Why Guardianship Reform Is a Civil Rights Imperative

by James A. Lomastro

Nationally, Mother Jones reports, over one million adults are currently under guardianship. This is an invisible civil rights crisis—hidden in plain sight.

Having a guardian affects a person’s fundamental right to live in a community, make decisions about their life, and remain free from unnecessary confinement. While the “Free Britney” movement briefly made “guardianship” and “conservatorship” household words, most people who are affected have far fewer resources to recover their rights than Britney Spears.

For far too long, our society has tolerated a guardianship system that systematically strips civil rights from those who are most vulnerable—the poor, people with disabilities, the unhoused, and those without adequate legal representation.

The time has come, however, for comprehensive reform recognizing guardianship not as a routine administrative process but as a valued and necessary intervention to be used only as a last resort. Fortunately, more effective alternatives exist that prioritize individual autonomy and community integration.

How Guardianship Fails the Most Vulnerable

The current guardianship system is flawed and carries profound human consequences, as well as straining an already overtaxed healthcare system. A new report by the Massachusetts Guardianship Policy Institute indicates that an estimated 3,000 to 4,000 “unbefriended” or “unrepresented, at-risk” individuals in my home state “face significant risks to their health, safety, and well-being due to decisional incapacity and a lack of financial or social resources.”

In Massachusetts alone, as the new policy institute report details, thousands of medically stable individuals remain trapped in hospitals, nursing homes, and psychiatric institutions not because they require ongoing medical care but because they lack a legal guardian authorized to make decisions about their discharge and future care.

The Bay State’s experience is just one example of the devastating human and financial costs of systemic failure. While guardianship laws are often presented as tools for compassionate interventions, as implemented they frequently result in forced confinement in institutional settings in which patients may lack access to adequate care, housing options, or genuine recovery-oriented services.

Institutional Bias and Its Consequences

However, the root of this crisis lies in the legal system’s overreliance on guardianship to manage complex human needs. Rather than investing in robust community-based supports and social service workers, many jurisdictions default to institutionalization in long-stay residential facilities under the guise of protection and safety.

This approach creates a devastating cycle. Courts often appoint guardians who become risk-averse, are overwhelmed by caseloads, and/or are institutionally aligned with facility-based care providers. Guardians face no legal requirement to prioritize the least-restrictive alternative or to explore supported decision-making models that could preserve individual autonomy. Furthermore, minimal legal accountability or systemic pressure exists to expedite discharges or facilitate meaningful community integration.

These issues arise from four factors: First, deep-seated assumptions equate disability or aging with incompetence. Second, people are often placed under guardianship without adequate legal representation, a full understanding of the proceedings, or a meaningful opportunity to contest the decision. Third, once guardianship is established, ongoing supervision is typically minimal. Finally, perhaps most troubling, is how difficult it becomes to restore rights once guardianship has been imposed. Even when a person’s circumstances change significantly—through improved health, new coping strategies, or enhanced support networks—the legal and practical hurdles to regaining autonomy are high.

Forging a Path Forward That Centers Dignity

Meaningful guardianship reform must begin with a fundamental shift in societal attitudes away from assumptions that equate disability or aging with incompetence. The Massachusetts Guardianship Policy Institute emphasizes the need for “person-centered” guardianship, characterized by understanding the individual, involving them in decisions, utilizing planning tools, spending meaningful time, adhering to court oversight, and seeking continuous quality-of-life improvement. This shift requires recognizing that autonomy and safety are not mutually exclusive. Rather than defaulting to protective custody, policy should seek to preserve individual agency and dignity.

The extraordinary authority granted to guardians over a person demands equally extraordinary accountability, transparency, and responsiveness, including:

• Regular review of guardianship arrangements with a presumption toward rights restoration
• Clear standards requiring guardians to pursue the least-restrictive alternatives
• Mechanisms for individuals under guardianship to easily challenge or modify their arrangements
• Training for judges, attorneys, and guardians on disability rights and supported decision-making

The establishment of oversight bodies like the Massachusetts Office of Adult Guardianship and Conservatorship Oversight represents progress, but more comprehensive accountability measures are needed.

Investment in Community-Based Alternatives

A crucial component of reform involves significantly expanding investment in community-based supports, especially social service workers, and alternatives to guardianship, such as supported decision-making (SDM), which has been used internationally for decades and is starting to be used more widely in the United States. SDM allows people to retain their legal rights while receiving assistance from trusted individuals they choose. This approach recognizes that many people need help understanding information or considering options, but that they can still make their own decisions when provided with appropriate support.

