Progress Report on the 

Work of the 
Advisory Council 
on Elder Justice 
in the Courts

January 2015 through December 2018

THE ADVISORY COUNCIL ON  
ELDER JUSTICE IN THE COURTS

MISSION STATEMENT

The mission of the Advisory Council on Elder Justice in the Courts shall be to identify and address elder 
justice issues (including elder abuse and neglect, guardianships, and access to justice) affecting the 
Commonwealth’s elders.  

EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

While we recognize that many adults live long, healthy and productive lives well beyond the age of 60, for 
the purposes of its Report, the Elder Law Task Force defined an elder as a person 60 and over, based on the 
use of that age by the Pennsylvania Department of Aging, the Area Agencies on Aging, the United States 
Administration on Aging and most aging services providers. This age originally comes from the Federal Older 
Americans Act (which created the “aging network” of services for older Americans). In addition, Pennsylvania 
Act 70 of 2010, which created Adult Protective Services (a reporting and investigative system for the under 60 
population), defines an “adult” as an individual between the ages of 18-59. Thus, the Task Force determined 
an “older adult,” or “elder,” would be defined as 60 and over. While some of these recommendations are 
equally applicable to younger adults with diminished capacity, the focus of the Elder Law Task Force was on 
elders.

DISCLAIMER STATEMENT

The materials contained herein, and the opinions expressed in this Report on the work of the Advisory 
Council do not necessarily represent the official views of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. The Report is 
for informational purposes only as a service to the public and other interested entities. This Report does not 
constitute legal advice or a substitute for the advice of legal counsel. 

If you suspect  

an elder is  

being abused,  

please call the

Statewide Elder  

Abuse Hotline: 

1-800-490-8505

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Foreword by Madame Justice Debra Todd ...............................................................................................................4

Members and Staff of the Advisory Council on Elder Justice in the Courts  ............................................................6

Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................................9

Status of Implementation of the Elder Law Task Force’s Recommendations  ........................................................14

Recommendations to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania ..............................................................................14

Recommendations to the Office of Elder Justice in the Courts and 

 

to the Advisory Council on Elder Justice in the Courts ..............................................................................36

Recommendations to the Legislative Branch ...................................................................................................44

Recommendations to the Executive Branch ....................................................................................................52

Recommendations to the Federal Government ................................................................................................53

Recommendations to Prosecutors ...................................................................................................................54

Recommendations to Victim Services Providers ..............................................................................................55

Recommendations to Bar Associations............................................................................................................56

Recommendations to The Public ......................................................................................................................57

Appendices

Appendix A: Abbreviations and Acronyms .......................................................................................................58

Appendix B: Advisory Council Training Programs and Educational Presentations ..........................................59

Appendix C: Presentations and Educational Forums made to the Advisory Council .......................................65

Appendix D: AOPC Guardianship Tracking System Brochure  .........................................................................67

Appendix E: AOPC Informational Brochure on Elder Abuse ............................................................................68

Appendix F: National Center on Elder Abuse Fact Sheet: Red Flags of Abuse ...............................................69

Appendix G: National Center on Elder Abuse Fact Sheet: 12 Things that Anyone 

 

Can do to Prevent Elder Abuse ..................................................................................................................71

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3

4

4

5

5

ADVISORY COUNCIL MEMBERS

LEADERSHIP:
Chair
Honorable Paula Francisco Ott*
Judge
Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Vice-Chair
Zygmont A. Pines, Esquire*
Former Court Administrator of Pennsylvania

STANDING MEMBERS:
Secretary,  
Pennsylvania Department of Aging
Honorable Teresa Osborne 

Pennsylvania Senate
Senator Arthur L. Haywood, III
Staff Designee, Liana E. Walters, Esquire

Pennsylvania House of Representatives 
Representative Tim Hennessey
Staff Designee, Erin E. Raub

6

Supreme Court Liaison
Madame Justice Debra Todd*
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Director, Office of Elder Justice in the Courts 
Cherstin Hamel*
Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts

Pennsylvania Attorney General
Attorney General Josh Shapiro
Staff Designees, Robert Reed, Esquire 
and David Shallcross

Chair, Supreme Court Orphans’ Court Procedural 
Rules Committee
Wayne M. Pecht, Esquire

Register of Wills and Clerks of Orphans’ Court 
Association
Lisa Grayson, Esquire
Cumberland County Orphans’ Court Clerk

MEMBERS:
Keelin S. Barry, Esquire
Law Offices of Keelin S. Barry, LLC
Philadelphia

Karen C. Buck, Esquire*
Executive Director
SeniorLAW Center
Philadelphia

Joseph M. Olimpi, Esquire
The Elder Law Office of Olimpi & Kramer, LLC
Beaver

Mary Catherine Scott, Esquire
Interim Director & Supervising Attorney
Central PA Law Clinics
Widener University School of Law
Harrisburg

Dr. Bruce M. Bushwick
Chairman, Department of Family Medicine
WellSpan Health
York

Rev. Ronald W. Costen, Ph.D., Esquire
Legal Consultant, Institute on Protective Services, 
Temple University
Harrisburg

Eugene A. Vittone, II, Esquire
District Attorney
Washington County
Pamela Walz, Esquire
Co-Director
Aging and Disabilities Unit
Community Legal Services 
Philadelphia

Honorable Sheila A. Woods-Skipper*
President Judge 
Court of Common Pleas  
Philadelphia County

Honorable George N. Zanic*
President Judge
Court of Common Pleas  
Huntingdon County

Stephen A. Zappala, Jr., Esquire
District Attorney
Allegheny County

Arthur N. DiLoreto
Deputy Director
Pennsylvania Association of Area Agencies  
on Aging, Inc.
Harrisburg

John N. Kennedy, Esquire
Kennedy, PC Law Offices
Harrisburg

Diane Menio*
Executive Director
Center for Advocacy for the Rights and I 
nterests of the Elderly 
Philadelphia

Honorable Lois E. Murphy* 
Administrative Judge 
Orphans’ Court Division
Court of Common Pleas  
Montgomery County

*Long Range Planning Committee Members

7

CONTRIBUTING STAFF:

Daniel Bacon
IT Senior Enterprise Project Manager
Administrative Office of 
Pennsylvania Courts 

Jeffrey Bauman, Esquire
Deputy Chief Staff Attorney
Madame Justice Debra Todd 
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 

Darren M. Breslin, Esquire 
Judicial Education Administrator
Administrative Office of 
Pennsylvania Courts 

Rhonda Campbell*
Chief Judicial Assistant 
Madame Justice Debra Todd 
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 

Amy J. Ceraso, Esquire 
Director of Information Technology
Administrative Office of 
Pennsylvania Courts 

Joseph Mittleman, Esquire
Director of Judicial District Operations
Administrative Office of 
Pennsylvania Courts 

Russel Montchal
Assistant Director of Information Technology
Administrative Office of 
Pennsylvania Courts 

Laurie Sacerdote
Assistant Director of Research and Statistics
Administrative Office of 
Pennsylvania Courts 

Damian Wachter, Esquire
Assistant Director of Legislative Affairs
Administrative Office of 
Pennsylvania Courts 

Amy Whitworth
IT Analyst Manager
Administrative Office of 
Pennsylvania Courts 

FORMER ADVISORY COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Deborah Curry  
(October 2015-July 2016)
President
Pennsylvania Registers of Wills and Clerks of 
Orphans’ Court Association

Joan Krechmer  
(January 2015-December 2017) 
Executive Director
Jewish Family Services of York

Lawrence A. Frolik, Esquire  
(January 2015-December 2017) 
Professor
University of Pittsburgh School of Law

Wilmarie Gonzalez  
(January 2015-October 2015)
State Long-Term Care Ombudsman/Director
Pennsylvania Department of Aging

Former Attorney General Kathleen Kane  
(January 2015-August 2016)
Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General

Susan Kauwell  
(August 2016-August 2017)
President
Pennsylvania Registers of Wills and Clerks of 
Orphans’ Court Association

8

John F. (“Jack”) Meck, Esquire  
(January 2015-December 2017) 
Eckert Seamans
Chair, Supreme Court Orphans’ Court Procedural 
Rules Committee

Wendy M. Welfley  
(January 2015-October 2015)
President
Pennsylvania Registers of Wills and Clerks of 
Orphans’ Court Association

Honorable John T. Yudichak  
(January 2016- December 2016) 
Senator
Pennsylvania Senate

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The significant past and present contributions of 
elders to our Commonwealth cannot be understated. 
Yet, more than ever, unprecedented needs and 
unique issues face this special and growing part 
of our citizenry. Pennsylvania is the nation’s fourth 
oldest state in the percentage of elder population. 
Above all, our Commonwealth’s elders want to know 
that their government is dedicated to recognizing and 
providing practical solutions to the real challenges 
that face them, and to acting resolutely on their 
behalf.

To address these challenges with respect to the 
Commonwealth’s judiciary, the Elder Law Task Force 
(Task Force) was created in 2013 to act as a catalyst 
through which necessary improvements concerning 
these venerable Pennsylvanians could be realized. To 
this end, the Task Force made 130 recommendations 
in its ground-breaking 2014 Report which serves as a 
framework for positive substantive change in the lives 
of our elders.

Since the issuance of the Task Force’s Report, the 
Advisory Council on Elder Justice in the Courts 
(Advisory Council) and the Office of Elder Justice 
in the Courts (OEJC) have been established and 
charged with the implementation of the Task Force’s 
recommendations. The overarching goal of the Task 
Force, and, now, the Advisory Council and the OEJC, 
has been to address the needs and challenges of 
our aging population through meaningful reform 
to improve and protect access to justice for our 
Commonwealth’s elders.

Over the past four years, the Advisory Council 
and the OEJC have taken major strides towards 
advancing the Task Force’s vision and fulfilling 
its goals through significant progress regarding 
guardianships, elder abuse and neglect, and 
access to justice. More specifically, and well ahead 
of many other states, the Advisory Council and 
the OEJC are leading the way in Pennsylvania to 
ensure justice for our elders through progressive 
administrative automation programs, procedural 
reform, and substantive innovation. Of the 130 
recommendations made in the Task Force report, 
70 recommendations have been accomplished, (20 
of which, while accomplished, work is ongoing), 

Judge Paula Francisco Ott, Advisory Council Chair

34 recommendations are in progress, and 26 
recommendations will be addressed or implemented 
in the coming years. While there remains much work 
to do, the following is a summary of our considerable 
achievements thus far.

JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION

Arguably the most significant accomplishment of 
the Advisory Council and the OEJC is the creation 
and implementation of the Guardianship Tracking 
System (GTS). Guardianship issues center on those 
who protect the interests of an incapacitated person 
(IP) and who have the duty and power to make 
decisions for him or her. The judiciary has grappled 
with the practical difficulties in appointing guardians, 
and in screening, monitoring, and reporting physical 
and financial abuse, all of which have been cited as 
significant areas of concern with respect to elders. 
A primary impediment to real reform in this area 
has been the lack of timely, accurate, and complete 
guardianship data, which is essential to resolution of 
these issues.

9

To address these concerns, and to bring genuine 
change to guardianship administration in 
Pennsylvania, the AOPC Information Technology 
Department (IT), under the direction of Amy Ceraso, 
Esquire, spearheaded the creation and development 
of the GTS. The result of IT’s efforts has been the 
establishment of a comprehensive web-based 
system to be used by guardians, court staff, 
Orphans’ Court Clerks, and judges to file, manage, 
track, and report on guardianships. Specifically, 
through the GTS, courts will be better able to monitor 
active guardianships through a statewide uniform 
reporting process. The system will permit guardians 
to electronically file inventories and annual reports 
with the Orphans’ Court, and will flag concerns 
regarding potential loss or neglect. Indeed, through 
the GTS, a judge may, without delay or expense, 
effectively communicate a concern regarding a 
specific guardian in the form of a statewide alert that 
serves as both a warning and a resource to prevent 
or address abuse. GTS will be used in conjunction 
with anticipated data sharing with federal agencies 
such as the United States Department of Justice 
(DOJ), the Social Security Administration (SSA), and 
the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), providing 
a more holistic and inter-governmental approach 
to the protection of elders. Beginning in Allegheny 
County in July 2018, full statewide implementation of 
GTS was completed in December 2018. Ultimately, 

the advent and implementation of the GTS is a true 
game changer in the area of responsible guardianship 
decisions and oversight.

At the time the Task Force released its Report 
and Recommendations, an Orphans’ Court 
Case Management System (OCCMS) was under 
development by IT. In November 2016, the Supreme 
Court directed IT to prioritize the creation of a limited 
scope guardianship reporting and tracking system — 
the GTS. Further work on the broader OCCMS was 
placed on hold during the GTS project, and will be 
reevaluated when funding becomes available. 

Numerous other administrative mechanisms have 
been enacted to give special attention to the needs 
of elders. For example, the common pleas and 
magisterial district judge case management systems 
now track criminal cases in which at least one of 
the victims is 60 or older, leading to enhanced data 
collection, and the foundation for studying and 
formulating practical solutions to crimes against 
elders. Similarly, the comment to Pennsylvania 
Rule of Criminal Procedure 500 was amended to 
ensure that testimony of elder victims and witnesses 
in criminal cases is preserved, addressing an 
impediment to bringing criminals to justice when the 
victim or witness dies or experiences memory loss. 

10

A proposal to begin a pilot Elder Court project in 
Philadelphia, spearheaded by President Judge Sheila 
Woods-Skipper, was approved by the Supreme 
Court. The first phase was the creation of an elder 
justice resource center where the public may obtain 
information and resources, as well as assistance 
with navigating the court system. The project’s 
second phase will involve case management for 
matters involving elders. The grand opening of the 
Elder Justice & Civil Resource Center, located in 
Philadelphia’s City Hall, was held on October 13, 
2016. Initially a resource and referral office only, the 
Center has expanded to provide legal representation 
through a volunteer attorney program. 

These significant contributions to the overall goal of 
elder justice are prime examples of the practical and 
innovative solutions to real-life, systemic problems 
impacting our elders.

PENNSYLVANIA ORPHANS’ COURT 
PROCEDURAL RULES

Another major goal of the Advisory Council and the 
OEJC was the completion of extensive amendments 
to the Pennsylvania Orphans’ Court Procedural 
Rules. Through procedural rules, the Orphans’ Court 
executes its core function of protecting the welfare 
of older, incapacitated persons through assessment, 
appointment, and monitoring of the guardian of the 
person and the guardian of the person’s estate. 
The Supreme Court’s Orphans’ Court Procedural 
Rules Committee (OCPRC), under the leadership 
of Chairman John F. Meck, Esquire, created and 
submitted a proposal, crafted in response to the Task 
Force’s recommendations, to the Supreme Court to 
comprehensively overhaul the Pennsylvania Orphans’ 
Court Rules related to guardianship proceedings. 
Throughout the rulemaking process, the Advisory 
Council assisted the OCPRC through critical review 
and practical feedback regarding the rule changes. 

Specifically, the rules address various aspects of the 
guardianship process. While far too many to list here, 
these reforms include creation of a standardized 
expert report form to ensure consistent quality and 
quantity of information to be used by judges when 
determining capacity; procedures for guardian 
consideration so as to favor family members, but 
not exclude friends and relatives from consideration; 
the requirement of criminal background checks; the 
submission of current credit reports; appointment 

of counsel when appropriate; the verification by 
counsel of representation, scope of employment, and 
duration of representation; timely and efficient fee 
dispute resolution; the requirement of the filing of an 
inventory within 90 days of a guardian’s appointment; 
the completion of an annual report by the guardian 
one year after appointment; Orphans’ Court Clerk 
monitoring of the guardianship docket to ensure 
compliance; notification by the Orphans’ Court Clerk 
to the court of any delinquent or incomplete reports; 
judicial review of filed reports; and recommended 
remedial actions regarding reporting issues. 

The new Orphans’ Court Rules represent a 
tremendous accomplishment by the OCPRC. Along 
with new forms, drafted by the Task Force and 
the Advisory Council, the Rules were adopted by 
the Supreme Court in June 2018, and will become 
effective in June 2019, bringing with them increased 
efficiencies and oversight of the guardianship 
process. Some of the new forms adopted by the 
Supreme Court are already in use, having become 
effective in July 2018. 

EDUCATION AND TRAINING

A key component to ensuring genuine elder justice 
is the instruction and continued training of those 
most directly involved with our elders. This was 
not lost on the Task Force, as a significant number 
of its recommendations dealt with education. The 
Advisory Council and the OEJC have made concrete 
many of these recommendations. Specifically, 
they have worked with AOPC’s Judicial Education 
Department (Judicial Education) to develop and 
conduct educational programs for judges who handle 
guardianship matters. The OEJC also collaborated 
with the Administrative Office of York County Courts 
(York County Court) on an educational program for 
attorneys. 

11

as well as information regarding the GTS, was 
envisioned, drafted, and completed. This essential 
Bench Book will be released in early 2019. Similarly, 
an Elder Abuse Bench Book, as a separate reference, 
was completed and will likewise be released in 
early 2019. Related thereto, an Elder Abuse Bench 
Card, a judicial resource for identifying and reporting 
elder abuse, was introduced at the Pennsylvania 
Conference of State Trial Judges in 2015 and was 
provided to all common pleas judges as well as all 
magisterial district judges. This distribution not only 
apprises judges and judicial staff of elder abuse 
identification information, but ensures that elder 
abuse is not considered to be only an Orphans’ 
Court issue. Elder justice impacts all aspects of 
the judiciary. These comprehensive resources will 
provide judges and judicial staff immediate access to 
valuable information concerning our elders.

Finally, public awareness of elder abuse and 
information regarding available resources are 
key to preventing and addressing elder abuse. 
To this end, informational brochures setting forth 
the warning signs of elder abuse, and companion 
posters which include an accessible tear-off sheet 
with the statewide elder abuse hotline number, were 
distributed to all common pleas courts, magisterial 
district courts, and municipal courts, as well as 
libraries throughout the Commonwealth. 

In addition to educating the courts and the 
community on elder justice issues, the Advisory 
Council has also engaged in extensive continuous 
education of its own members at its quarterly 
meetings in Harrisburg. For example, the Advisory 
Council has hosted presentations and educational 
forums on subjects affecting elders ranging from 
financial exploitation to domestic violence. A 
complete listing of these presentations and forums is 
attached as Appendix C. 

