans’ Courts when guardians failed to file required updates.
An algorithm would also search across those reports and trigger
automated alerts when something seemed amiss.
By December 2018, the new technology was in place across Pennsylvania,
and one year in, many who interact with it say the tool is progress.
“I really like it,” said Lauren Cascino Presser, an elder law attorney
in Johnstown, who helps her clients use the technology to submit their
annual reports.
But for a tool intended to ease and streamline oversight, it falls
short of addressing the disparities in how counties are monitoring
guardianships.
Once a guardian submits a report, the tool automatically searches for
32 problem scenarios. The majority are related to finances. A report
showing a drastic drop in assets, for example, triggers an automated
flag.
But flags don’t directly imply wrongdoing. They require follow-up to
determine whether harm is being done and what action, if any, should be
taken.
In some counties, court staff is tasked with reviewing the incoming
flags. In others, law clerks do the work. Some counties have outsourced
the job to outside attorneys. One, so overwhelmed by the scale of
alerts, said they recently tapped a retired judge to step in and assist.
By comparison, Minnesota has a similar tool that sends alerts to centralized teams of trained auditors.
“Any system is only as good as the people running it,” said Zanic, the judge in Huntingdon County.
Pennsylvania’s new technology is also susceptible to an old problem: bad actors.
Guardians are self-reporting and are not required to provide bank
statements, receipts, or other documentation. And reports can only
reveal so much, said Sherry Baskin, a longtime volunteer helping to
monitor Dauphin County’s guardians.
“Unless there was something egregious and glaring, that wouldn’t be reflected,” Baskin said.
One benefit of the new system, many agree, is that when courts have
questions, they can order guardians to submit evidence or appear for a
hearing. Prior to the tool, court officials said, they lacked the
authority to follow a hunch.
It’s when courts can’t keep up, though, that issues creep in.
Alerts arrive daily in Philadelphia, courts spokesperson Gabriel Roberts said.
They come not only for every flag raised in a file, Roberts said, but
also for reminder notices and for reports that are overdue. There are
flags for guardians removed from a case and flags for people who have
died. Staff resources are “stressed and overwhelmed,” Roberts said.
When asked in January how Cumberland County is managing the tool’s
alerts, Lisa Grayson, clerk of the county’s Orphans’ Court, said: “We’re
still working that out.”
“You need to review the entire report,” Grayson said.
But, she added, that “takes manpower, it takes hours, it takes money.”
Hamel, the director of the office overseeing reforms, said the tool is
“meant to enhance a court’s existing statutory obligation to monitor
guardianships,” and that the office is “actively working to recommend
best practices in reviewing reports.”
Still, her office has marked two recommendations for adequate funding
to support guardianship monitoring as “accomplished,” citing the new
technology.
Full Article & Source:
Protections for vulnerable Pa. seniors lag, reforms to guardianship system ‘stuck’
A critique of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court Elder Law Task Force was published on the Americans Against Abusive Probate Guardianship web site. https://aaapg.net/pennsylvania-courts-recommend-curbs-on-seniors-constitutional-rights/ Some of the task force recommendations actually make it easier to initiate a fraudulent guardianship. The recommendation for legal counsel states that the counsel is not obligated to respect the wishes of the alleged incapacitated person—the court appointed attorney for the AIP can recommend a guardianship! Also, in her September 19, 2018 testimony on behalf of Pennsylvania Senate Bill 884 (2017-18 Session), law professor Katherine C. Pearson stated that the bill would “ Fix a long-festering question about the authority of guardians to make certain end-of-life health care decisions (by bringing guardians’ authority into conformity with decision-making powers held by other health care agents);” The bill would remove the AIP’s existing healthcare surrogate and give the surrogate’s powers to the guardian!
ReplyDelete