Legal reforms must ensure that guardianship truly becomes a last resort. Achieving this goal includes beginning with less-restrictive alternatives before guardianship can be imposed, ensuring qualified legal representation for all individuals facing guardianship proceedings, providing regular and accessible pathways for individuals to challenge or terminate guardianship arrangements, and offering clear timelines for guardianship reviews and rights restoration procedures.

Finally, the Guardianship Policy Institute’s research shows that increased state funding to eliminate waitlists and ensure timely access to services for all eligible individuals is not just morally imperative but fiscally responsible. Economic analyses by the University of Massachusetts Donahue Institute and the American Bar Association in New York support potential annual savings of tens of thousands of dollars per person through effective guardianship programs.

A Nonprofit Role

Nonprofit organizations can also help transform the guardianship system. The success of initiatives like Public Guardian Services in Massachusetts—which operates a privately funded pilot program that offers social-work support for unrepresented individuals—shows the potential for nonprofit innovation in this space.

Nonprofits operating with the disability community could develop and expand guardianship services rooted in person-centered values that demonstrate how transparent and ethical oversight can be provided with a clear commitment to community integration. They are also uniquely positioned to educate service providers, families, legal professionals, and judges about SDM alternatives and help build the infrastructure needed to support the widespread adoption of these approaches.

Nonprofits can also engage in sustained legislative advocacy to reform the foundational assumptions embedded in guardianship law. Perhaps most importantly, they can work to ensure that the people most affected by guardianship are at the center of policy advocacy.

Too often, individuals under guardianship—or who are at risk of it—are excluded from discussions about the policies and practices that shape their lives. Nonprofits can create meaningful opportunities for self-advocates to speak, lead, and codesign solutions. These actions ensure that policy is grounded in lived experience and real-world wisdom rather than abstract discussions.

Toward a Rights-Respecting Future

Guardianship reform is not merely a technical legal issue—it is a fundamental question of how we treat those who are most vulnerable among us.

The current social service and legal system is biased toward institutionalization, which often amounts to the systematic removal of basic civil rights and a profound violation of human dignity. The path forward requires courage to challenge entrenched systems and assumptions. It demands investment in community-based alternatives that many jurisdictions have been reluctant to find. It requires a fundamental commitment to the principle that all people—regardless of disability, age, or circumstance—have the right to live with dignity and independently in their communities.

The policy ideas highlighted here are not merely aspirational but essential steps toward creating a society that truly values autonomy, inclusion, and human rights.

Every day that society fails to adjust guardianship policy, more individuals lose their liberty unnecessarily, more families are separated, and more communities are deprived of their members’ contributions. The Guardianship Policy Institute’s findings show that the current system’s poor outcomes are “unaffordable, both financially and in terms of human well-being,” underscoring the urgency of action.

The time for half-measures and incremental change has passed. Building a model that emphasizes professional, person-centered guardianship; sustainable funding; and comprehensive oversight offers a potential roadmap for transformation. 

Full Article & Source:
Why Guardianship Reform Is a Civil Rights Imperative 

Britney Spears’ Conservatorship Could Violate Her Civil Rights, According To the ACLU

by Gina Ragusa 

 

Britney Spears‘ conservatorship may be in violation of her civil rights, according to an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). 

Britney Spears attends the announcement of her new residency, “Britney: Domination” at Park MGM on October 18, 2018 | Gabe Ginsberg/FilmMagic

Following Spears’ request to have her father Jamie Spears removed as conservator, ACLU attorney Zoe Brennan-Krohn shared that the strict conservatorship Spears is under may not support her wellbeing or be in her best interest.

‘Conservatorships should be viewed with skepticism and used as a last resort,’ according to the ACLU

Brennan-Krohn said Spears’ conservatorship should be examined and questioned.

“So while it’s possible that this is an example of a thoughtful conservatorship that was implemented as the last resort and is being reviewed carefully, thoroughly, and regularly, that is not the norm for conservatorships,” she remarked in an ACLU report.