BEST PRACTICES

One of the most impactful ways in which the 
Advisory Council sought to improve the life of 
our Commonwealth’s elders was through the 
recommendation of “best practices.” These best 
practices suggest a spectrum of practical tools 
to help courts ensure the protection of vulnerable 
elders.

Additionally, numerous training sessions and 
educational programs were conducted statewide for 
judges, court staff, and attorneys, including programs 
at Dickinson Law School, regional presentations 
through a partnership with Temple University’s 
Institute for Protective Services, and educational 
sessions for judges through the Supreme Court’s 
newly created Continuing Judicial Education Board. 
Related thereto, advances have been made by 
allowing retired attorneys (those with an emeritus 
license) to provide free legal services to elders under 
the auspices of a legal aid organization, and by 
awarding one continuing legal education credit for 
every five hours of pro bono legal work completed 
by registered attorneys. Steps have been taken to 
collaborate with the Pennsylvania Bar Association 
for providing support, advice, and ethical counsel 
for those attorneys assuming roles in guardianship 
matters. Moreover, training programs for family and 
lay guardians were conducted in several counties, 
including instruction on the powers, duties, and 
responsibilities of a guardian, with an eye towards 
future certification and mandatory training of both lay 
and professional guardians. Of significant note, the 
Elder Justice & Civil Resource Center in Philadelphia 
provides training programs on various aspects of 
elder justice. A complete list of all training programs 
and educational presentations made by Advisory 
Council members may be found in Appendix B.

In terms of crucial and accessible reference 
material, a Guardianship Bench Book for Orphans’ 
Court judges, including best practices for limited 
guardianships, new guardianship rules and forms, 
recent legislation, guidance on an Elder Bill of Rights, 

12

System receives appropriations from the General 
Assembly to continue the implementation of the 
Task Force’s recommendations and related work 
by the Advisory Council and the OEJC. Other 
sources of funding have included the STOP Violence 
Against Women Grant obtained by AOPC for 
support of the informational brochures and posters 
regarding elder abuse. However, the financial need 
for implementation of the ongoing and yet to be 
completed recommendations regarding elder justice 
is great, and the cooperative relationship among 
all three branches of government is essential to 
achieving this goal.

CONCLUSION

While much work remains to be done, the Advisory 
Council and the OEJC have taken significant 
steps to improve the lives of our Commonwealth’s 
elders. From promoting measures to recognize the 
warning signs of elder abuse, to the creation and 
implementation of educational and training programs 
through collaboration with various entities that will 
impact all aspects of elder justice, to valuable and 
accessible written resources for the judiciary, to a 
much needed statewide system of guardianship 
tracking, to a major overhaul of the Orphans’ Court 
Procedural Rules, and, finally, to the implementation 
of a myriad of practical best practices, the Task 
Force, the Advisory Council, and the OEJC have 
demonstrated an unparalleled dedication and 
commitment that is producing concrete and 
meaningful results for our Commonwealth’s elders. 

13

Specifically, a plethora of administrative best 
practices have been recommended to facilitate 
guardianships, prevent elder abuse, and foster 
improvements to elder justice. These include the 
allowance of telephone or videoconference follow-
up examination in exploring areas in which a 
partially incapacitated person can function without 
a guardian; determination of conflicts of interest and 
evidence of elder abuse contributing to incapacity; 
the use of oral and written instructions as a resource 
for guardians at the time of their appointment; the 
holding of periodic hearings to monitor the status of a 
guardianship; increased use of volunteer monitoring 
to assist courts; ensuring a guardian’s willingness to 
visit an IP; ensuring a guardian’s access to counsel; 
ensuring use of assets to maintain the best possible 
life for the IP; prompt completion of an inventory; and 
the timely filing of an annual report. 

These and other best practices represent meaningful 
advances in all aspects of the guardianship process, 
and are included in the Guardianship Bench Book 
and Elder Abuse Bench Book developed by the 
Advisory Council.

EGISLATIVE INITIATIVES

 L

Legislative involvement and input are highly valued. 
Thus, the Advisory Council includes a state senator 
and a state representative as standing members. 

In addition to working with the legislature 
on implementation of the Task Force’s 
Recommendations to the Legislative Branch, 
Advisory Council members have testified before the 
House Aging and Older Adult Services Committee, 
and have begun work on legislative initiatives 
including and derivative of those addressed in the 
Task Force Report, such as amendments to Title 
18 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes to 
address a myriad of issues and incidents involving 
care-dependent persons arising in caregiver settings; 
financial exploitation of elders or care-dependent 
persons; and social media abuse of nursing home 
residents. 

FUNDING

Critically, it takes substantial funding to accomplish 
the Task Force’s goals and to meet many of the 
needs of our elders. Importantly, the Unified Judicial 

STATUS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF 
THE ELDER LAW TASK FORCE’S 
RECOMMENDATIONS

This Report provides the recommendations as stated in the Task Force Report, followed by the status of their 
implementation. The page numbers referenced within each Recommendation refer to the page numbers in 
the Task Force’s Report and Recommendations (available at www.pacourts.us) which provide background 
information regarding each recommendation. 

RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

RECOMMENDATION 1:  The Task Force recommends that an Office of Elder Justice in the Courts (“OEJC”) be 
established to assist the Supreme Court in implementing the recommendations in this Report, and that the 
Director of the OEJC, research, grant writing, legal analysis, information technology and secretarial services be 
provided by AOPC staff. This Recommendation has been approved by the Supreme Court, and the OEJC will be 
established in January 2015. See Overarching Findings and Recommendations, §§I.C.1 and 2 (Page 221). 

√ THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED

The OEJC opened on January 2, 2015 with one full-time staff member (Director, Cherstin Hamel), 
and is housed within the AOPC’s offices at the Pennsylvania Judicial Center in Harrisburg. In 2016, 
2017, and 2018, the OEJC received an appropriation within the Unified Judicial System’s budget to 
implement the Task Force’s recommendations and related initiatives of the Advisory Council. The 
appropriations also provide for expenses associated with meetings of the Advisory Council and the 
hiring of a full-time OEJC analyst. 

RECOMMENDATION 2:  The Task Force recommends that an Advisory Council on Elder Justice in the Courts 
(“Advisory Council”) be established to serve as a liaison to the executive and legislative branches, and to 
communicate with the AOPC and the Supreme Court regarding the implementation of the Task Force’s 
recommendations and other matters involving elder justice. This Recommendation has been approved by 
the Supreme Court, and the Advisory Council will be formed in January 2015. See Overarching Findings and 
Recommendations, §§II.C. (Page 222).

√ THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED

The first meeting of the Advisory Council was held on January 7, 2015. The Council meets quarterly 
to work towards implementation of the recommendations of the Task Force and to discuss matters 
involving elder justice and promote initiatives to support elders. 

Judge Paula Francisco Ott serves as the Chair. Zygmont A. Pines, Esquire, the former Court 
Administrator of Pennsylvania, is the Vice-Chair. The Advisory Council is divided into two Committees. 
The Elder Abuse and Neglect Committee (EANC) is chaired by President Judge Sheila A. Woods-
Skipper and co-chaired by President Judge George N. Zanic. The Guardianship Counsel and 
Monitoring Committee (GCMC) is chaired by Judge Lois E. Murphy and co-chaired by Diane Menio. 

A Long-Range Planning Committee was created in September 2016 to establish a mission statement 
for the Advisory Council and to create Internal Operating Procedures for the Advisory Council. The 
Internal Operating Procedures were approved in August 2017, and the conflict of interest policy and 
disclosure form were implemented in March 2018. The Long-Range Planning Committee continues to 
guide the Advisory Council on implementation of the recommendations of the Task Force, as well as 
other matters promoting initiatives to support elders. 

14

RECOMMENDATION 3: The Task Force recommends that the AOPC Judicial Education Department and the OEJC 
develop training for judges and attorneys handling guardianship matters. See Guardians and Counsel Committee 
Report, §X.C.1.a. (Page 55).

√ THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED

While the implementation of this recommendation has been accomplished, work is ongoing. 

Implementation of this recommendation began in 2015. The OEJC worked with the Advisory 
Council’s chairs and Judicial Education on the development of educational sessions for judges, 
and collaborated with the York County Court on an educational program for attorneys who handle 
guardianship matters. The program was first presented in March 2015 through the York County Bar 
Association. Most recently, the OEJC and Judicial Education provided educational sessions to judges 
through the Supreme Court’s new Continuing Judicial Education Board. 

Members of the Advisory Council continue to develop and present educational sessions to judges and 
attorneys handling guardianship matters. A list of all training programs and educational presentations 
made by Advisory Council members may be found in Appendix B. 

RECOMMENDATION 4: The Task Force recommends that training for Judges and attorneys developed by 
the AOPC Judicial Education Department and the OEJC include information on ascertaining when a limited 
guardianship would be appropriate, and how to make a limited guardianship effective when it is appropriate. See 
Guardians and Counsel Committee Report, §X.C.1.i. (Page 56).

√ THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED

While the implementation of this recommendations has been accomplished, work is ongoing. 
Best practices regarding the use and effectiveness of limited guardianships are included in the 
Guardianship Bench Book developed for Orphans’ Court judges. Educational sessions for judges and 
attorneys on best practices will be offered once the Guardianship Bench Book is released in early 
2019. 

RECOMMENDATION 5: The Task Force recommends that the AOPC Judicial Education Department and the 
OEJC, in consultation with interdisciplinary groups or practicing professional and non-professional guardians, 
develop a guardianship bench book to assist judges. See Guardians and Counsel Committee Report, §X.C.1.j 
(Page 56). See also Overarching Administrative Findings and Recommendations, §IV.C. (Page 224).

√ THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED

While the implementation of this recommendation has been accomplished, work is ongoing. 

The implementation of this recommendation began in 2015, and work has continued through 
December 2018 on development of the Guardianship Bench Book, with an estimated release date of 
early 2019. The project’s timeline was affected by the passing of new legislation, the adoption of new 
statewide guardianship rules and forms, and the development of the GTS. 

Judicial Education (with oversight from Judge Lois E. Murphy) was charged with developing the 
Guardianship Bench Book for Orphans’ Court judges. This Bench Book includes best practices, 
checklists, the new guardianship rules and forms, and information regarding the GTS and recent 
legislation involving guardianships. 

15

RECOMMENDATION 6: The Task Force recommends that the AOPC Judicial Education Department and the OEJC 
develop training for judges and financial institutions on the use of emergency guardianships. See Guardians and 
Counsel Committee Report, §X.C.1.k. (Page 56).

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION IS YET TO BE ADDRESSED 

RECOMMENDATION 7: The Task Force recommends that a standardized deposition form be implemented 
to ensure consistent quality and quantity of pertinent information that should be considered by judges when 
determining capacity. See Guardianship Monitoring Committee Report, §I.C.1. (Page 113).

√ THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED

The OCPRC submitted a proposal to the Supreme Court in December 2017 to rescind and replace 
the guardianship rules and forms in response to the Task Force’s recommendations, and to provide 
new statewide rules establishing uniformity and consistency for guardianship proceedings. The new 
rules and forms have been adopted by the Supreme Court and will become effective on June 1, 2019. 
Throughout the process of the adoption of these new Orphans’ Court Procedural rules, the GCMC of 
the Advisory Council assisted the OCPRC by reviewing the proposed rules and forms and providing 
feedback to the OCPRC. 

The Deposition of Written Interrogatories of Physician or Licensed Psychologist form recommended 
by the Task Force (Task Force Report, Appendix A, p. 129) requests information pertaining to an 
evaluator’s educational and professional background and experience in evaluating capacity. It also 
elicits information on the alleged incapacitated person’s (AIP’s) medical and psychiatric conditions, 
medications, cognitive abilities, and prognosis. The form asks for the evaluator’s opinion as to whether 
the AIP is totally or partially incapacitated, and if a guardianship (limited or plenary) is recommended.

Further, new Rule 14.3, Alternative Proof of Incapacity: Expert Report in Lieu of In-Person or 
Deposition Testimony of Expert, provides that a petitioner may seek to offer into evidence an expert 
report for the determination of incapacity in lieu of testimony, in-person or by deposition, using the 
form provided in the Appendix to the rules, and that, in an emergency guardianship proceeding, an 
expert report may be offered into evidence if specifically authorized by the court. The standardized 
deposition form is now titled Expert Report, and is Form G-06. 

The final version of the Expert Report and information regarding Rule 14.3 are included in the 
Guardianship Bench Book. 

RECOMMENDATION 8: The Task Force recommends that, in cases where the qualified individual recommends 
a limited guardianship and the judge and counsel may need additional information to determine the areas a 
partially incapacitated person can handle without a guardian, a best practice be adopted for judges to request 
that a deposition take place by telephone, videoconference, or in-person to allow for follow-up questioning and 
cross-examination. See Guardianship Monitoring Committee Report, §I.C.2. (Page 114).

√ THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED

The Guardianship Bench Book includes best practices regarding the taking of depositions for follow-
up questioning and cross-examination for a limited guardianship. 

RECOMMENDATION 9: The Task Force recommends that the AOPC Judicial Education Department train judges 
who hear guardianship cases on the components of the assessment process to determine capacity, and that 
the information from training materials be summarized into a bench card and provided to every Orphans’ Court 
Judge. See Guardianship Monitoring Committee Report, §I.C.3 and 4. (Page 114).

16

√ THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED

The Guardianship Bench Book includes best practices regarding the components of the assessment 
process to determine capacity. In 2016, members of the Advisory Council made a presentation to 
the Pennsylvania Conference of State Trial Judges on the determination of capacity in older adults. 
Additionally, an educational program was offered to judges throughout the Commonwealth by the 
Thomas R. Kline Center for Judicial Education on understanding expert opinions and assessing 
capacity. 

RECOMMENDATION 10: The Task Force recommends that judges be informed when the AIP was previously 
involved in a case under the OAPSA [Older Adults Protective Services Act], and that the guardianship petition be 
assigned to the same judge who heard the protective services case. See Guardianship Monitoring Committee 
Report, §II.C.1. (Page 115).

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION IS YET TO BE ADDRESSED 

Some judicial districts are already following this recommendation. Further discussions are needed to 
determine how to implement this recommendation across all judicial districts. 

RECOMMENDATION 11: The Task Force recommends that the training requirement for judges on the assessment 
of capacity include recommended practices for determining if conflicts of interest are present or if there is 
evidence of elder abuse underlying the AIP’s weakened capacity. See Guardianship Monitoring Committee 
Report, §II.C.2. (Page 115).

√ THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED

The Guardianship Bench Book includes best practices on how to determine the presence of conflicts 
of interest and evidence of elder abuse contributing to the AIP’s weakened capacity. Additionally, the 
GCMC studied issues related to capacity, and developed guidelines and a checklist to help judges 
make determinations regarding qualified and independent medical experts on capacity. 

RECOMMENDATION 12: The Task Force recommends that judges receive education on representative-payment 
and fiduciary programs such as those administered by SSA and the VA. See Guardianship Monitoring Committee 
Report, §II.C.2. (Page 115).

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION IS IN PROGRESS

The Advisory Council and the OEJC are currently studying this recommendation. In December 2016, 
Assistant U.S. Attorneys Charlene Keller Fullmer and Gerald Sullivan from the Eastern District of 
Pennsylvania made a presentation to the Advisory Council regarding the Federal Elder Justice Initiative 
and how the U.S. Attorney’s Office can collaborate with and provide training to the Advisory Council. 
These discussions are ongoing. In March and October 2017, the OEJC and members of the Advisory 
Council attended the U.S. Attorney’s Office’s regional Elder Justice Task Force meetings, and in 
August 2018, attended the U.S. Attorney’s Office’s task force session on SSI/VA fiduciary programs 
dealing with privacy and exploitation issues. 

RECOMMENDATION 13: The Task Force recommends that judges determine if there is involvement from agents 
under a power of attorney, SSA representative payee, or VA fiduciary in order to uncover potential conflicts of 
interest. See Guardianship Monitoring Committee Report, §II.C.3. (Page 115).

√ THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED

The Guardianship Bench Book includes best practices on how to determine if there is involvement 
from agents under a power of attorney, SSA representative payee, or VA fiduciary in order to uncover 

17

potential conflicts of interest. 

RECOMMENDATION 14: The Task Force recommends that guardianship files be sealed to protect personal 
information included in the revised forms. Interested parties who are named in the case should have the ability 
to access the file by presenting a copy of the Certificate of Filing. In order to assist investigative agencies in 
their task of researching allegations of abuse, it is recommended that the proposed request form be used. See 
Guardianship Monitoring Committee Report, §III.C.5 (Page 117) and Appendixes G (Page 180) and H (page 182) 
thereto. 

√ THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED

The OCPRC submitted a proposal to the Supreme Court in December 2017 to rescind and replace 
the guardianship rules and forms in response to the Task Force’s recommendations and to provide 
statewide rules establishing uniformity and consistency for guardianship proceedings. The new rules 
and forms were adopted by the Supreme Court and will become effective June 1, 2019. Throughout 
the process of drafting these new Orphans’ Court Procedural rules, the GCMC assisted the OCPRC 
by reviewing the proposed rules and forms and by providing feedback to the OCPRC. 

The Certificate of Filing form (Task Force Report, Appendix G, p. 180), was a proposed new form 
recommended by the Task Force. The form for investigative agencies, Request for Guardianship 
Access, was also a new form recommended by the Task Force (Task Force Report, Appendix H, p. 
182). 

New Form G-07, titled Notice of Filing (not Certificate of Filing as recommended in the Task Force 
Report), instructs the clerk of the Orphans’ Court that a copy of the notice, along with proper 
identification, is required in order for persons to whom the notice of filing was sent to access and view 
the annual reports of the person and estate, the inventories, and the final report. The OCPRC did not 
address the Request for Guardianship Access form for investigative agencies suggested by the Task 
Force (Task Force Report, Appendix H, p. 182).

The OEJC requested the Supreme Court’s Public Access Policy Committee consider requiring the 
sealing of guardianship files as it developed uniform standards for all appellate and trial courts (to 
respond to requests from the public for case records). 

The Public Access Policy of the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania: Case Records of the 
Appellate and Trial Courts became effective on January 6, 2018. Section 9.0 (B), Limits on Public 
Access to Case Records at a Court Facility, states that case records concerning incapacity 
proceedings filed pursuant to 20 
Pa.C.S. (Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes) §§ 5501-5555, except for the docket and any final 
decree adjudicating a person as incapacitated, shall not be accessible by the public at a court facility. 