This is the same scooter 🛴 I had to use when I broke my foot and couldn’t walk around ... it was pretty fun then but now I use it like a daredevil through my house 😂🤷🏼‍♀️😜🙊 !!!! Hope you all have a wonderful Christmas 🎄🎅🏼🦌 !!!! pic.twitter.com/Y21LdL7NGx

— Britney Spears (@britneyspears) December 23, 2020

“And it appears inconsistent with what we see of Britney publicly,” she added. “Our view is that in general, conservatorships should be viewed with skepticism and used as a last resort.  In most cases, it’s done routinely and without substantive engagement.”

Britney Spears could have options beyond conservatorship

Brennan-Krohn added that a slew of alternatives exists beyond a conservatorship.

“We don’t know all of the risks and benefits at play, so we can’t speak to the specifics of her case,” she commented. “But we do know that the conservatorship itself also has risks. The risks in conservatorship can include financial, physical, and emotional abuse.”

“And even when there is no abuse, conservatorships limit a person’s ability to advocate for themselves, learn from their decisions and mistakes, and grow and develop,” Brennan-Krohn added.

“There is a risk in being told that your opinions, your likes and dislikes, don’t matter — it makes it harder to stand up to abuse or neglect,” she asserted.

“So in any conservatorship, including this, we would want to know that the real risks (and benefits) of both conservatorship and its alternatives have been seriously weighed.” The #FreeBritney movement has suggested that Spears is not in control of her social media or public comments.

Getting her rights back can be difficult

Spears’ father placed her under a conservatorship in 2008 after she displayed erratic behavior. Brennan-Krohn shared people end up in a conservatorship if a court deems them as having disabilities. This includes physical, mental, and psychiatric disabilities.

“This is not to say that all conservatorships are bad or wrong or unnecessary — conservatorships are complex and individual processes,” she said. “But the ease with which disabled people can be stripped of their rights, and the extraordinary difficulties they face getting those rights back, is a systemic disability rights issue about which we have serious concerns.”

Britney Spears arriving at the Los Angeles County Superior courthouse for a hearing regarding visitation rights for her two sons | Gabriel Bouys /AFP via Getty Images

Brennan-Krohn said she isn’t privy to Spears’ diagnosis. “But by virtue of being under a conservatorship, we know that the court has determined that she is disabled,” she said. And has stripped away her civil rights because of that disability. So it’s inherently a civil rights/civil liberties issue,” she said.    

Full Article & Source:

Britney Spears’ Conservatorship Could Violate Her Civil Rights, According To the ACLU

Tonight on F.A.C.E.U.S (Blog Talk Radio) : That's My Inheritance"

Join us Monday night on F.A.C.E.U.S. with Robin and Lulu along with our guest, Jessica Tolany, from Miami, Florida: “That's my Inheritance” Civil Rights.

Listen Live July 11, 2016 from 6 - 8 pm PST / 7 - 9 pm MST / 8 - 10 pm CST/ 9 - 11 pm EST.

FACE.US "That's My Inheritance"

See Also:
F.A.C.E.U.S.org

Generations who fought before us deserve justice, protection

Commentary  by Karen C. Buck

Imagine a world without the elders of our country — those who fought racism and discrimination in the civil rights, voting rights, and women's rights movements; those who fought bravely on foreign shores, in WWII against Nazi brutality and on other harrowing grounds; and those who blazed trails for all of us. Strong women and men who through the last half-century have helped raise their voices for justice, for equality, and for their communities, who helped enrich our city and our world at large.

In July 1965 in Washington, D.C., President Lyndon B. Johnson envisioned a nation that "no longer will ... refuse the hand of justice to those who have given a lifetime of service and wisdom and labor to the progress of this progressive country." As a result of his eloquence and advocacy, the federal Older Americans Act was passed, perhaps the most important piece of aging legislation in our lifetimes.

President Obama signed its reauthorization in April, after years of no reauthorization by Congress. Essential life-saving services for older Americans, our parents and grandparents, our senior veterans, those who have been instrumental in the defining events of modern American history and law, were seemingly not a priority.

Seeking justice for older Americans, as our country faces what has been deemed an "aging tsunami," is today a dynamic area of law, often called "elder justice." Congress passed the Elder Justice Act with broad bipartisan support to recognize that elder abuse is a national crisis. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has made access to justice for older Pennsylvanians a priority with the groundbreaking Office of Elder Justice in the Courts, and the Advisory Council on Elder Justice.

Judicial leaders in Philadelphia are strategizing on how to create an Elder Court and/or court-based Elder Justice Resource Center. Great progress and leadership. Yet the challenges continue for seniors in our country: poverty, homelessness, abuse, exploitation. And most seniors deal not with death and end of life, but with all of the complexities of modern life.

Currently, Pennsylvania is the fourth "oldest" state in the nation, with 2.8 million individuals aged 60 and older — 20 percent of the state population. By the year 2030, it is estimated that 3.6 million Pennsylvanians will be aged 60 and older. More than a quarter of grandparents over the age of 60 are primarily responsible for their grandchildren under the age of 18. Seniors serve and enrich their communities, families, and country at all ages and in all economic, racial, and linguistic sectors. They are cherished mentors, advocates, caregivers, volunteers, leaders.

We as public-interest attorneys and advocates provide free services to those in need in complex and daunting areas which affect real people's lives, their safety, security, and survival. SeniorLAW Center celebrates 38 years of pursuing elder justice, and proudly recognizes those who came before us.

At its annual gala earlier this month, SeniorLAW Center recognized remarkable older Americans and advocates for justice. We honored older women who broke glass ceilings in the law and the judiciary; who fought sexual harassment before it was recognized as an actionable and despicable act; who advocated for diversity in our profession and posthumously fought for admission of a grandfather into the Pennsylvania Bar decades after he was denied on grounds of being black; older artists who used their tools of film and photography to tell the stories of poverty and access to justice; those who created programs for the elderly and poor in our most struggling neighborhoods; and all who continue to fight for what is right and good and just.

Today, hundreds of thousands of seniors face their elder years in poverty or are targeted for exploitation, abuse, fraud, disenfranchisement and homelessness as they enter the "third age" and last chapters of their lives. At least 1 in 10 older Americans will be a victim of abuse over their lifetime.

According to research funded by the National Institute of Justice, almost 11 percent of people age 60 and older, or 5.7 million individuals, suffered from some form of abuse in 2009 alone. Elder abuse includes physical, emotional and sexual abuse, self-neglect, and shocking and sometimes highly sophisticated forms of financial exploitation.

Elder abuse is deadly: Victims of elder abuse, neglect, and financial exploitation have three times the risk of dying prematurely. Elder abuse is devastating: Financial exploitation costs older Americans at least $3 billion nationally, as estimated by the MetLife Mature Market Institute and the National Committee for the Prevention of Elder Abuse. Abuse of power of attorney or guardianship, fraudulent deed conveyances, home repair contractor fraud, credit card and bank account fraud, and unauthorized use, pressured sales of unsuitable products, lottery scams, and illegal and exploitative telemarketing and collection practices are just examples of the many forms of elder financial exploitation. And elder abuse is the only form of family violence for which the federal government has historically provided virtually no funding.

Philadelphia is home to one of the largest populations of senior citizens in the country — and one of the poorest. One in five of our seniors lives in poverty. Most are women. Last year, SeniorLAW Center assisted over 5,000 clients throughout Pennsylvania ranging in age from 60 to 101, and as diverse as our nation, of all colors, races, languages, and orientations. We are the only such organization in Pennsylvania and one of few in the nation focusing the power of the law to help elders live their best lives.

I recently returned from a two-month sabbatical in Iceland, Japan, New Zealand, and Australia, meeting with leaders in government, the law, and aging to share and glean best practices in elder justice. There is much we can learn from the world, and they from us. Aging is a universal truth: If we live, we will age. Our elders represent where we've come from, our ancestors, and where we are going, our future. Join us as we strive to ensure that elder justice becomes not just a new term of art, but a reality, for the elders of today and for generations to come.

Full Article & Source:
Generations who fought before us deserve justice, protection

Recommended Website: Fight Oklahoma Guardianship Abuse

We Fight Guardianship Fraud and Abuse in Oklahoma 

Guardianship fraud and abuse renders the person unable to defend themselves because the court system has stripped them of their civil, human and due process rights.  

Guardianship Law Intent

It is the purpose of the Oklahoma Guardianship Act to promote the general welfare of all citizens by establishing a system of guardianships for minors and for incapacitated persons which provides for the protection of their rights and the management of their financial resources.

It is the purpose of the guardianship system to provide for the participation of such persons, as fully as possible, in the decisions which affect them.

Courts shall: encourage the "development of maximum self-reliance and independence" of the person.