RECOMMENDATION 15: The Task Force recommends that guardians be provided with oral instructions and a 
packet of written instructions from the judge or administrative staff at the time of appointment. See Guardianship 
Monitoring Committee Report, §IV.C.2. (Page 119).

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION IS IN PROGRESS

The Guardianship Bench Book includes best practices regarding instructions for guardians at the time 
of their appointment. 

The GCMC has completed the curriculum and written instructions/materials for a family/lay guardian 
training program under development by the York County Court and the OEJC. The training program 
includes oral instruction regarding the duties, powers, and responsibilities of family/lay guardians, 

18

as well as a packet of written instructions and informational material. The training program is being 
piloted in several counties. Once the pilot is completed in 2019, the OEJC will seek to create a model 
packet of written instructions that can be provided to a guardian at the time of appointment. 

RECOMMENDATION 16: The Task Force recommends that if a guardian does not respond to the delinquency 
notice in Recommendation 64, it is a recommended best practice for the judge to conduct a review hearing with 
the guardian present. See Guardianship Monitoring Committee Report, §IV.C.4. (Page 119).

√ THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED

The Guardianship Bench Book includes best practices on conducting a review hearing when a 
guardian does not respond to the notice regarding a delinquency when required reports become past 
due. 

RECOMMENDATION 17: The Task Force recommends that Clerks of the Orphans’ Court or the court administration 
office be responsible for determining the reasons for failure to file required reports and addressing those reasons 
with appropriate instruction to the guardian. See Guardianship Monitoring Committee Report, §IV.C.5. (Page 119).

√ THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED

The GTS provides tools to assist the Orphans’ Court in carrying out the function prescribed by Act 114 
of 2018, which amended Title 20, and states that not less than quarterly, clerks of Orphans’ Courts 
shall transmit to the court a list of guardians who are 30 days delinquent in filing reports required by 
law. The court is required to take appropriate enforcement action with regard to such guardians and to 
develop procedures for the examination of the required reports to ensure that guardians are acting in 
the best interests of IPs. 

RECOMMENDATION 18: The Task Force recommends that judges hold periodic review hearings, either on a 
regular basis or at random, to monitor the status of the guardianship. See Guardianship Monitoring Committee 
Report, §IV.C.7. (Page 119).

√ THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED

The Guardianship Bench Book includes best practices on conducting periodic review hearings to 
monitor the status of a guardianship. 

RECOMMENDATION 19: The Task Force recommends that judicial staff or court administration staff be available 
to answer a guardian’s question(s) or assist a guardian with completing forms, and that resources for guardians 
be centrally located on a statewide website which includes training materials, forms, and instructions on 
completion of those forms. See Guardianship Monitoring Committee Report, §IV.C.8. (Page 120).

√ THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED

Resources for guardians regarding the GTS, including a help center, reference documents and video 
tutorials are available through the Unified Judicial System’s web portal. See the Guardianship Tracking 
System Overview Brochure at Appendix D. It is anticipated that Orphans’ Court staff will provide 
assistance to guardians on the completion of the forms. 

Training materials and resources for guardians, which were developed as part of the training program 
for family/lay guardians, will be posted on the Unified Judicial System’s website and provided to court 
staff to help them respond to questions from guardians. 

RECOMMENDATION 20: The Task Force recommends that counties adopt a volunteer monitoring program 
leveraging local/regional resources to assist the courts in their monitoring responsibilities, using the Orphans’ 

19

Court Guardian Program in Chester County and the Pro Bono Guardianship Monitoring Program in Dauphin 
County as models. See Guardianship Monitoring Committee Report, §IV.C.9. (Page 120).

√ THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED

In April 2017, OEJC staff and a member of the Advisory Council attended Chester County’s Volunteer 
Training Seminar for Guardianship Monitoring to learn more about the program. The Guardianship 
Bench Book includes best practices regarding the adoption by counties of a similar volunteer 
monitoring program to assist courts with their monitoring responsibilities. 

RECOMMENDATION 21: The Task Force recommends that adequate funding be provided to support the Judges 
and Clerks of the Orphans’ Court in fulfilling their guardianship monitoring responsibilities. See Guardianship 
Monitoring Committee Report, §IV.C.10. (Page 120).

√ THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED

The GTS, which has been funded, developed, and implemented by the AOPC, supports judges and 
clerks of the Orphans’ Court in fulfilling their guardianship monitoring responsibilities. 

RECOMMENDATION 22: The Task Force recommends that courts, particularly those in counties with limited 
access to bonding sources, consider online bonding as an alternative, providing that the online bonding 
companies are on the list of approved sureties. See Guardians and Counsel Committee Report, §V.C.1.e. (Page 
46).

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION IS YET TO BE ADDRESSED

RECOMMENDATION 23: The Task Force recommends that, to establish an accurate inventory of active 
guardianships, each county purge inactive guardianships from its case management system, and complete the 
Orphans’ Court e-form, noting the number of guardianship terminations which occurred during the purge. See 
Guardianship Monitoring Committee Report, §V.C.5 (Page 122) and Appendix K thereto. (Page 185). 

√ THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED

While the implementation of this recommendation has been accomplished, work is ongoing. 

In 2015, the implementation of this recommendation began. The purging of inactive guardianships 
from local case management systems and the completion of the e-form were being addressed during 
the development of AOPC’s OCCMS, then in progress. 

In November 2016, the Supreme Court directed IT to prioritize the creation of the GTS. 

At IT’s request, in preparation for data migration into the GTS, all counties worked through an 
exercise to determine which guardianship cases are active. This was done by the purging of inactive 
guardianships from local case management systems. Only pending cases (not yet adjudicated) and 
active cases (an adjudication of incapacitation was made, and the protected person is alive and under 
guardianship) were migrated into the GTS so that an accurate inventory of active guardianships can be 
established. The data from the counties will continue to be examined in 2019 to establish an accurate 
inventory.

RECOMMENDATION 24: The Task Force recommends that the AOPC’s judicial automation plan for an Orphan’s 
Court module include a monitoring tool capable of web-based applications, monitoring and auditing tools for 
court staff, financial accounting, automated reminders to both guardians and court staff, and interface with the 
[Common Pleas Court Management System] (“CPCMS”) application to provide guardianship monitoring data to 
court staff. See Guardianship Monitoring Committee Report, §V.C.6. (Page 123).

20

√ THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED

While the implementation of this recommendation has been accomplished, work is ongoing. 

The Task Force’s recommendations were to be included in IT’s development of the OCCMS. In 
November 2016, the Supreme Court directed IT to prioritize the creation of the GTS. The GTS will 
include monitoring and auditing tools and the ability to generate reminders to guardians. Three user 
sessions to determine the design of the GTS were held beginning in March 2017, and included 
participation by judges, court staff, Orphans’ Court clerks, and others. In June 2017, IT reviewed the 
design of the GTS with the Advisory Council and requested resolution on certain issues raised during 
user sessions. In October 2017, IT held a webinar for judges to explain the GTS. 

The GTS includes functionality to monitor guardian compliance in submitting reports, as well as 
court staff compliance in accepting the filings and reviewing the reports. The system includes 
logic to insert flag indicators on reports where a concern of loss or neglect has been detected. An 
automated reminder is sent to the guardian 30 days before a report is due. Additional notifications 
are sent to guardians and court users when a report has been electronically submitted. Notification 
is also sent to guardians and court users if a report becomes overdue. Many counties opted to 
complete development to integrate aspects of GTS into their local case management systems. Future 
integrations with AOPC’s criminal databases and external databases (e.g., SSA, VA, and Pennsylvania 
State Police) will be reviewed in 2019. Rule 510 of the Rules of Judicial Administration and 
Amendment of 204 Pa.Code §207.3 provide that the GTS is the exclusive method for electronically 
filing required reports and inventories for guardianships of the person and for guardianships of the 
estate, and for tracking data related to statewide guardianship cases of adult IPs. 

RECOMMENDATION 25: The Task Force recommends that adequate funding be provided to support the Clerks of 
the Orphans’ Court in their ability to implement a local case management system. See Guardianship Monitoring 
Committee Report, §V.C.9. (Page 123).

√ THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED

The GTS, which has been funded, developed, and implemented by the AOPC, provides local case 
management system guardianship functionality. 

RECOMMENDATION 26: The Task Force recommends that the Bill of Rights of an Alleged Incapacitated 
Person be provided to the AIP, as well as to any family members or concerned parties, at the time he or she is 
served with the petition, and that the Bill of Rights of an Incapacitated Person [(“IP”)] be provided to the IP and 
interested family members or concerned parties, at the time the IP is adjudicated incapacitated. The guardian 
should receive copies of both the Bill of Rights of an Alleged Incapacitated Person and the Bill of Rights of an 
Incapacitated Person in the packet of instructions which the guardian receives upon appointment. It is also 
recommended that the OEJC create a separate document based on the specifics of the statute to be provided to 
guardians. See Guardianship Monitoring Committee Report, §VI.C.1. (Page 124).

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION IS IN PROGRESS

Best practices regarding the Task Force’s Bill of Rights of an AIP and Bill of Rights of an IP are 
included in the Guardianship Bench Book. 

RECOMMENDATION 27: The Task Force recommends that in order to provide the IP with access to justice, 
the court-appointed attorney be required to make contact with the IP on an annual basis to determine if a 
guardianship continues to be necessary and if the guardian is adequately performing his or her duties. See 
Guardianship Monitoring Committee Report, §VI.C.4. (Page 125).

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION IS YET TO BE ADDRESSED

21

While the implementation of this recommendation is yet to be addressed, new guardianship Form 
G-03, Report of the Guardian of the Person, includes a question asking how often the guardian (who 
might be a court-appointed attorney) visited the IP annually, and that information will be provided to 
the judge through the GTS. 

RECOMMENDATION 28: The Task Force recommends that educational initiatives be undertaken to ensure judges 
are aware of 42 Pa.C.S. § 9728(e) and (f) to help ensure funds and assets are available to satisfy anticipated 
restitution orders in appropriate cases. See Elder Abuse and Neglect Committee Report, §I.C.2.d. (Page 196). 

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION IS YET TO BE ADDRESSED 

RECOMMENDATION 29: The Task Force recommends that the Supreme Court consider authorizing a limited 
practice for pro bono service by retired and voluntarily inactive lawyers to work with elders. See Elder Abuse and 
Neglect Committee Report, §I.C.2.e. (Page 196).

√ THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED

The implementation of this recommendation began in 2015. In response to recommendations made 
by the Task Force, the Pennsylvania, Allegheny, and Philadelphia Bar Associations asked the Supreme 
Court to consider amending the bar admission rules to permit retired and voluntarily inactive attorneys 
to provide pro bono services to low-income Pennsylvanians, including elders. In August 2015, 
the Supreme Court requested the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court and the Pennsylvania 
Continuing Legal Education Board to review the materials received from the bar associations and 
the Pennsylvania Board of Law Examiners, and submit recommendations to the Supreme Court. In 
December 2015, in recognition of the benefits of pro bono emeritus programs, the Conference of State 
Court Administrators issued a resolution in support of emeritus attorney pro bono programs to assist 
elders. In 2016, the Conference of Chief Justices also passed Resolution 6 (“In Support of Emeritus 
Attorney Pro Bono Programs”).

Proposed amendments to the Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement and Rules of Continuing Legal 
Education were published in June 2017, and submitted to the Court in January 2018. By Order dated 
May 9, 2018, the Supreme Court adopted new Pa.R.D.E. 403, which establishes an emeritus status for 
retired attorneys to provide pro bono legal representation, and PA.R.C.L.E. 105(d), which establishes 
an annual continuing legal education (CLE) requirement of eight hours for lawyers in emeritus status.

ECOMMENDATION 30: The Task Force recommends that the Supreme Court consider providing continuing legal 

education (“CLE”) credits to encourage active attorneys to provide pro bono services to elder Pennsylvanians. 
See Elder Abuse and Neglect Committee Report, §I.C.2.e. (Page 196).

  R

√ THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED

While the implementation of this recommendation has been accomplished, work is ongoing. 

In response to the Task Force’s recommendation, the Supreme Court requested that the Continuing 
Legal Education Board study the matter of CLE credit for pro bono legal work. In April 2018, the 
Supreme Court approved the creation of a three-year pilot project to allow attorneys to receive one 
CLE credit for every five hours of pro bono legal work up to a maximum of three CLE credits per 
year. The pro bono work must be completed through providers who have been approved by the CLE 
Board as an accredited provider of pro bono CLE. To be eligible to apply for approval as an accredited 
pro bono CLE provider during the pilot project, an organization must be a not-for-profit, tax exempt 
organization that delivers pro bono services primarily within Pennsylvania, and which meets the 
eligibility requirements to receive funds from the Pennsylvania Interest on Lawyers’ Trust Accounts 

22

23

ECOMMENDATION 31: The Task Force recommends that the AOPC Judicial Education Department, with the 
assistance of the OEJC, develop and distribute bench cards for judges on identifying and reporting elder abuse, 
provide information about the bench cards to judges at educational conferences, and make the information 
available on court websites. See Elder Abuse and Neglect Committee Report, §II.C.1. (Page 200).

  R

Board or the Pennsylvania Legal Aid Network. The goal is to have the project running shortly after 
January 1, 2019.

√ THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED

While the implementation of this recommendation has been accomplished, work is ongoing. 

The implementation of this recommendation began in 2015 when the Elder Abuse and Neglect 
Committee (EANC) developed an Elder Abuse Bench Card that was approved by the Advisory Council. 
The Elder Abuse Bench Card was distributed at the Pennsylvania Conference of State Trial Judges in 
July 2015, and was provided to all common pleas judges who did not attend. All magisterial district 
judges received training on the Elder Abuse Bench Card through the Minor Judiciary Education 
Board’s 2015-2016 Continuing Education Program. All judicial districts were asked to make the Elder 
Abuse Bench Card available on their websites. 

Furthermore, the EANC determined a survey should be sent to common pleas and magisterial district 
judges to ascertain whether the Elder Abuse Bench Card can be made more useful for judges. A 
survey was distributed to all common pleas and magisterial district judges in January 2017. Results 
indicated education for judges is needed due to the perception that elder abuse is primarily an 
Orphans’ Court issue, and that the distribution of the Elder Abuse Bench Card should be made to 
a larger population (law enforcement, emergency responders, United States Postal workers, utility 
workers, and others who are in contact with elders). The EANC suggested developing an application 
which can run on patrol car laptops, and the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General (OAG) will take 
the lead on development of that project. 

RECOMMENDATION 32: The Task Force recommends that the AOPC Judicial Education Department, with the 
assistance of the OEJC, develop an Elder Abuse Bench Book and conduct educational sessions for the judiciary 
on its contents. See Elder Abuse and Neglect Committee Report, §II.C.2. (Page 200) See also Overarching 
Administrative Findings and Recommendations, §IV.C. (Page 224).

√ THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED 

The implementation of this recommendation began in 2015 and work continued through 2018 on the 
development of the Elder Abuse Bench Book with an estimated release date of early 2019. A dozen 
authors contributed written content for the Elder Abuse Bench Book, and feedback on drafts was 
solicited from the contributors and the Advisory Council’s chairs throughout 2017 and 2018. 

RECOMMENDATION 33: The Task Force recommends that the Supreme Court consider the creation of a 
Statewide Elder Justice Roundtable similar to the one created by Justice Max Baer and the AOPC’s Office of 
Children and Families in the Courts (“OCFC”), with administrative support provided through the OEJC. See Elder 
Abuse and Neglect Committee Report, §II.C.4. (Page 200).

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION IS YET TO BE ADDRESSED 

In October 2015, the Advisory Council decided to defer this recommendation until, if, or when funding 
becomes available, or if it receives requests from county roundtables to take action. The Advisory 
Council’s emphasis going forward will be on the development of interdisciplinary teams as outlined in 
the status of Recommendation 69. 

RECOMMENDATION 34: The Task Force recommends that the Supreme Court suggest that a victim’s age be 
documented by police departments in all criminal complaints and that information be included in the CPCMS. 
See Elder Abuse and Neglect Committee Report, §III.C.1. (Page 212).

√ THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED

The implementation of this recommendation began in 2015 when the Supreme Court asked the 
Pennsylvania Criminal Procedural Rules Committee (CPRC) to review and consider the Advisory 
Council’s proposal to include either the date of birth of the victim, or a checkbox that identifies the 
individual as an elder (age 60 and over) on criminal complaints. The CPRC, after consideration of the 
recommended change, declined to propose this change to the criminal rules.

Instead, IT recommended a data field be added to the Criminal Complaint Form to be completed by 
police if the victim or victims are age 60 or over, if such information is known. The Advisory Council 
embraced this suggestion and, in October 2016, IT requested that the Supreme Court approve 
tracking of an elder victim’s age in the Magisterial District Judge Case Management System and 
the Common Pleas Case Management System. The Supreme Court approved modifications to the 
Magisterial District Judge and Common Pleas Case Management Systems, which were implemented 
in July 2017.

RECOMMENDATION 35: The Task Force recommends that the Supreme Court suggest that the plaintiff’s age in 
Protection from Abuse matters be documented and reported to the AOPC Research and Statistics Department. 
See Elder Abuse and Neglect Committee Report, §III.C.1. (Page 212).

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION IS YET TO BE ADDRESSED 

RECOMMENDATION 36: The Task Force recommends that the Supreme Court consider if the Comment to 
Pa.R.Crim.P. 500 should be amended to help ensure the testimony of elder victims and witnesses in criminal 
cases can be preserved. It further recommends that educational efforts be undertaken to ensure judges and 
attorneys are aware of this Rule and its implications for cases involving elders. See Elder Abuse and Neglect 
Committee Report, §III.C.2.b. (Page 212).

√ THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED

The implementation of this recommendation began in 2015 when the Supreme Court instructed the 
CPRC to review and consider the Advisory Council’s proposal to amend Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal 
Procedure 500 (Criminal Rule 500) to help ensure the testimony of elder victims and witnesses in 
criminal cases can be preserved and to expand the definition of the paragraph 3 comment that the 
witness “may be unavailable.”

The Supreme Court approved the revision to the comment to Criminal Rule 500 to clarify that the 
Rule’s procedures are available in circumstances where a witness is elderly, frail, or demonstrates the 
symptoms of mental infirmity or dementia. The rule became effective October 1, 2016. 

Information regarding Criminal Rule 500 procedures is included in the Elder Abuse Bench Book, and in 
educational sessions developed by the EANC for judges and attorneys.

RECOMMENDATION 37: The Task Force recommends that the Supreme Court consider authorizing a pilot “Elder 
Court”. See Elder Abuse and Neglect Committee Report, §III.C.4.b. (Page 213).

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION IS IN PROGRESS

24

The implementation of this recommendation began in 2015 with the creation of an Elder Justice 
Working Group by Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas President Judge Sheila A. Woods-Skipper 
that identified the need for a pilot elder court, and the types of cases that involve elders. 

A proposal to begin the pilot Elder Court project was sent to the Supreme Court for its consideration 
in May 2016. The proposal suggested the first phase of the pilot Elder Court project should be 
the creation of an elder justice resource center where the public could obtain information and 
resources for, and assistance with, navigating the court system. The project’s second phase would 
involve case management for cases involving elders. The grand opening of the Elder Justice & Civil 
Resource Center (the Center), located at Philadelphia’s City Hall, was held on October 13, 2016. 
The Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas provided financial support for renovations, webinars, and 
educational sessions. 

Volunteer training programs on landlord/tenant, mental health issues, and financial exploitation 
were presented by the Center. In June 2017, the OEJC made a one-time purchase and donation of 
supplies and equipment to the Center in order to help elder users, victims, witnesses, and others 
having business at the Center and courthouse to navigate more easily. The items included walkers, a 
wheelchair, assistive listening devices, magnifying glasses, sets of reading glasses, canes, an electric 
scooter, sign stands, and brochure racks. In September 2017, a civil e-filing pilot project began, 
and all litigants were asked to voluntarily provide their date of birth in civil cases. Work on the case 
management system continues.

With Philadelphia Court employees providing administrative and coordination services, the Center 
receives support from numerous key service organizations including the Center for Advocacy for 
the Rights & Interests of the Elderly (CARIE), the SeniorLAW Center (SeniorLaw), Community Legal 
Services, Jenkins Law Library, Philadelphia Bar Association, Philadelphia Corporation for Aging, 
Philadelphia Legal Assistance, and Temple University Beasley School of Law. 

After beginning as a resource and referral office only, the Center has grown to provide limited legal 
representation through a volunteer attorney program. As an incentive for attorneys to volunteer, the 
Center offers CLE credits free of charge to any attorney who commits to volunteer in the Center. 
The program commenced in February 2017, and has had five CLE programs that have produced an 
average of 62 volunteers per program. This program has allowed the Center to assist nearly 2,000 
clients with 41% of those clients involving elders with elder-related issues. 

The Center has purchased LegalServer, a legal service provider specific case management software, 
to help manage the volume of clients and volunteers. 

The Center provides direct services via volunteer attorneys and advocates experienced with legal 
issues as they relate to elders. The Center also offers referrals for elders, as well as educational 
workshops designed to inform judges, court staff, and members of the public on issues of aging, 
capacity, elder abuse, prominent legal issues affecting elders, and available resources for elders. In 
addition to legal services, resources, and education, the center continues to facilitate access to the 
courts by making available equipment to aid any hearing, vision, and mobility challenges of elders who 
are navigating the court system. 

A recent addition to the legal offerings of the Center involves partnering with SeniorLaw in order 
to have one of its staff attorneys work part-time in the Center. This was made possible by a VOCA 
(Victims of Crime Act) grant obtained by SeniorLaw, and with the support of the First Judicial District. 
The focus of the work of this part-time attorney will be on elder victim cases. 

25

RECOMMENDATION 38: The Task Force recommends the implementation of a statewide Orphans’ Court case 
management system. In the interim, Clerks of the Orphans’ Court should make the necessary upgrades to their 
case management systems in order to comply with the Guardianship Monitoring Committee’s recommendations 
and as a precursor to migrating data into the statewide system. See Overarching Administrative Findings and 
Recommendations, §III.C.2. (Page 223).

√ THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED

mplementation of this recommendation began in 2015. The tools, reminder, and data interface 
recommended by the Task Force were to be included in the OCCMS, which was under development 
by IT. The OEJC and several members of the Advisory Council participated in design sessions for the 
OCCMS. In November 2016, the Supreme Court directed IT to prioritize the creation of the GTS. The 
GTS includes monitoring and auditing tools and the ability to generate reminders to guardians. In June 
2017, IT reviewed the design of the GTS with the Advisory Council and requested resolution on certain 
issues raised during user sessions. In September 2017, IT provided a detailed update regarding the 
status of the GTS. In October 2017, IT held a webinar for judges to explain the GTS. 

  I

While the implementation of this recommendation has been accomplished, work is ongoing.

At IT’s request, in preparation for data migration into the GTS, all counties worked through an 
exercise to determine which guardianship cases are active. This was done by the purging of inactive 
guardianships from local case management systems. Only pending cases (not yet adjudicated) and 
active cases (an adjudication of incapacitation was made, and the protected person is alive and 
under guardianship) were migrated into the GTS so that an accurate inventory of active guardianships 
could be established. The data from the counties will continue to be examined in 2019 to establish an 
accurate inventory.

The rollout of the GTS began in July 2018, and full statewide implementation was completed in 
December 2018. Further work on the broader OCCMS was placed on hold during the GTS project, 
and is to be reevaluated when funding is available. 

RECOMMENDATION 39: The Task Force recommends that Orphans’ Courts and the AOPC collaborate and 
coordinate with federal agencies that administer representative-payment programs on the exchange and 
collection of data, training, and education on adult guardianships. See Overarching Administrative Findings and 
Recommendations, §VIII.C. (Page 227).

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION IS IN PROGRESS

The Advisory Council and the OEJC are moving forward with this recommendation. In December 2016, 
Assistant U.S. Attorneys Fullmer and Sullivan made a presentation to the Advisory Council regarding 
the Federal Elder Justice Initiative and how the U.S. Attorney’s Office can collaborate with the Advisory 
Council. In March and October 2017, the OEJC and members of the Advisory Council attended the 
U.S. Attorney’s Office’s regional Elder Justice Task Force meetings and discussed whether data on 
abusive representative payees/fiduciaries for SSA and VA benefits is available to the courts, and the 
guardianship data its federal colleagues would receive from the GTS. In late 2017, OEJC staff and 
Vice-Chair Zig Pines had subsequent conversations with DOJ regarding providing a communications 
link to SSA to discuss the possibility of a formal data sharing agreement and other issues regarding 
representative-payment programs, and followed up with the U.S. Attorney’s Office to advise about 
the communications with DOJ, the data to be collected by the GTS, the criminal court case data 
AOPC can share, and to continue discussions on the possibility of a formal data sharing agreement. 
The OEJC participated in conference calls with SSA representatives and other states’ Working 
Interdisciplinary Networks of Guardianship Stakeholders groups to begin a dialogue about how courts 
with guardianship jurisdiction can best coordinate with the SSA’s representative payee program. 

26

Throughout 2018, the OEJC held further discussions with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern 
District of Pennsylvania on the collection and exchange of data regarding abusive representative 
payees for SSA and the VA. Discussions are ongoing. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 40 - 65 ADDRESSING AMENDMENTS TO THE ORPHANS’ COURT PROCEDURAL 
RULES:

The following 26 recommendations of the Task Force (Recommendations 40 - 65) involve amendments 
to the Pennsylvania Orphans’ Court Procedural Rules. 

The OCPRC submitted a proposal to the Supreme Court in December 2017 to rescind and replace the 
guardianship rules and forms in response to the Task Force’s recommendations, and to provide new 
statewide rules establishing uniformity and consistency for guardianship proceedings. The new rules 
and forms were adopted by the Supreme Court and will become effective June 1, 2019. New Orphans’ 
Court Forms G-02 through G-05 became effective July 1, 2018. 

Throughout the process of the adoption of these new Orphans’ Court Procedural Rules, the GCMC of 
the Advisory Council assisted the OCPRC by reviewing the proposed rules and forms, and providing 
feedback to the OCPRC. 

RECOMMENDATION 40: The Task Force recommends that, whenever possible, courts should favor the 
appointment of a family member as guardian of the person. Through amendment to the Orphans’ Court 
Procedural Rules, the definition of “family member” should be expanded so as not to be limited to immediate 
family, but rather attempts to contact other relatives and friends should be encouraged. In addition, the Rules 
should be amended to encourage courts to look to the hierarchy in 20 Pa.C.S. § 5461(d)(1) for guidance. See 
Guardians and Counsel Committee Report, §I.C.1.a.i. (Page 33).

√ THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED

New Rule 14.6 sets forth a hierarchy of individuals for guardian consideration. The OCPRC explained 
that the hierarchy set forth in the proposed Rule is stated so as to favor family members, but not 
to exclude other relatives or friends from consideration, provided they have knowledge of the IP’s 
preferences and values. Moreover, the OCPRC noted that, aside from persons nominated in a valid 
power of attorney, the court is only required to give consideration to nominees based upon the 
hierarchy, and not required to appoint a guardian based upon the hierarchy. “Professional guardian” 
was added to the list of persons eligible to serve as a guardian. 

Best practices regarding application of Rule 14.6 and the hierarchy of individuals for guardian 
consideration are included in the Guardianship Bench Book. 

RECOMMENDATION 41: The Task Force recommends that, through amendment to the Orphans’ Court 
Procedural Rules, courts may favor the appointment of a family member to serve as a guardian of the estate 
when the estate of the incapacitated person consists of minimal assets or where the proposed guardian of the 
estate has the skills and experience necessary to manage the estate and is able to obtain a bond or provide other 
assurance of financial responsibility. See Guardians and Counsel Committee Report, §I.C.1.b.i. (Page 34).

√ THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED

New Rule 14.6 provides for family members to receive relatively higher consideration for appointment 
as guardian of the estate than non-family members, provided the estate consists of minimal assets or 
the proposed family member possesses the experience to manage the estate. 

27

Best practices regarding application of Rule 14.6 and appointment of a family member to serve as a 
guardian of the estate are included in the Guardianship Bench Book. 

RECOMMENDATION 42: The Task Force recommends that, through amendment to the Orphans’ Court 
Procedural Rules, a list of individuals and agencies qualified to act as guardian of the person or estate to serve if 
family and friends are not viable options be mandated. See Guardians and Counsel Committee Report, §§I.C.1.a.ii 
and I.C.1.b.ii. (Page 34).

√ THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED

The OCPRC considered the Task Force’s recommendation and agreed that a court-maintained list 
of qualified and available guardians is a best practice. The OCPRC determined the responsibility 
for doing so, as well as other operational aspects, is a matter of judicial administration based 
upon resource availability. Absent a rule of judicial administration, whether local or statewide, the 
OCPRC determined this matter is best implemented if left to the discretion of the President Judge or 
Administrative Judge. Therefore, the new rules adopted by the Supreme Court do not address this 
specific recommendation, but New Rule 14.6 provides for a hierarchy of eligibility. The GTS has the 
capability to produce a list of guardians qualified to act as guardian of the person or estate. 

RECOMMENDATION 43: The Task Force recommends that, through amendment to the Orphans’ Court 
Procedural Rules, training be mandated for all guardians. See Guardians and Counsel Committee Report, 
§II.C.1.c. (Page 39) This training should include, but not be limited to matters of liability and ethics. See Guardians 
and Counsel Committee Report, §III.C.1.a. (Page 43).

√ THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED

The OCPRC considered the Task Force’s recommendation and acknowledged the salutary purpose 
that mandatory training would serve, but determined that imposing a universal training requirement is 
a substantive matter for the General Assembly to address. The Advisory Council will continue to study 
this Recommendation. 

While training is not mandated under the new rules, the Advisory Council has allocated funds to 
present training for family/lay guardians. The free training program, “Fundamentals of Guardianship: 
What Family Guardians Need to Know,” was piloted in several counties in late 2018 and includes, 
among other things, matters of liability and ethics. The training program will continue to be offered in 
2019. 

RECOMMENDATION 44: The Task Force recommends that, through amendment to the Orphans’ Court 
Procedural Rules, all individual guardians, family and professional, be required to undergo criminal background 
checks. See Guardians and Counsel Committee Report, §IV.C.1.a. (Page 44).

√ THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED

New Rule 14.2 requires a certified response to a Pennsylvania State Police criminal record check, with 
Social Security number redacted and issued within six months of the filing of the guardianship petition, 
be appended to the petition for each proposed guardian. 

RECOMMENDATION 45: The Task Force recommends that the Orphans’ Court Procedural Rules be amended 
to require that in all guardianship matters where the court does not require a bond, the proposed guardian be 
required to submit a current credit report. This requirement should be ongoing and, after appointment, the 
guardian should be required to supply a current credit report each year together with the annual report. The 
guardian’s credit reports should be kept confidential and not be made publicly available. For good cause shown, 
the court may waive the requirement of a credit report. If the court waives the requirement of a credit report, 

28

29

however, it should still require an assurance of financial responsibility as recommended in Section V.C.1.d. See 
Guardians and Counsel Committee Report, §IV.C.1.b. (Page 44).

√ THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED

New Rule 14.5 permits a guardian to seek court approval for either the waiver or modification of 
a bond requirement. The rule allows the court to waive or modify the bond requirements only for 
“good cause” shown, as determined by the judge. The rule is not intended to encourage waiver or 
modification of bonds, but is intended to establish a procedure and a standard for judicial waiver and 
modification. The explanatory comment to the rule leaves to a court’s discretion the necessity of filing 
assurances of a guardian’s creditworthiness or liability coverage. 

Best practices regarding issues involved with bonding and requiring a guardian to submit a current 
credit report are included in the Guardianship Bench Book. 

RECOMMENDATION 46: The Task Force recommends that the Orphans’ Court Procedural Rules be amended 
to require that in addition to not having any interest adverse to the AIP, the proposed guardian should have the 
willingness and ability to visit with the AIP on a regular basis and be available at all times to confer with the AIP’s 
physicians, nurses, and other care providers. If the proposed guardian is not a family member, he or she should 
have some education and/or experience in guardianship or in providing services to elders and/or the disabled. 
In lieu of adopting specific requirements concerning minimum education and/or experience for all guardians, 
the Task Force believes that the goal of assuring that qualified guardians are appointed would similarly be met 
by mandating that all guardians undergo training before assuming their duties. See Guardians and Counsel 
Committee Report, §IV.C.1.c. (Pages 44-45).

√ THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED

New Rule 14.2 requires that the guardianship petition include information about the proposed 
guardian’s availability and training. The OCPRC determined that whether the individual’s or entity’s 
availability and training are sufficient to perform as a guardian is a matter to be evaluated and 
determined by the judge on a case-by-case basis.

While training is not mandated under the new rules, the Advisory Council has allocated funds to 
present training for family/lay guardians. The free training program, “Fundamentals of Guardianship: 
What Family Guardians Need to Know,” was presented in several counties in late 2018 and includes, 
among other things, matters of liability and ethics.

est practices regarding application of Rule 14.2 and the determination of whether the proposed 

guardian’s availability and training are sufficient to perform as a guardian are included in the 
Guardianship Bench Book.

ECOMMENDATION 47: The Task Force recommends that the Orphans’ Court Procedural Rules be amended 

to limit a potential guardian’s appointment to a guardianship of the person in appropriate circumstances to 
avoid potential intra-familial disagreements as well as any financial responsibility of a potential guardian. See 
Guardians and Counsel Committee Report, §VI.C.1.h. (Page 47).

√ THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED

The OCPRC determined when an outcome is based upon “appropriate circumstances” that are 
incapable of being defined by rule, then the matter is best left to the discretion of the judge, who 
will select the best suited guardian for the IP and, in doing so, will consider the potential for conflict. 
Related thereto, “professional guardian” was added to the list of persons eligible to serve as a 
guardian.

  B

  R

Best practices regarding the appointment of guardians are included in the Guardianship Bench Book. 

RECOMMENDATION 48: The Task Force recommends that the Orphans’ Court Procedural Rules be amended 
to require that in all cases where the AIP does not have private counsel, counsel should be appointed. Private 
counsel for an AIP should be required to enter his or her appearance as soon as possible to allow the court to 
quickly identify when counsel needs to be appointed. Counsel fees should be paid by the AIP whenever possible 
and, if resources are insufficient, then by the Commonwealth, as under the existing approach. See Guardians and 
Counsel Committee Report, §VII.C.1.a b and c. (Page 49).

√ THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED

Rather than a rule mandating counsel’s appointment, the OCPRC favored a rule mirroring the statutory 
provision that counsel may be appointed if the court deems it appropriate. The remainder of the Task 
Force’s recommendation is reflected within new Rule 14.4.

Best practices regarding cases where the AIP does not have private counsel are addressed in the 
Guardianship Bench Book. 

RECOMMENDATION 49: The Task Force recommends that Clerks of the Orphans’ Court have the capability 
to produce a standardized list of data items for each active guardianship (including Case Management and 
Caseload Reports). To ensure uniformity across all counties, this practice should be implemented through a 
statewide Orphans’ Court Procedural Rule. See Guardianship Monitoring Committee Report, §V.C.1, 2, 3, and 4 
(Page 122) and Appendix J thereto. (Page 184).

√ THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED 

The OCPRC determined that this capability and practice is a matter of judicial administration, and not 
procedural. 

The GTS provides the clerks of the Orphans’ Court with the capability to produce a standardized list of 
data items for each active guardianship case. 

New Rule 510 of the Rules of Judicial Administration, adopted by the Supreme Court on August 
31, 2018, provides that the GTS is the exclusive method for electronically filing required reports and 
inventories for guardianships of the person, and for guardianships of the estate, and for tracking 
data related to statewide guardianship cases of adult IPs. The GTS will provide all court-appointed 
guardians of adult IPs the convenience of filing inventories and annual reports online. Use of the 
GTS will alleviate the need for traditional paper filings. The GTS will also assist the Unified Judicial 
System with tracking and monitoring of statewide practices related to guardianship cases, as was 
recommended by the Task Force and the Advisory Council. 

RECOMMENDATION 50: The Task Force recommends that the Orphans’ Court Procedural Rules and/or 
Disciplinary Rules be amended to require attorneys serving as guardians to complete the same training and other 
requirements as professional guardians unless the court specifically waives that obligation, and that CLE credit, 
including ethics credit, be made available to attorneys for this training. See Guardians and Counsel Committee 
Report, §VIII.C.1.b. (Page 51) and §X.C.1.h. (Page 56).