Guardians shall: protect the person's rights; "encourage" the person to participate in "all decisions" which affect them and to act on their own behalf on all matters in which they are able to do so; and as appropriate, assist the person to regain their capacity to meet the essential requirements for their health or safety, or to manage their financial resources or both.

“The ‘massive curtailment of liberty’ associated with a guardianship proceeding continues as long as that guardianship persists. The proceedings must continue to be conducted with the utmost care to ensure that the ward subject to that curtailment receives due process.”

— Oklahoma Supreme Court - In re Guardianship of Holly

 

Fight Oklahoma Guardianship Fraud and Abuse

Los Angeles Superior Court Accused of Violating Voters' (Under Guardianship) Rights

Los Angeles Superior Court unlawfully strips voting rights from thousands of disabled Americans who are under adult guardianship, an advocacy group claims in a complaint to the Department of Justice.

The Disability and Abuse Project of Spectrum Institute, "as next friend of limited conservatees under the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles Superior Court," sent a formal complaint against Los Angeles Superior Court on Thursday to the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division.

Project director Dr. Nora Baladerian said in a statement: "Being told that you are less than other Americans and that you cannot exercise your right to vote has a detrimental emotional and psychological effect on people with disabilities. We trust that Attorney General Eric Holder will take action to protect the rights of these deserving American citizens."

 According to the 8-page complaint, thousands of people with developmental or intellectual disabilities lose their right to vote after parents petition probate court to allow them to make legal, financial and medical decisions for their adult children.

The advocacy group claims the violations stem in part from court conservatorship workshops, in which parents are prompted to check off a box confirming their adult child is unable to complete an affidavit of voter registration.

Judges rely on that stroke of a pen to find that conservatees are disqualified from voting, according to the complaint.

Disqualifying adults with developmental disabilities in this way violates the Voting Rights Act of 1965, because the court is using a literacy test to make a determination, and court-appointed attorneys disregard federal laws that allow parents to assist their adult children in filling out voter registration forms, according to the complaint.

The project's legal director Thomas Coleman said there was no mention of the Voting Rights Act when he attended a seminar for Probate Volunteer Panel attorneys hosted by the Superior Court and the Los Angeles County Bar Association.

"The attorneys were told by a judge that proposed limited conservatees will lose their voting rights if they are unable to complete a voter registration form on their own accord. The judge did not mention disability accommodation laws. He specifically stated that a mother could not help her son by filling out the registration form for him," Coleman wrote in the complaint.

 Roughly 1,200 new limited conservatorship petitions go through the court every year. Most parents who file do not have a private lawyer to guide them through the process and rely on the court's self-help clinics, in addition to court-appointed attorneys.

Full Article and Source:
Courthouse News:  LA Court Accused of Violating Voting Rights

Editorial: Boomers Against Elder Abuse

Did you know that elders can lose their civil rights to freedom, legal capacity and property in New Mexico?

Elders can be declared “incapacitated” in probate court. All it takes is an emergency petition to the court on hearsay.

Court appointees who work together on case after case all stand to benefit from the elder’s seized assets, and yet they are the ones who are supposedly objective in determining what is in the “best interest” of the elder. That can mean selling off the elder’s house and assets to pay their salaries.

Elders can be isolated from family members in a nursing home. If families try to free the elder, the court-appointed guardian can use the elder’s assets to fight back. It’s the worst financial gang rape of elders imaginable documented in all 50 states. And there is no oversight of this activity outside the courtroom.




LEARN MORE:  Facebook:  Boomers Against Elder Abuse

Court upholds dismissal of Ark. judge's suit

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) — A federal appeals court panel has upheld the dismissal of an Arkansas judge's civil rights lawsuit against a judicial disciplinary commission.

 

A three-judge panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday upheld U.S. District Judge Joseph Bataillon's dismissal of Circuit Court Judge L.T. Simes's lawsuit against the Arkansas Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission.

 

Bataillon is a federal judge in Nebraska who heard the case because all Arkansas judges recused.

Bataillon ruled last year that Simes had no pursuable claim because the Arkansas Supreme Court twice refused to remove him from the bench — despite the commission's recommendations.

 

The Supreme Court reprimanded Simes in 2011 over his handling of a lawsuit. Justices suspended Simes in 2009 over a separate complaint, but he but won re-election to his seat.

Full Article and Source:
Court upholds dismissal of Ark. judge's suit