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION IS IN PROGRESS

While the training requirements for professional guardians and attorneys serving as guardians should 
not differ, because the OCPRC decided that a training requirement for non-attorney guardians is 
a substantive matter, it determined that rule-based training requirements for attorneys serving as 
guardians is premature. 

30

31

However, training programs for guardians are in progress, but not mandated. The OEJC, working 
with the York County Court has provided an educational program on guardianships for attorneys 
which was presented through the York County Bar Foundation. Members of the Advisory Council 
have participated in programs through the Pennsylvania Bar Institute (PBI) and bar associations that 
have presented educational programs for attorneys concerning the various roles attorneys serve in 
guardianship matters. 

RECOMMENDATION 51: The Task Force recommends that the Orphans’ Court Procedural Rules and/or 
Disciplinary Rules be amended to require attorneys to clarify to the client, the court, and all other involved parties 
which role or roles counsel is assuming, and to clarify those role(s) through a letter of engagement stating who 
is being represented and describing counsel’s role. It should also be required that these role(s) be restated to the 
court when entering an appearance with the court. See Guardians and Counsel Committee Report, §VIII.C.1.d. 
(Page 51).

√ THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED

New Rule 14.4 requires private counsel for the AIP to set forth the scope of employment within an 
engagement letter that is producible to the court upon request. The Rule also requires the court to 
delineate the scope of appointed counsel’s role within the order of appointment. 

Best practices regarding the clarification of private counsel role(s) in guardianships are included in the 
Guardianship Bench Book.

ECOMMENDATION 52: The Task Force recommends that the Orphans’ Court Procedural Rules be amended 

to require that where the court appoints counsel to represent an AIP, the court indicate whether, except for 
pursuing rights of appeal, counsel for the AIP is discharged or is to continue representing the person now 
under guardianship in the event the petition is granted and a guardian is appointed. See Guardians and Counsel 
Committee Report, §VIII.C.1.e. (Page 51).

√ THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED

New Rule 14.4 requires the court to delineate the scope of appointed counsel’s role within the order of 
appointment.

est practices regarding the continuation and discharge of court-appointed counsel representation of 

an AIP are included in the Guardianship Bench Book. 

RECOMMENDATION 53: The Task Force recommends that, through amendment to the Orphans’ Court 
Procedural Rules, model language be developed pertaining to retention or discharge of counsel which can be 
inserted into a final decree of incapacity and appointment of a guardian. See Guardians and Counsel Committee 
Report, §VIII.C.1.f. (Page 51).

√ THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED

  R

  B

The OCPRC did not favor the creation of a statewide form order wherein such language as 
recommended by the Task Force may be inserted. New Rule 14.7 does, however, require the court 
to state within the order adjudicating incapacity and appointing a guardian the right of the IP to be 
represented by an attorney in filing an appeal or seeking to modify or terminate the guardianship. 

Best practices providing model language of a final decree of incapacity and appointment of a 
guardian, including issues with regard to retention or discharge of counsel, are included in the 
Guardianship Bench Book. 

RECOMMENDATION 54: The Task Force recommends that, through amendment to the Orphans’ Court 
Procedural Rules, guardians and IPs have access to legal counsel for consultation following adjudication. See 
Guardians and Counsel Committee Report, §VIII.C.1.g. (Page 51).

√ THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED

The OCPRC considered the Task Force’s recommendation and determined that if counsel’s services 
terminate upon the finality of the adjudication of incapacity and appointment of a guardian, as per the 
private engagement letter or order of appointment, then the guardian would need to obtain private 
counsel for himself or herself or for the IP to be paid from the IP’s estate. If the IP’s estate is unable to 
pay for counsel, then the guardian should seek the appointment of counsel by the court. 

The new rules address this recommendation with respect to an IP’s right to counsel in Rule 14.7(a)(2). 
Best practices for handling of guardians’ and IPs’ access to legal counsel for consultation following 
adjudication are included in the Guardianship Bench Book.

ECOMMENDATION 55: The Task Force recommends that the Orphans’ Court Procedural Rules be amended to 
require that the assets of the IP be used for the purpose of maintaining the best possible quality of life for the IP. 
See Guardians and Counsel Committee Report, §IX.C.1.e. (Page 53).

√ THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED

The OCPRC determined that requiring the assets of the IP to be used for the purpose of maintaining 
the best possible quality of life for the IP is not a procedural matter, but appears to be a qualitative and 
quantitative measure to be monitored through the evaluation of reports. 

The GTS generates reports regarding an IP’s assets which are provided to the courts for monitoring 
purposes. Best practices regarding the use of an IP’s assets to maintain the best possible quality of 
life are included in the Guardianship Bench Book.

ECOMMENDATION 56: The Task Force recommends that the Orphans’ Court Procedural Rules be amended to 
require that fee disputes be resolved in a timely, efficient manner. See Guardians and Counsel Committee Report, 
§IX.C.1.h. (Page 54).

√ THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED

  R

  R

New Rule 14.4 requires private counsel to set forth information regarding fees in the engagement 
letter. The reasonableness of all fees incurred on behalf of the AIP, whether attributable to private 
counsel or appointed counsel, are subject to court review. The explanatory comment to the Rule 
provides that any fee dispute should be resolved in a timely and efficient manner to preserve resources 
in order to maintain the best possible quality of life for the AIP. 

Best practices regarding application of Rule 14.4 and the handling of fee disputes are included in the 
Guardianship Bench Book. 

RECOMMENDATION 57: The Task Force recommends that the Orphans’ Court Procedural Rules be amended to 
require that professional guardians, i.e., those guardians with more than two guardianships at the same time, 
should be certified by the professional guardian certification program referred to in §II.C.1.f. See Guardians and 
Counsel Committee Report, §X.C.1.b. (Pages 55-56).

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION IS IN PROGRESS

32

33

The implementation of this recommendation began in 2015 with the GCMC collecting and reviewing 
information relating to the certification of guardians. The GCMC also discussed who is a “professional 
guardian,” and studied whether the imposition of a certification requirement could be done by rule, 
legislation, or as a best practice. 

The OCPRC determined that certifications held, like completed training programs, relate to the 
qualifications of a prospective guardian, which should be evaluated by the court on an individual 
basis. To the extent that the Task Force’s recommendation suggests a statewide certification process, 
the OCPRC concluded such a requirement is a substantive matter, rather than procedural, and would 
need to be addressed by the General Assembly. However, the OCPRC was not opposed to local rules 
regarding certification. New Rule 14.2 does provide that if a guardian has certification, it should be 
included in the petition for appointment of guardian. 

In September 2017, the OEJC and Judge Lois Murphy met with the Center for Guardianship 
Certification to learn about its rules and regulations for certification, and to request information 
on other states’ statutes regarding certification. Judge Murphy has drafted a proposed local rule 
for approval by the Montgomery County Board of Judges that requires non-family (“professional”) 
guardians appointed for three or more IPs to be certified. The proposed rule will also require approval 
from the Rules Committee of the Bar Association of Montgomery County and the Supreme Court 
OCPRC. Subject to these reviews, it is anticipated that guardians appointed by judges in Montgomery 
County will be expected to obtain certification from the Center for Guardianship Certification, unless 
they provide evidence of a comparable certification satisfactory to the judge. 

The certification of professional guardians was a part of amendments to Senate legislation proposed 
by Senator Arthur Haywood in 2018. The legislative session expired before the amendments could be 
adopted.

ECOMMENDATION 58: The Task Force recommends that guardians be required, through amendment to the 

Orphans’ Court Procedural Rules, to complete the inventory (as revised per Appendix C to the Guardianship 
Monitoring Committee Report) 90 days after appointment. See Guardianship Monitoring Committee Report, 
§III.C.1. (Page 117).

  R

√ THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED

New Rule 14.8 requires the filing of an inventory by the guardian of the estate within 90 days after such 
guardian’s appointment. New Form G-05 is the Inventory form. Rule 14.8 also provides that the Court 
Administrator of Pennsylvania assume responsibility for future form design, which would include future 
revisions, in consultation with the OCPRC and the OEJC. 

The Inventory Form G-05 and information on Rule 14.8 are included in the Guardianship Bench Book. 

RECOMMENDATION 59: The Task Force recommends that guardians be required, through amendment to the 
Orphans’ Court Procedural Rules, to complete the Annual Report of the Person (as revised per Appendix F to 
the Guardianship Monitoring Committee Report, and/or Annual Report of the Estate as revised per Appendix E 
to the Guardianship Monitoring Committee Report) one year after appointment. See Guardianship Monitoring 
Committee Report, §III.C.2. (Page 117).

√ THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED

New Rule 14.8 requires the completion of annual reports by both the guardian of the person and the 
guardian of the estate one year after appointment and annually thereafter. New Form G-02 is the 
Report of Guardian of the Estate Form. New Form G-03 is the Report of Guardian of the Person Form. 

Rule 14.8 provides that the Court Administrator of Pennsylvania, in consultation with the OCPRC and 
the OEJC, assumes responsibility for future form design, which would include future revisions.

The Report of Guardian of the Estate Form G-02 and Report of Guardian of the Person Form G-03, 
along with information on Rule 14.8 are included in the Guardianship Bench Book. 

RECOMMENDATION 60: The Task Force recommends that guardians be required, through amendment to the 
Orphans’ Court Procedural Rules, to complete a Firearms Search [Form, pursuant to §§ 18 Pa.C.S.A. 6105(a) and 
(c) of the Uniform Firearms Act] (Appendix D to the Guardianship Monitoring Committee Report) within 90 days of 
appointment. See Guardianship Monitoring Committee Report, §III.C.3. (Page 117).

√ THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED

The OCPRC observed courts already send the Pennsylvania State Police a Pennsylvania Notification 
of Mental Health Commitment Form SP-4-131(8-01) pursuant to statute. 

A best practice that guardians should be advised by the court that they are expected to inquire about 
an IP’s ownership and/or possession of any firearms and arrange for the sale or transfer of them is 
included in the Guardianship Bench Book.

ECOMMENDATION 61: The Task Force recommends that guardians be required, through amendment to the 
Orphans’ Court Procedural Rules, to send a Certificate of Filing (Appendix G to the Guardianship Monitoring 
Committee Report), to the persons identified at the time of adjudication, within 10 days of filing each form with 
the Clerk of the Orphans’ Court. See Guardianship Monitoring Committee Report, §III.C.4. (Page 117).

  R

√ THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED

New Rule 14.8 requires guardians to send a Notice of Filing (Form G-07) to the persons identified at 
the time of adjudication, within 10 days of filing each form. 

Form G-07 was designed to strike a balance between facilitating information sharing among interested 
parties and safeguarding the privacy and best interests of the IP. 

Rule 14.8 provides that the Court Administrator of Pennsylvania assumes responsibility for future form 
design, which would include future revisions, in consultation with the OCPRC and the OEJC. 

The Notice of Filing Form G-07 and information on Rule 14.8 are included in the Guardianship Bench 
Book. 

RECOMMENDATION 62: The Task Force recommends that the imposition of filing fees for required annual reports 
by local court or administrative order should be prohibited through amendment to the Orphans’ Court Procedural 
Rules. See Guardianship Monitoring Committee Report, §IV.C.1. (Page 119).

√ THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED

In 2015 the GCMC began collecting and reviewing information on the use of Orphans’ Court filing fees 
in Pennsylvania’s judicial districts. 

The OCPRC advised that AOPC indicated that 15 counties currently impose filing fees. The GCMC 
believed that the permissibility of filing fees was more of an administrative or legislative matter than a 
procedural matter, and decided the best course of action is not to make a request to impose fees, but 
to instead include as a best practice in the Guardianship Bench Book that, on request, judges should 

34

35

liberally waive filing fees. Guidance regarding the waiving of filing fees and a sample order are included 
in the Guardianship Bench Book.

ECOMMENDATION 63: The Task Force recommends that the Supreme Court, through amendment to the 
Orphans’ Court Procedural Rules, require that Clerks of the Orphans’ Court be responsible for docketing and 
monitoring guardians’ compliance with submitting the inventory and annual reports by the required due dates. 
See Guardianship Monitoring Committee Report, §IV.C.3. (Page 119).

  R

√ THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED

The GTS provides tools to assist the court in carrying out the function prescribed by Act 114 of 
2018, which amended Title 20, and states that not less than quarterly, clerks of Orphans’ Courts 
shall transmit to the court a list of guardians who are 30 days delinquent in filing reports required by 
law. The court is required to take appropriate enforcement action with regard to such guardians and 
develop procedures for the examination of the annual reports to ensure that guardians are acting in the 
best interests of IPs. 

New Rule 14.8 designates either the clerk or the court’s designee to monitor the guardianship docket 
to confirm compliance with reporting requirements. In its explanatory comment to the Rule, the 
OCPRC notes the Rule is silent as to the manner of proceeding when reports are deficient or warrant 
further investigation, or when the guardian is recalcitrant after being given notice by the clerk or 
the court’s designee. In its discretion, the court may order further documentation, conduct a review 
hearing, or take further action as may be deemed necessary, including, but not limited to, removal of 
the guardian or contempt proceedings.

RECOMMENDATION 64: The Task Force recommends that the Clerks of the Orphans’ Court, through amendment 
to the Orphans’ Court Procedural Rules, be responsible for providing delinquency notices to guardians when 
required reports become past due. See Guardianship Monitoring Committee Report, §IV.C.4. (Page 119).

√ THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED

New Rule 14.8 provides that either the clerk or the court’s designee should notify the guardian and 
ultimately the court if any report is delinquent or incomplete by more than 20 days. 

The GTS provides tools to assist the court in carrying out the function prescribed by Act 114 of 
2018, which amended Title 20, and states that not less than quarterly, clerks of Orphans’ Courts 
shall transmit to the court a list of guardians who are 30 days delinquent in filing reports required by 
law. The court is required to take appropriate enforcement action with regard to such guardians and 
develop procedures for the examination of the annual reports to ensure that guardians are acting in the 
best interests of IPs. 

RECOMMENDATION 65: The Task Force recommends that the judge or judge’s staff be required, through 
amendment to the Orphans’ Court Procedural Rules, to review the content of all inventories and annual reports 
received by the court to identify areas requiring further scrutiny, additional documentation, or a review hearing. 
See Guardianship Monitoring Committee Report, §IV.C.6. (Page 119).

√ THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED

While the implementation of this recommendation has been accomplished, work is ongoing. 

New Rule 14.8 provides that either the court or its designee review the filed reports. In its explanatory 
comment to the Rule, the OCPRC noted the Rule is silent as to the manner of proceeding when 
reports are deficient or warrant further investigation, or when the guardian is recalcitrant after 

he GTS provides tools to assist the court in carrying out the function prescribed by Act 114 of 
2018, which amended Title 20, and states that not less than quarterly, clerks of Orphans’ Courts 
shall transmit to the court a list of guardians who are 30 days delinquent in filing reports required by 
law. The court is required to take appropriate enforcement action with regard to such guardians and 
develop procedures for the examination of the annual reports to ensure that guardians are acting in the 
best interests of IPs. 

  T

being given notice by the clerk or the court’s designee. In its discretion, the court may order further 
documentation, conduct a review hearing, or take further action as may be deemed necessary, 
including, but not limited to, removal of the guardian or contempt proceedings.

RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE OFFICE OF ELDER JUSTICE IN THE COURTS 
AND TO THE ADVISORY COUNCIL ON ELDER JUSTICE IN THE COURTS

RECOMMENDATION 66: The Task Force recommends that the OEJC, in conjunction with the local GSA 
[guardianship support agency], if one exists, coordinate the creation of a list of individuals and agencies qualified 
to act as guardian of the person to be referred to when family and friends are not viable options to serve as 
guardian. See Guardians and Counsel Committee Report, §I.C.1.a.ii. (Page 34.)

√ THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED

The GTS will include in its database all guardians appointed by any judge in any county. The GTS 
provides the guardians with the capability to input their data into GTS, including in which counties 
they are willing to serve and accept appointments. Court staff then has the ability to search the GTS 
database for all professional guardians or they can restrict the search by county. While there is no 
list that will imply court approval of the listed guardians, court staff can identify guardians who have 
delinquent reports or who are the subject of an alert in the GTS. 

RECOMMENDATION 67: The Task Force recommends that the OEJC develop training for guardians, judges, 
court administrative staff, attorneys and others involved in guardianship matters. See Guardians and Counsel 
Committee Report, §II.C.1.c. (Page 39) and §X.C.1.a. (Page 55).

√ THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED

While the implementation of this recommendation has been accomplished, work is ongoing. 

Implementation of this recommendation began in 2015. Through a grant, the York County Court and 
the OEJC developed curriculum and written materials for a training program for family/lay guardians. 
Several presentations of the training program were held to test the curriculum before the grant expired. 
In December 2015, the York County Court was awarded $5,000 by the York County Bar Foundation to 
refine the curriculum and made multiple presentations of the training program. The York County Court 
and the OEJC provided an educational program on guardianships for attorneys presented through the 
York County Bar Foundation. The OEJC also worked with the Advisory Council and Judicial Education 
on the development of educational programs for judges and attorneys. 

In 2017, the OEJC awarded a contract to Temple University’s Institute for Protective Services in 
Harrisburg for the development of an educational session for judges and a training program for court 
staff to be informed by the American Bar Association’s (ABA) 29 Recommended Guidelines for State 
Courts to Increase Access to Justice. 

36

37

Throughout 2018, several educational sessions were held for guardians, judges, court administrative 
staff, and attorneys. The OEJC, in conjunction with Temple University’s Institute for Protective 
Services, presented, “Elder Abuse and Exploitation: Practical Tools for Ensuring Access to Justice” 
to judges, court staff, orphans’ court clerks’ staff, and district attorney victim witness coordinators. 
The OEJC also piloted a free training program for family and lay guardians, “Fundamentals of 
Guardianship: What Family Guardians Need to Know,” in several counties. This training program will 
continue to be offered in 2019. 

A list of the training programs and educational presentations for guardians, judges, court 
administrative staff, attorneys, and others involved in guardianship matters made by Advisory Council 
members may be found in Appendix B. 

RECOMMENDATION 68: The Task Force recommends that the training developed by the OEJC for guardians 
be divided into pre-service training and some form of continuing education that would include training on the 
powers, duties and responsibilities of the guardian, including reporting requirements, ethics and liability. See 
Guardians and Counsel Committee Report, §X.C.1.c. (Page 56).

√ THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED

While the implementation of this recommendation has been accomplished, work is ongoing. 

The family/lay guardian training program developed by the York County Court and the OEJC includes 
instruction on the powers, duties, and responsibilities of a guardian (including reporting requirements, 
ethics, and liability). 

In 2018, the OEJC piloted a free training program for family and lay guardians, “Fundamentals of 
Guardianship: What Family Guardians Need to Know,” in several counties. This program will continue 
to be offered in 2019. 

ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION 69: The Task Force recommends that the Supreme Court, through the OEJC, 
encourage local courts to develop interdisciplinary teams modeled after the existing Children’s Roundtable 
Initiative to advise and support guardians and the court. See Guardians and Counsel Committee Report, §II.C.1.d. 

The Advisory Council decided to move forward with developing interdisciplinary teams at the county 
level, and thus revised this Recommendation, removing “modeled after the existing Children’s 
Roundtable Initiative” from the Task Force’s original recommendation due to the lack of a funding 
stream similar to that which is available to the Children’s Roundtable.

EVISED RECOMMENDATION 69: The Task Force recommends that the Supreme Court, through the OEJC, 
encourage local courts to develop interdisciplinary teams to advise and support guardians and the court. See 
Guardians and Counsel Committee Report, §II.C.1.d. (Rev. 10/14/15) (Page 39.)

  R

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION IS IN PROGRESS

The Advisory Council discussed how to facilitate the development of interdisciplinary teams, and 
whether to reach out to existing county elder abuse task forces (EATF) or to create interdisciplinary 
teams to address guardianship issues. The Advisory Council also considered how to make existing 
EATFs more effective and to encourage counties without an EATF to create one. 

In June 2017, Justice Todd sent a letter to all president judges seeking their collaboration with the 
Advisory Council and providing information regarding a free consultation available from Temple 
University’s Institute for Protective Services for counties interested in establishing an elder justice 
interdisciplinary team or a regional EATF. The letter also made the president judges aware of the Task 

Force’s recommendations and the work of the Advisory Council. Similar letters were sent in August 
2017 from Judge Ott to county commissioners, district attorneys, and Area Agency on Aging (AAA) 
directors. 

The letters requested that counties notify the OEJC of their interest in participating in either a regional 
forum or a statewide summit on the subject of interdisciplinary teams and EATFs. Responses indicated 
a preference for regional forums. In December 2017, the Advisory Council determined the regional 
forums would be put on hold until after conclusion of the presentations of the educational sessions 
for judges and training programs for court staff informed by the ABA’s 29 Recommended Guidelines 
for State Courts to Increase Access to Justice. Feedback obtained from the evaluations from the 
spring and fall educational sessions for judges and training programs for court staff will be utilized in 
the development and planning of the regional forums. In 2018, the Advisory Council held preliminary 
discussion on the format and content of the regional forums. 

RECOMMENDATION 70: The Task Force recommends that the Supreme Court, through the OEJC, encourage the 
creation of local GSAs to be relied upon to take an active role in the implementation of education and training, 
and to support local guardianship improvement. See Guardians and Counsel Committee Report, §II.C.1.e. (Page 
40) and §X.C.1.d. (Page 56).

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION IS YET TO BE ADDRESSED 

RECOMMENDATION 71: The Task Force recommends that the Supreme Court, through the OEJC, develop a 
program for the certification of professional guardians. See Guardians and Counsel Committee Report, §II.C.1.f 
(Page 40) and §X.C.1.b. (Page 55-56).

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION IS IN PROGRESS

The implementation of this recommendation began in 2015 with the GCMC collecting and reviewing 
information relating to the certification of guardians. The GCMC considered the definition of a 
“professional guardian,” and studied whether the imposition of a certification requirement could be 
done by rule, legislation, or as a best practice.

 

In 2016, the GCMC determined research is needed on identifying funding sources for certification 
when the IP does not have sufficient funds, fees for certification and best practices regarding 
certification. In April 2016, the Center for Guardianship Certification made a presentation to the 
Advisory Council regarding the certification process and indicated its willingness to customize its 
testing requirement for Pennsylvania. There is no cost to the Commonwealth to establish certification, 
as the Center for Guardianship Certification would perform all functions and provide a registry system. 

Discussions are ongoing between the Advisory Council and the Center for Guardianship Certification. 

RECOMMENDATION 72: The Task Force recommends that the Supreme Court, through the OEJC, develop a 
program for the mandatory education and training of individual guardians on matters of liability and ethics. See 
Guardians and Counsel Committee Report, §III.C.1.a. (Page 43.)

√ THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED

While the implementation of this recommendation has been accomplished, work is ongoing. 

The family/lay guardian training program developed by the York County Court and the OEJC includes 
instruction on matters of liability and ethics. The Advisory Council is allocating funds to present 
training for family/lay guardians. The free training program, “Fundamentals of Guardianship: What 

38

39

Family Guardians Need to Know,” was piloted in several counties in late 2018. This program will 
continue to be offered in 2019. 

RECOMMENDATION 73: The Task Force recommends that the Supreme Court, through the OEJC, develop a 
program for the mandatory education and training of individual guardians that will be required before assuming 
their duties. See Guardians and Counsel Committee Report, §IV.C.1.c. (Pages 44-45).

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION IS IN PROGRESS

The family/lay guardian training program developed by the York County Court and the OEJC includes 
instruction for individual guardians. While training is not required before assuming their duties as 
guardian, the Advisory Council has allocated funds to present training for family/lay guardians. The 
free training program, “Fundamentals of Guardianship: What Family Guardians Need to Know”, was 
piloted in several counties in late 2018, and will continue to be offered in 2019. 

RECOMMENDATION 74: The Task Force recommends that the Advisory Council and the OEJC study funding 
sources, such as the state lottery, to develop guardianship support services and provide small tax deductions 
to guardians for certain guardianship expenses to determine how best to implement them. See Guardians and 
Counsel Committee Report, §VI.C.1.a & c. (Page 47).

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION IS YET TO BE ADDRESSED

ECOMMENDATION 75: The Task Force recommends that the OEJC work with SSA, VA, RRB [Railroad 

Retirement Board] and other federal representative-payment and fiduciary programs to develop a system for 
greater information sharing on adult guardianships. See Elder Abuse and Neglect Committee Report, §II.C.5. 
(Page 201).

  R

As its work proceeds, the Advisory Council will examine all potential funding sources.

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION IS IN PROGRESS

The Advisory Council and the OEJC are moving forward with this recommendation. In December 2016, 
Assistant U.S. Attorneys Fullmer and Sullivan made a presentation to the Advisory Council regarding 
the Federal Elder Justice Initiative and how the U.S. Attorney’s Office can collaborate with the Advisory 
Council. In March and October 2017, the OEJC and members of the Advisory Council attended the 
U.S. Attorney’s Office’s regional Elder Justice Task Force meetings and discussed whether data on 
abusive representative payees/fiduciaries for SSA and VA benefits is available to the courts, and the 
guardianship data its federal colleagues would receive from the GTS. In late 2017, OEJC staff, IT, and 
Vice-Chair Zig Pines had subsequent conversations with DOJ regarding providing a communications 
link to SSA to discuss the possibility of a formal data sharing agreement and other issues regarding 
representative-payment programs, and followed up with the U.S. Attorney’s Office to advise about 
the communications with DOJ, the data to be collected by the GTS, the criminal court case data 
AOPC can share, and to continue discussions on the possibility of a formal data sharing agreement. 
The OEJC participated in conference calls with SSA representatives and other states’ Working 
Interdisciplinary Networks of Guardianship Stakeholders groups to begin a dialogue about how courts 
with guardianship jurisdiction can best coordinate with the SSA’s representative payee program. 
Throughout 2018, the OEJC held further discussions with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern 
District of Pennsylvania on the collection and exchange of data on adult guardianships. Discussions 
continue. 

RECOMMENDATION 76: The Task Force recommends that the OEJC equip and assist local agencies in 
developing methods to retain guardians, focusing on helping agencies handle more guardianships as an 
alternative to relying on ill-equipped family members, and encouraging and expanding the use of GSAs. See 
Guardians and Counsel Committee Report, §VI.C.1.d, e, and f. (Page 47).

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION IS YET TO BE ADDRESSED 

RECOMMENDATION 77: The Task Force recommends that the OEJC: develop free training for non-attorney 
guardians on filing required documents; put helpful “how to” videos online to answer questions and provide 
more detailed instructions for the completion of guardianship tasks such as filing reports and inventories; and 
encourage a dialogue with federal agencies such as the SSA, VA and RRB [Railroad Retirement Board], which 
administer representative-payment and fiduciary programs, to develop training for guardians who manage an 
IP’s benefits. See Guardians and Counsel Committee Report, §VI.C.1. g, i and j (Page 47), and §X.C.1.e., f. and g. 
(Page 56).

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION IS IN PROGRESS

The family/lay guardian training program developed by the York County Court and the OEJC includes 
instruction on filing required documents, but online videos will not be created until after the training 
program is refined. The Advisory Council has allocated funds to present training for family/lay 
guardians. This free training program, “Fundamentals of Guardianship: What Family Guardians Need 
to Know,” was piloted in several counties in late 2018 and includes, among other things, instructions 
for the completion of guardianship tasks such as filing reports and inventories. This program will 
continue to be offered in 2019. Resources for guardians on the GTS, including a help center, reference 
documents and video tutorials are available to guardians through the Unified Judicial System’s web 
portal at https://ujsportal.pacourts.us. The Unified Judicial System also offers a number of resources 
for guardians on the judiciary’s website at www.pacourts.us. 

In December 2016, Assistant U.S. Attorneys Fullmer and Sullivan made a presentation to the 
Advisory Council regarding the Federal Elder Justice Initiative and how the U.S. Attorney’s Office 
can collaborate with the Advisory Council and provide training to the Advisory Council or other elder 
justice agencies. In 2017, the OEJC began participating in conference calls with SSA representatives 
and other states’ Working Interdisciplinary Networks of Guardianship Stakeholders groups to 
begin a dialogue on how courts with guardianship jurisdiction can best coordinate with the SSA’s 
representative payee program. Discussions continue. 

RECOMMENDATION 78: The Task Force recommends that the Advisory Council and the OEJC study the Third 
National Guardianship Summit Recommendations for Action §§ 3.1-3.8, pertaining to fees, to determine to what 
extent these recommendations should be adopted in Pennsylvania. See Guardians and Counsel Committee 
Report, §IX.C.1.f. (Page 54).

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION IS IN PROGRESS

The GCMC has studied, and discussions continue on, the issue of fees for guardians for the services 
they provide to IPs. Best practices regarding fees for guardians are included in the Guardianship 
Bench Book. 

RECOMMENDATION 79: The Task Force recommends that the Advisory Council and the OEJC explore the 
feasibility of asking the General Assembly to establish a fund to pay for guardianship services for those with 
limited available resources. See Guardians and Counsel Committee Report, §IX.C.1.g. (Page 54).

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION IS YET TO BE ADDRESSED 

RECOMMENDATION 80: The Task Force recommends that the OEJC work with the SSA, VA and the Department 
of Aging to establish a collaboration process among the agencies to establish a notification system to share 
information when it is found that a representative payee is abusing an incapacitated person. See Guardianship 
Monitoring Committee Report, §V.C.8. (Page 123).

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION IS IN PROGRESS

40

The Advisory Council and the OEJC are moving forward with this recommendation. In December 2016, 
Assistant U.S. Attorneys Fullmer and Sullivan made a presentation to the Advisory Council regarding 
the Federal Elder Justice Initiative and how the U.S. Attorney’s Office can collaborate with the Advisory 
Council. In 2017, the OEJC and members of the Advisory Council attended the U.S. Attorney’s Office’s 
regional Elder Justice Task Force meetings, including one focused on financial scams, and continued 
discussions on whether data on abusive representative payees/fiduciaries for SSA and VA benefits is 
available to the courts, and the guardianship data its federal colleagues would receive from the GTS. 
In late 2017, OEJC staff and Vice-Chair Zig Pines had subsequent conversations with DOJ regarding 
providing a communications link to SSA to discuss the possibility of a formal data sharing agreement 
and other issues regarding representative-payment programs, and followed up with the U.S. Attorney’s 
Office to advise about the communications with DOJ, the data to be collected by the GTS, the criminal 
court case data AOPC can share, and to continue discussions on the possibility of a formal data 
sharing agreement. The OEJC participated in conference calls with SSA representatives and other 
states’ Working Interdisciplinary Networks of Guardianship Stakeholders groups to begin a dialogue 
about how courts with guardianship jurisdiction can best coordinate with the SSA’s representative 
payee program. 

Throughout 2018, the OEJC held further discussions with the U.S. Attorney’s Office on the collection 
and exchange of data. Discussions continue. 

RECOMMENDATION 81: The Task Force recommends that the Advisory Council and the OEJC study NGA 
[National Guardianship Association] Standards 12 and 17 to ascertain whether these standards can be adopted 
by court rule or if legislation is required. See Guardians and Counsel Committee Report, §II.C.1.a. (Page 36).

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION IS IN PROGRESS

National Guardianship Association Standard 12 concerns the duties of the guardian of the person. 
Standard 17 concerns duties of the guardian of the estate. These standards are currently being 
studied by the GCMC as training programs and resource materials for guardians are being developed. 

RECOMMENDATION 82: The Task Force recommends that the OEJC, in conjunction with the help of a working 
group composed of guardianship stakeholders, develop and offer a fee schedule as a model uniform court rule 
for compensation of guardians. See Guardians and Counsel Committee Report, §IX.C.1.a, b, c, and d. (Page 53).

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION IS IN PROGRESS

The GCMC is currently studying the matter of a proposed fee schedule for services provided to IPs by 
guardians. 

RECOMMENDATION 83: The Task Force recommends that the OEJC provide training for judges and guardians 
on the recommended Bills of Rights provided in the Guardianship Monitoring Committee Report, §VI.C.1. See 
Guardianship Monitoring Committee Report, §VI.C.2. (Page 124.)

√ THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED

While the implementation of this recommendation has been accomplished, work is ongoing. 

Throughout 2018, several educational sessions were held for guardians, judges, court administrative 
staff, and attorneys. The OEJC, in conjunction with Temple University’s Institute for Protective 
Services, presented, “Elder Abuse and Exploitation: Practical Tools for Ensuring Access to Justice” to 
judges, court staff, Orphans’ Court clerks’ staff, and district attorney victim witness coordinators. 

41

In addition, best practices regarding the Bill of Rights of an IP are included in the Guardianship Bench 
Book.

ECOMMENDATION 84: The Task Force recommends that the OEJC develop a guide for guardians that includes 

information about the minimum standards of care for an incapacitated person, and the expectations for and 
responsibilities of the guardian, including requiring the guardian to maintain in-person contact with the IP at a 
minimum of once per quarter or more often as appropriate. See Guardianship Monitoring Committee Report, 
§VI.C.3. (Page 124).

  R

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION IS YET TO BE ADDRESSED 

The family/lay guardian training program currently being piloted is anticipated to provide much of the 
content for this recommended guide. 

RECOMMENDATION 85: The Task Force recommends that, in order to provide the IP with access to justice, 
the OEJC and Advisory Council research the impact of requiring the court-appointed attorney to make contact 
with the IP on an annual basis on the current funding stream. See Guardianship Monitoring Committee Report, 
§VI.C.4. (Page 125).

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION IS YET TO BE ADDRESSED 

RECOMMENDATION 86: The Task Force recommends that the possibility of piloting a program similar to the 
Court Appointed Special Advocates (“CASA”) be researched by the OEJC and the Advisory Council to provide a 
volunteer advocate for the AIP throughout the guardianship process who could alert the court of any observed 
wrongdoing. See Guardianship Monitoring Committee Report, §VI.C.6. (Page 125).

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION IS YET TO BE ADDRESSED 

RECOMMENDATION 87: The Task Force recommends that the Advisory Council examine how an effective 
complaint form and process, specific to guardianships, can be implemented among the appropriate 
stakeholders. See Guardianship Monitoring Committee Report, §VI.C.5. (Page 125).

√ THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED

Instead of the creation of a complaint form and process for implementation among appropriate 
stakeholders, the Advisory Council established a procedure whereby complaints by the public 
addressed to the Council regarding elder justice matters are reviewed by the OEJC and referred to the 
appropriate agency for resolution. 

RECOMMENDATION 88: The Task Force recommends that the Advisory Council study the feasibility and benefits 
of collaborating with and encouraging colleges, universities, and law schools to develop elder clinics and other 
programs to assist elder Pennsylvanians in accessing social services and, with appropriate supervision, drafting 
or reviewing simple documents, such as a power of attorney or living will. The development of such elder clinics 
could provide tremendous benefits to elder Pennsylvanians. See Elder Abuse and Neglect Committee Report, 
§III.C.4.c. (Page 213).

√ THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED

While the implementation of this recommendation has been accomplished, work is ongoing. 

In 2016, the EANC surveyed law school clinics and pro bono programs across the Commonwealth 
which assist elders on issues of safety, security, and shelter. In 2017, the Supreme Court met with 
Pennsylvania law school deans to encourage law schools to focus on elder abuse and/or financial 
exploitation in their clinical programs. 

42

Attorney Mary Catherine Scott explored the creation of student externships by making outreach to the 
Dean of Widener University Commonwealth Law School to discuss Widener’s program serving as a 
model for the possible creation of student externships. Attorney Scott also discussed the creation of 
student externships with Dauphin County’s AAA director, District Attorney, and court administrator, as 
well as Dauphin County Bar Association’s pro bono director. 

In January 2018, Justice Todd wrote to the law school deans encouraging the law schools to 
specifically focus on the critical issues of elder justice, elder abuse, or financial exploitation as they 
formulate their new clinical and pro bono programs. 

In November 2018 Justice Todd wrote to the law school deans advising them that they would be 
contacted by members of the Advisory Council to set up meetings to discuss ways law schools can 
be a part of the national effort to increase elder justice in courts. 

In December 2018, Vice-Chair Zig Pines, President Judge Zanic, President Judge Woods-Skipper, DA 
Stephen Zappala, DA Eugene Vittone, Karen Buck, John Kennedy, Mary Catherine Scott, and Darren 
Breslin made presentations to the Deans of Villanova, Penn, Temple, Widener, Duquesne, and Pitt Law 
Schools to explain the work of the Task Force and the Advisory Council. The problems of access to 
justice and abuse and neglect were highlighted, and the possibility of law schools adding elder justice 
classes to their curriculum was discussed. The needs and issues facing law schools and their civil law 
clinics were also discussed. 

RECOMMENDATION 89: The Task Force recommends that the Advisory Council, with the assistance of the 
OEJC, study the advisability and feasibility of creating and supporting guardianship mediation programs in 
Pennsylvania. If the Advisory Council determines that such programs are advisable and feasible, it should also 
study the questions of program structure and implementation. See Overarching Administrative Findings and 
Recommendations, §V.C. (Page 224).

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION IS YET TO BE ADDRESSED

RECOMMENDATION 90: The Task Force recommends that the Advisory Council study the feasibility and 
implications of allocating a portion of filing fees in guardianship cases that involve significant assets to funding 
initiatives in this Report. See Overarching Administrative Findings and Recommendations, §IX.C.2. (Page 229).

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION IS YET TO BE ADDRESSED 

RECOMMENDATION 91: The Task Force recommends that the Advisory Council consider, and, if appropriate, the 
Supreme Court adopt the ABA’s 29 recommended guidelines for state courts to increase access to justice for 
Pennsylvania elders. See Elder Abuse and Neglect Committee Report, §III.C.4.a. (Page 213).

√ THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED

While the implementation of this recommendation has been accomplished, work is ongoing. 

The EANC categorized and studied the ABA’s 29 Recommended Guidelines, and determined the 
guideline priorities should be: 1) regional training programs on elder abuse/neglect, capacity, and 
an overview of local aging network services provided to judges, court administrators, and court 
personnel; and 2) four supplemental webinars on the guidelines (financial exploitation, other forms 
of abuse and neglect, best practices for judges handling cases involving elders, and elder capacity 
issues). 

At the request of the Advisory Council, the Supreme Court considered adoption of the ABA’s 29 
Recommended Guidelines, but instead authorized the Advisory Council and the OEJC to move 

43

forward with coordinated efforts to develop and implement measures that are consistent with 
the ABA’s 29 Recommended Guidelines. An award was made to Temple University’s Institute for 
Protective Services for an educational session for judges and a training program for court staff to be 
informed by the ABA’s 29 Recommended Guidelines. In August 2017, the Advisory Council’s chair 
and vice-chair, OEJC staff, and trainers from Temple University met to review project expectations and 
discuss content for the judge and court staff training modules. 

Through its contract with Temple University, the OEJC presented the educational session, “Elder 
Abuse and Exploitation: Practical Tools for Assuring Access to Justice,” to 34 common pleas judges 
regionally during the spring and fall of 2018. Concurrently, a similar training program was presented to 
118 court staff. The training program is now being considered for presentation to magisterial district 
judges as part of their continuing education. 

RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

All recommendations, and any supplemental information provided to the legislature relative to the work of 
the Task Force or the Advisory Council represent the views of the members of the Task Force or the Advisory 
Council and are not intended to convey an official position of the Supreme Court or the AOPC.

RECOMMENDATION 92: The Task Force recommends that the proposed change to 20 Pa.C.S.A. § 5521(g) be 
removed from Senate Bill 117 of 2013, Pr. No. 73. See Guardians and Counsel Committee Report, §III.C.1.b. (Page 
43).

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION IS IN PROGRESS

Senate Bill 117 has been reintroduced in two subsequent legislative sessions since 2013. Although the 
bill number has changed each session, the content of the bill has not. Discussions of this legislation 
by the Advisory Council have evolved in the years since the Task Force report was issued. The 
Advisory Council decided that, in addition to the underlying recommendation, the legislation should 
be amended to clarify that guardians must seek the approval of the Orphans’ Court division having 
jurisdiction over the guardianship of any compromises or settlements of claims by or against the 
estate or for the payment of counsel fees and other expenses – a concept endorsed by the Advisory 
Committee on Decedents’ Estates Laws of the Joint State Government Commission. In addition, 
Senator Arthur Haywood sought to amend the bill to require the appointment of counsel to represent 
AIPs, provide for state and federal criminal background checks for individuals seeking to become 
guardians, and require certification of professional guardians. Each of these concepts was supported 
by the Advisory Council. The 2017-18 legislative session expired before the amendments could be 
adopted. 

Relatedly, Senate Bill 1115 was introduced by Senator Patrick Browne. Among other provisions, 
the bill included language requiring the approval of the Orphans’ Court division of compromises or 
settlements or the payment of counsel fees and other expenses. The 2017-18 legislative session 
expired before the bill was considered. 

RECOMMENDATION 93: The Task Force recommends that the General Assembly provide guidance as to what 
the courts should consider “cause shown” in proposed new 20 Pa.C.S. § 5515.3 in Senate Bill 117 of 2013, Pr. 
No. 73 and clarify whether determinations of “cause shown” would be appealable. See Guardians and Counsel 
Committee Report, §V.C.1.a. (Page 46).

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION IS IN PROGRESS 

Senate Bill 117 has been reintroduced in two subsequent legislative sessions since 2013. Although the 
bill number has changed each session, the content of the bill has not. Discussions of this legislation 

44

45

by the Advisory Council have evolved in the years since the Task Force report was issued. The 
Advisory Council decided that, in addition to the underlying recommendation, the legislation should 
be amended to clarify that guardians must seek the approval of the Orphans’ Court division having 
jurisdiction over the guardianship of any compromises or settlements of claims by or against the 
estate or for the payment of counsel fees and other expenses – a concept endorsed by the Advisory 
Committee on Decedents’ Estates Laws of the Joint State Government Commission. In addition, 
Senator Arthur Haywood sought to amend the bill to require the appointment of counsel to represent 
AIPs, provide for state and federal criminal background checks for individuals seeking to become 
guardians, and require certification of professional guardians. Each of these concepts was supported 
by the Advisory Council. The 2017-18 legislative session expired before the amendments could be 
adopted. 

Relatedly, Senate Bill 1115 was introduced by Senator Patrick Browne.  Among other provisions, 
the bill included the language requiring the approval of the Orphans’ Court division of compromises 
or settlements or the payment of counsel fees and other expenses. The 2017-18 legislative session 
expired before the bill was considered. 

RECOMMENDATION 94: The Task Force recommends that the General Assembly set a minimum total value for 
an estate before making a bond mandatory in every situation. See Guardians and Counsel Committee Report, 
§V.C.1.b. (Page 46).

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION IS YET TO BE ADDRESSED 

RECOMMENDATION 95: The Task Force recommends that the General Assembly enact legislation allowing the 
acceptance of forms of financial security for guardians other than bonds. See Guardians and Counsel Committee 
Report, §V.C.1.d. (Page 46).

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION IS YET TO BE ADDRESSED 

RECOMMENDATION 96: The Task Force recommends that the General Assembly establish a fund to pay for 
guardianship services for those with limited resources. See Guardians and Counsel Committee Report, §IX.C.1.g. 
(Page 54).

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION IS YET TO BE ADDRESSED

ECOMMENDATION 97: The Task Force recommends that adequate funding be provided to support the Clerks 

of the Orphans’ Court and Judges in their ability to fulfill their guardianship monitoring responsibilities. See 
Guardianship Monitoring Committee Report, §IV.C.10. (Page 120).

√ THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED

The goal of this recommendation shifted focus to AOPC/IT working within its own budget to design, 
create, and maintain a statewide guardianship report and tracking system (GTS). The GTS supports 
judges and clerks of the Orphans’ Court in fulfilling their guardianship monitoring responsibilities.

ECOMMENDATION 98: The Task Force recommends that adequate funding be provided to support the Clerks of 

the Orphans’ Court in their ability to implement a local case management system. See Guardianship Monitoring 
Committee Report, §V.C.9. (Page 123).

√ THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED

  R

  R

The goal of this recommendation shifted focus to AOPC/IT working within its own budget to design, 
create, and maintain a statewide guardianship report and tracking system (GTS). The GTS provides 
local case management of guardianship functionality. 

Senate Bill 117 has been reintroduced in two subsequent legislative sessions since 2013. Although 
the bill number has changed each session, the content of the bill has not. Section 5515.1 – providing 
for the removal and discharge of guardian – remained in the bill after the Senate Judiciary and 
Appropriation Committees voted to adopt the bill. The provision would have been part of the final bill 
had the full Senate voted on the bill. The 2017-18 legislative session expired before the final vote was 
taken.    

ECOMMENDATION 100: The Task Force recommends that the General Assembly enact a statute consistent with 

§116 of the Uniform Power of Attorney Act (Standing). See Elder Abuse and Neglect Committee Report, §I.C.1 
(Page 195).

  R

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION IS IN PROGRESS

RECOMMENDATION 99: The Task Force recommends that § 5515.1 of Senate Bill 117 of 2013, Pr. No. 73, 
addressing the grounds and procedures for removing and replacing guardians, be adopted into the Probate 
Code. See Guardianship Monitoring Committee Report, §VI.C.7. (Page 125).

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION IS IN PROGRESS

Section 116 of the Uniform Power of Attorney Act enumerates nine individuals or entities who may 
petition a court to construe a power of attorney or review the agent’s conduct. Recommendation 100 
seeks the adoption of Section 116 of the Act. 

The Advisory Council endorsed the recommendations set forth in a September 20, 2016 concept 
paper, “Addressing Financial Exploitation of Elders: The Power of Attorney Problem,” regarding 
the adoption of Section 116, and provided the concept paper to the chairmen of the House Aging 
and Older Adult Services Committee, the Senate Aging and Youth Committee, the House Judiciary 
Committee, and the Senate Judiciary Committee. The AOPC’s legislative staff and Advisory Council 
member John Kennedy, Esquire, fielded and answered questions from legislative members and staff in 
response to the circulation of the concept paper. 

In 2018, two bills were introduced to codify Section 116 – Senate Bills 1115 and 1207. Senate Bill 
1115, introduced by Senator Patrick M. Browne, is a comprehensive bill that includes not only 
the codification of Section 116, but also a number of recommendations made by the Joint State 
Government Commission’s Advisory Committee on Decedents’ Estates Laws in its February 2018 
report. Senate Bill 1207, introduced by Senator Arthur L. Haywood III, addresses only Section 116. 
Both bills would add the provisions of the Uniform Act as Section 5615 in Title 20. The 2017-18 
legislative session expired before the bills could be adopted. 

ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION 101: The Task Force recommends enhanced mandatory minimum sentences, 
in addition to those listed in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9717, for the conviction of crimes against elders. See Elder Abuse and 
Neglect Committee Report, §III.C.2.a. (Original Recommendation)

In 2015, the Advisory Council revised this Recommendation by adding “and/or enhanced sentences” 
to the Recommendation of the Task Force. 

REVISED RECOMMENDATION 101: The Task Force recommends consideration by the legislature of mandatory 
minimum and/or enhanced sentences, in addition to those listed in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9717, for the conviction of crimes 
against elders. See Elder Abuse and Neglect Committee Report, §III.C.2.a. (Rev. 10/14/15) (Page 212).

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION IS IN PROGRESS

46

While legislation providing for mandatory minimum or enhanced sentences for the conviction of 
crimes against elders has not been introduced, Judge Ott and President Judge Woods-Skipper have 
informed the Sentencing Commission of the Advisory Council’s support for the concepts embodied 
in mandatory minimum and/or enhanced sentences. The Sentencing Commission plans to await 
legislative direction on the implementation of any mandatory minimum or enhanced sentences. 

RECOMMENDATION 102: The Task Force recommends that the General Assembly consider enacting 
amendments to the existing Pennsylvania Slayer’s Statute, 20 Pa. C.S. §§ 8801-15, to include not only homicide, 
but also elder abuse, neglect and exploitation resulting in convictions of specified crimes. Such statutory 
expansion would be a progressive and significant step in addressing both prevention and remediation of serious 
elder abuse. See Elder Abuse and Neglect Committee Report, §III.C.3.b. (Page 213).

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION IS IN PROGRESS

While legislation has not been introduced, preliminary discussions regarding Recommendation 102 
were held between the AOPC’s legislative staff and Representative Tim Hennessey and his staff. 

In October 2017, a concept paper outlining the Advisory Council’s position on the statutory expansion 
of the Slayer Statue, which included examples of statutes in other states which could be used as a 
template for legislation in Pennsylvania, was delivered to legislators interested in this policy expansion. 
Several states, including California and Michigan, have enacted such statutes. Discussions on the 
expansion of the statute continue. 

RECOMMENDATION 103: The Task Force recommends that the General Assembly consider how to provide 
greater and more consistent funding and support of civil legal aid, including services specifically targeted to low-
income Pennsylvania elders. See Elder Abuse and Neglect Committee Report, §III.C.4.d. (Page 213).
 

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION IS IN PROGRESS

As a part of the 2017-18 budget, the legislature provided for the direction of additional surcharge/fee 
revenue to the Access to Justice Account. Pursuant to statute, Access to Justice funding is utilized 
exclusively to provide civil legal assistance to poor and disadvantaged Pennsylvanians. Supreme 
Court rules determine eligibility for legal assistance under the law. Under the provisions passed as 
a part of the 2017-18 budget, a new $2 temporary surcharge on numerous court filings was added. 
While no specific requirements exist in the law targeting funding to elders, it is estimated the new $2 
temporary surcharge will provide an additional $7.2 million in annual revenue for the Access to Justice 
Account, which could benefit elder litigants. 

RECOMMENDATION 104: The Task Force recommends that the General Assembly enact a statute requiring 
financial institutions to be mandatory reporters of suspected financial abuse or exploitation of elders. See Elder 
Abuse and Neglect Committee Report, §I.C.2.a.i. (Page 196).

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION IS IN PROGRESS

The role financial institutions play in the reporting of, and dealing with, financial abuse of elders has 
been a topic of discussion in the legislature for a number of years, including whether such reporting 
should be mandatory or voluntary, to what extent financial institutions should be required to train 
their employees in the recognition of financial abuse, and whether transactions should be blocked 
or delayed when financial institutions reasonably believe financial exploitation of elders may have 
occurred. 

In December 2015, in recognition of financial institutions’ pivotal role in detecting and preventing the 
suspected financial exploitation of elders, the Conference of State Court Administrators issued a 

47

resolution in support of financial institutions collaboratively addressing suspected financial exploitation 
of elders. 

In 2016, Representative Tim Hennessey introduced House Bill 786, which proposed amendments 
to the Older Adults Protective Services Act (OAPSA). The 2015-16 legislative session expired before 
the bill was considered. Throughout 2017, Representative Hennessey oversaw discussions between 
numerous stakeholders, including representatives of financial institutions and the Pennsylvania 
Department of Aging (Department of Aging) on the legislation. One of the topics of the stakeholder 
discussions was the inclusion of language in the bill requiring financial institutions to train employees 
to recognize financial exploitation, report elder abuse, and identify suspicious financial activities. 

In 2018, comprehensive amendments to OAPSA were introduced by Representative Hennessey, 
House Bill 2549, and by Senator Robert Mensch, Senate Bill 899. The former bill received no action; 
the latter bill unanimously passed the Senate. Both bills contain provisions that would – generally – 
provide for training of financial service industry personnel to assist employees in recognizing signs 
of potential financial abuse, allow for the refusal of fund disbursements, or engage in transactions 
and freeze transactions in situations where financial exploitation may have occurred. The 2017-18 
legislative session expired before the bills were considered. 

RECOMMENDATION 105: The Task Force recommends that the General Assembly statutorily require financial 
institutions to administer training programs to help identify, prevent, and report elder financial abuse. See Elder 
Abuse and Neglect Committee Report, §I.C.2.a.ii. (Page 196). 

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION IS IN PROGRESS

The role financial institutions play in the reporting of, and dealing with, financial abuse of elders has 
been a topic of discussion in the legislature for a number of years, including whether such reporting 
should be mandatory or voluntary, to what extent financial institutions should be required to train 
their employees in the recognition of financial abuse, and whether transactions should be blocked 
or delayed when financial institutions reasonably believe financial exploitation of elders may have 
occurred. 

In October 2015, the Advisory Council was invited by the Pennsylvania Department of Banking and 
Securities to participate in a pilot program to educate lawyers, “Elder Investment Fraud and Financial 
Exploitation Prevention Program Legal (EIFFE),” to be developed in partnership with the ABA, Investor 
Protection Trust, and Investor Protection Institute. The EIFFE program is intended for practitioners in 
a wide array of specialties, such as administrative and government law, business law, elder law, family 
law, general practice, tax law, and trust and estate law. The OEJC was asked by the Pennsylvania 
Department of Banking and Securities to identify which Task Force recommendations could be 
accomplished through EIFFE. In May 2016, the OEJC and Advisory Council members were invited to 
participate in the first advisory board meeting for the EIFFE program. OEJC staff met subsequently 
with Pennsylvania Department of Banking and Securities staff to further refine the EIFFE program. 

In December 2015, in recognition of financial institutions’ pivotal role in detecting and preventing the 
suspected financial exploitation of elders, the Conference of State Court Administrators issued a 
resolution in support of financial institutions collaboratively addressing suspected financial exploitation 
of elders. 

In 2016, Representative Tim Hennessey introduced House Bill 786, which proposed amendments 
to OAPSA. The 2015-16 legislative session expired before the bill was considered. Throughout 
2017, Representative Hennessey oversaw discussions between numerous stakeholders, including 
representatives of financial institutions and the Department of Aging on the legislation. One of the 

48

49

topics of the stakeholder discussions was the inclusion of language in the bill requiring financial 
institutions to train employees to recognize financial exploitation, report elder abuse, and identify 
suspicious financial activities. 

In 2018, comprehensive amendments to OAPSA were introduced by Representative Hennessey, 
House Bill 2549, and by Senator Robert Mensch, Senate Bill 899. The former bill received no action; 
the latter bill unanimously passed the Senate. Both bills contain provisions that would – generally – 
provide for training of financial service industry personnel to assist employees in recognizing signs 
of potential financial abuse, allow for the refusal of fund disbursements, or engage in transactions 
and freeze transactions in situations where financial exploitation may have occurred. The 2017-18 
legislative session expired before the bills were considered. 

RECOMMENDATION 106: The Task Force recommends that the General Assembly statutorily authorize financial 
institutions to delay for five days suspicious financial transactions of elder customers. See Elder Abuse and 
Neglect Committee Report, §I.C.2.a.iii. (Page 196).

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION IS IN PROGRESS

The role financial institutions play in the reporting of, and dealing with, financial abuse of elders has 
been a topic of discussion in the legislature for a number of years, including whether such reporting 
should be mandatory or voluntary, to what extent financial institutions should be required to train 
their employees in the recognition of financial abuse, and whether transactions should be blocked 
or delayed when financial institutions reasonably believe financial exploitation of elders may have 
occurred. 

In December 2015, in recognition of financial institutions’ pivotal role in detecting and preventing the 
suspected financial exploitation of elders, the Conference of State Court Administrators issued a 
resolution in support of financial institutions collaboratively addressing suspected financial exploitation 
of elders. In 2016, Representative Tim Hennessey introduced House Bill 786, which proposed 
amendments to OAPSA. The 2015-16 legislative session expired before the bill was considered. 
Throughout 2017, Representative Hennessey oversaw discussions between numerous stakeholders, 
including representatives of financial institutions and the Department of Aging on the legislation. One 
of the topics of the stakeholder discussions was the inclusion of language in the bill requiring financial 
institutions to train employees to recognize financial exploitation, report elder abuse, and identify 
suspicious financial activities. 

In 2018, comprehensive amendments to OAPSA were introduced by Representative Hennessey, 
House Bill 2579, and by Senator Robert Mensch, Senate Bill 899. The former bill received no action; 
the latter bill unanimously passed the Senate. Both bills contain provisions that would – generally – 
provide for training of financial service industry personnel to assist employees in recognizing signs 
of potential financial abuse, allow for the refusal of fund disbursements, or engage in transactions 
and freeze transactions in situations where financial exploitation may have occurred. The 2017-18 
legislative session expired before the bills were considered.

ECOMMENDATION 107: The Task Force recommends that the General Assembly increase funding to the 

Department of Aging to facilitate thorough investigations of alleged financial abuse. See Elder Abuse and Neglect 
Committee Report, §I.C.2.b. (Page 196).

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION IS YET TO BE ADDRESSED

ECOMMENDATION 108: The Task Force recommends that the General Assembly consider if all personal care 
homes, assisted living residences and home health care agencies should carry a minimum of liability insurance. 
See Elder Abuse and Neglect Committee Report, §I.C.2.f. (Page 196).

  R

  R

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION IS YET TO BE ADDRESSED 

ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION 109: The Task Force recommends that the Legislature mandate the creation 
or continuation of Elder Abuse Task Forces in each county/judicial district to develop best practices, facilitate 
information sharing and enable and promote collaboration. See Elder Abuse and Neglect Committee Report, 
§II.C.3. 

In October 2015, the Legislative Budget and Finance Committee (LBFC) staff made a presentation 
to the Advisory Council on its study of county EATFs. The study was conducted pursuant to House 
Resolution 929, which was passed unanimously by the House in 2014. The resolution required the 
LBFC to review the structure of each EATF and develop a profile of current task forces. The study was 
not available at the time the Task Force made its recommendation. Based on the study’s results, the 
Advisory Council determined it should facilitate, rather than mandate, the creation or continuation of 
EATFs. In October 2015, the Advisory Council revised this Recommendation changing “mandate” to 
“facilitate” in Recommendation 109. 

REVISED RECOMMENDATION 109: The Task Force recommends that the legislature facilitate the creation or 
continuation of EATFs in each county/judicial district to develop best practices, facilitate information sharing and 
enable and promote collaboration. See Elder Abuse and Neglect Committee Report, §II.C.3. (Rev. 10/14/15) (Page 
200.)

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION IS IN PROGRESS

The Advisory Council decided to take steps to facilitate the development of interdisciplinary teams, 
and discussed whether to reach out to existing county EATFs or create interdisciplinary teams to 
address guardianship issues. The Advisory Council also considered how to make existing EATFs more 
effective and encourage counties without an EATF to create one. 

In June 2017, Justice Todd sent a letter to all president judges seeking their collaboration with the 
Advisory Council and providing information regarding a free consultation available from Temple 
University’s Institute for Protective Services for counties interested in establishing an elder justice 
interdisciplinary team or a regional EATF. The letter also made the president judges aware of the Task 
Force’s recommendations and the work of the Advisory Council. Similar letters were sent in August 
2017 from Judge Ott to county commissioners, district attorneys, and Area Agency on Aging directors. 

The letters requested that counties notify the OEJC about their interest in participating in either a 
regional forum or a statewide summit on the subject of interdisciplinary teams and EATFs. Responses 
indicated a preference for regional forums. In December 2017, the Advisory Council determined the 
regional forums would be put on hold until after conclusion of the presentations of the educational 
sessions for judges and the training programs for court staff informed by the ABA’s 29 Recommended 
Guidelines for State Courts to Increase Access to Justice. Feedback obtained from the evaluations 
from the spring and fall educational sessions for judges and training programs for court staff will 
be utilized in development and planning of the regional forums. In 2018, the Advisory Council held 
preliminary discussion on the format and content of the regional forums, included who should be 
invited. 

RECOMMENDATION 110: The Task Force recommends that the General Assembly create a civil private right of 
action for elder abuse or exploitation, such as the one recognized in House Bill 2057 of 2014, Pr. No. 3054. An 
award of attorneys’ fees or other sanctions may also be appropriate for the frivolous pursuit of causes of action 
alleging financial abuse or exploitation. See Elder Abuse and Neglect Committee Report, §III.C.3.a. (Page 213).

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION IS IN PROGRESS

50

51

The EANC was supportive of House Bill 2057 of 2014, which would allow any older adult who was 
injured by an act of financial exploitation or any person authorized to act on behalf of the older adult to 
institute an action in the court of common pleas to recover damages incurred by the older adult. 

The Older Adults Protective Services Act does not define “financial exploitation.” However, it defines 
“exploitation” as an act or course of conduct by a caretaker or other person against an older adult or 
an older adult’s resources without the informed consent of the older adult, or with consent obtained 
through misrepresentation, coercion, or threats of force that result in monetary, personal, or other 
benefit, gain, or profit for the perpetrator, or monetary or personal loss to the older adult. 

The House and Senate oversight committees continue their work on comprehensive amendments 
to OAPSA. A key component of any legislation amending OAPSA is defining the term “financial 
exploitation.” The consistent definition of this term is also important when considering other 
legislation, including establishing a civil private right of action for damages.  

In 2018, House Bill 2549 was introduced by Representative Gary Day. The bill defines the term 
“financial exploitation,” and allows older adults injured by acts of financial exploitation or persons 
authorized to act on behalf of older adults to institute civil actions for damages. If it is proven by a 
preponderance of the evidence that defendants engaged in financial exploitation, the bill would allow 
courts to award reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs to the older adult, in addition to compensatory 
damages and other remedies provided by law. If it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the 
financial exploitation was done willfully, wantonly, or maliciously, or was characterized by aggravating 
circumstances, the bill also allows for courts to award punitive damages. The 2017-18 legislative 
session expired before the bill was considered.

RECOMMENDATION 111: The Task Force recommends that Clerks of the Orphans’ Court become employees of 
the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania. See Overarching Administrative Findings and Recommendations, 
§III.C.1. (Page 223).

ECOMMENDATION 112: The Task Force recommends that the General Assembly – in the interest of all 

Pennsylvanians – provide an annual appropriation to the Supreme Court for the implementation and ongoing 
support of the initiatives in this Report and explore other available sources of funding, such as the state lottery. 
See Overarching Administrative Findings and Recommendations, §IX.C.1. (Page 229).
 

√ THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED

  R

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION IS YET TO BE ADDRESSED

Since 2016, the OEJC has received an appropriation within the Unified Judicial System’s budget 
to continue the implementation of the Task Force’s recommendations and related initiatives of the 
Advisory Council. The appropriation also provides for expenses associated with meetings of the 
Advisory Council. The judiciary will continue to seek funding from the legislature, and the Advisory 
Council will continue to explore other possible sources of funding. 

RECOMMENDATION 113: The Task Force recommends that decisions whether to require a bond when a guardian 
of the estate is appointed remain at the discretion of the court. See Guardians and Counsel Committee Report, 
§V.C.1.c. (Page 46).

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION IS IN PROGRESS

Senate Bill 117 has been reintroduced in two subsequent legislative sessions since 2013. Although the 
bill number has changed each session, the content of the bill has not. The GCMC examined provisions 

governing bonding which were contained in Senate Bill 117, which is also the focus of Task Force 
Recommendations 92, 93, 94, and 99. 

The latest version of the bill was voted unanimously by the Senate Judiciary and Appropriations 
Committees. The 2017-18 legislative session expired before the bill was considered further. Section 
5515.3 governs bonds and establishes a general rule that guardians must execute and file bonds 
with sufficient surety in amounts considered by the court as necessary. Exceptions to the bonding 
requirement are prescribed, and courts have the discretion to not require bonds for cause shown. 
The Advisory Council was unable to recommend the new section without clarification as to what 
factors the courts should consider in regard to “cause shown” and whether such determinations are 
appealable. Section 5515.3 remained in the bill after the Committee votes and would have been part 
of the final vote had the Senate taken one. The legislature did not amend the provision to clarify the 
term “cause shown.” 

RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH

RECOMMENDATION 114: The Task Force recommends that, to the greatest extent possible, information on 
identifying elder abuse and neglect be disseminated to the public in public forums, through the distribution 
of literature, and online. Elder Abuse Task Forces should determine the most effective ways of relaying this 
information to their communities. See Elder Abuse and Neglect Committee Report, §II.C.6. (Page 201).

√ THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED

In October 2016, the OEJC, through AOPC’s STOP Violence Against Women Grant Application, sought 
funding to create an informational brochure and companion poster in English and Spanish on the 
warning signs of elder abuse and how to report suspected abuse. 

The OEJC was awarded STOP grant funding in 2017 to create the informational elder abuse brochure 
and poster (which has tear-off sheets that provide the telephone number of the Department of 
Aging’s statewide elder abuse hotline). The brochures and posters have been distributed to all of 
the Commonwealth’s common pleas, magisterial district, and municipal courts to display and make 
available in public areas. Through a new collaboration with PA Forward, a statewide initiative of the 
Pennsylvania Library Association, the elder abuse brochures and posters will be made available in 
libraries throughout the Commonwealth. See the informational elder abuse brochure at Appendix E. 

RECOMMENDATION 115: The Task Force recommends that the Pennsylvania Department of Aging determine if 
it should request copies of SARs [Suspicious Activity Reports] from the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office. 
See Elder Abuse and Neglect Committee Report, §I.C.2.a.iv. (Page 196).

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION IS YET TO BE ADDRESSED 

RECOMMENDATION 116: The Task Force recommends that the Department of Aging and financial institutions 
work together to determine the most effective and efficient way for AAAs to obtain financial records needed 
to conduct investigations of alleged financial abuse and exploitation. See Elder Abuse and Neglect Committee 
Report, §I.C.2.c.ii. (Page 196).

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION IS YET TO BE ADDRESSED 

RECOMMENDATION 117: The Task Force recommends that the OAG and the PSP [Pennsylvania State Police] 
make financial investigators available to assist local prosecutors and AAAs when complex cases of elder 
financial abuse are alleged. See Elder Abuse and Neglect Committee Report, §I.C.2.c.i. (Page 196).

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION IS YET TO BE ADDRESSED 

52

RECOMMENDATION 118: The Task Force recommends that the DHS [Department of Human Services] be 
encouraged to pay guardians who find alternatives to an IP’s placement in a nursing home where the total cost 
to DHS for community-based services is 50% or less of the cost of a nursing home placement. This may be 
accomplished by amending the home and community-based waiver to allow guardianship support to be billable 
as a waiver service, either as part of an existing service category or as a new waiver service category. Such 
services would be reimbursed based on the guardian’s direct time working with and on behalf of the IP. See 
Overarching Administrative Findings and Recommendations, §VII.C. (Page 226).

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION IS IN PROGRESS

In 2018, the GCMC began to study fees for guardians for the services they provide to IPs and to 
discuss the implications of amending the home and community-based waiver to allow guardianship 
support to be billable as a waiver service. Discussions continue. 

RECOMMENDATION 119: The Task Force recommends that DHS’ policy be changed to allow the Orphans’ Court 
to authorize payment of guardianship fees greater than $100 per month where the court determines greater 
fees are necessary because of the amount of the guardian’s time required to monitor and advocate for the 
incapacitated nursing home resident’s needs. See Overarching Administrative Findings and Recommendations, 
§VI.C. (Page 225).

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION IS IN PROGRESS

In 2018, the GCMC began to study fees for guardians for the services they provide to IPs, including 
the implications of increasing those fees higher than the current $100 per month. Discussions 
continue. 

RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

RECOMMENDATION 120: The Task Force recommends that the U.S. Congress act on the March 31, 2014 and 
April 11, 2014 requests made by U.S. Senators and U.S. Representatives to raise the 2015 VOCA cap. See 
Overarching Administrative Findings and Recommendations, §X.C.1. (Page 231).

√ THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED

The federal Office for Victims of Crime administers the Crime Victims Fund, established under the 
1984 Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) to help victims and victim service providers with program funding. 
The Crime Victims Fund comes from the collection of federal criminal fines and helps an average of 
3.7 million victims of all types of crime every year. Congress raised the appropriations level of the 
Crime Victims Fund (VOCA cap) from $745 million in fiscal year 2014, to more than $2.3 billion in fiscal 
year 2015. 

Congress again raised the VOCA cap to more than $3 billion in fiscal year 2016. While Congress set 
the appropriations level of the VOCA cap at $2.5 billion in fiscal year 2017, they again raised the cap to 
more than $4.4 billion in fiscal year 2018. 

The Court Administrator of Pennsylvania, members of the Advisory Council, and the OEJC have 
met with the chairperson and executive director of the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and 
Delinquency (through which VOCA funds are distributed) to apprise them of the Advisory Council’s 
needs. 

RECOMMENDATION 121: The Task Force recommends that the federal government act on proposed legislation 
that would fund a state GCIP [Guardianship Court Improvement] Program similar to the CIP [Court Improvement 
Program]. See Overarching Administrative Findings and Recommendations, §X.C.2. (Page 231).

53

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION IS YET TO BE ADDRESSED 

In December 2016, the Conference of Chief Justices, Conference of State Court Administrators, and 
the National Center for State Courts’ Center for Elders and the Courts adopted an “Adult Guardianship 
Initiative-Strategic Action Plan 2016,” in which the creation of a Guardianship Court Improvement 
Program was proposed. This proposal is based on the Court Improvement Program, which is a model 
for federal support of court-community collaboration in the child welfare arena. The Guardianship 
Court Improvement Program would support the creation and assessment of pilot projects for the sole 
purpose of making improvements in state court handling of adult guardianship proceedings. Program 
funds could be used to conduct assessments and identify problems in the way adult guardianships 
work in the jurisdiction, develop strategies for addressing those identified problems, and implement 
system improvements. Funds could also be used to establish guardianship offices in the 
administrative offices of the state courts. The Center for Elders and the Courts provided the proposed 
Adult Guardianship Initiative-Strategic Action Plan 2016 to the staff of the United States Senate and 
other federal agencies for their consideration. 

In June 2018, Senators Susan M. Collins, Chairman, and Robert P. Casey, Jr., Ranking Member, of the 
U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging, requested the input of the Advisory Council (among other 
stakeholders nationally) regarding four topics relating to guardianship: the collection of guardianship 
data; actions to ensure persons under guardianship are protected from abuse and exploitation by their 
guardians; the termination of guardianships; and best practices for guardianship reform. In July 2018, 
Judge Ott sent a letter to the Special Committee, responding to their request on behalf of the Advisory 
Council. In addition to addressing the four topics, the letter included a list of ten policy options, 
recommendations, and potential model programs to improve guardianship practices and outcomes, 
and a description of the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas’ proposed Pilot Project for 
Excellence in Adult Guardianship Proceedings. 

RECOMMENDATIONS TO PROSECUTORS

RECOMMENDATION 122: The Task Force recommends that prosecutors utilize 42 Pa.C.S. § 9728(e) and (f) to the 
fullest extent to help ensure funds and assets are available to satisfy anticipated restitution orders in appropriate 
cases, and that educational initiatives be undertaken to ensure district attorneys and Common Pleas Judges are 
aware of this mechanism for freezing assets. See Elder Abuse and Neglect Committee Report, §I.C.2.d. (Page 
196). 

RECOMMENDATION 123: The Task Force recommends that educational efforts be undertaken to ensure 
prosecutors are aware of Pa.R.Crim.P. 500, and its implications for preserving testimony of elders in appropriate 
cases. See Elder Abuse and Neglect Committee Report, §III.C.2.b. (Page 212). 

and 

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THESE RECOMMENDATIONS IS IN PROGRESS

At the Advisory Council’s April 2016 meeting, the PDAA executive director was invited to discuss 
the Task Force’s recommendations for district attorneys. The executive director advised that he 
recognizes elder issues will grow as the population ages, and that more focus on, and prioritization 
of, these issues is necessary. The membership of the Advisory Council includes two district attorneys, 
Allegheny County DA Stephen Zappala and Washington County DA Eugene Vittone, who act as 
liaisons between the Advisory Council and the PDAA, informing the PDAA of the work of the Advisory 
Council, and keeping the Advisory Council informed of the work of the PDAA with regard to matters of 
elder justice. 

In addition, the Advisory Council is in the process of assisting with training topics to be presented at a 
future conference of the PDAA. 

54

55

RECOMMENDATION 124: The Task Force recommends that district attorneys consider requiring municipal police 
departments to obtain their approval before filing criminal charges in certain cases involving victims over age 60. 
See Elder Abuse and Neglect Committee Report, §III.C.2.c. (Page 212).

√ THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED

The membership of the Advisory Council includes two district attorneys, Allegheny County DA 
Stephen Zappala and Washington County DA Eugene Vittone, who act as liaisons between the 
Advisory Council and the PDAA, and have made the PDAA aware of Recommendation 124. 

The Allegheny County District Attorney’s Office has a formalized practice of vertically prosecuting 
matters where the victim(s) are 65 years of age or older. The Allegheny County District Attorney’s 
Office uses the authority the office has under Allegheny County Local Rule 507.3, Approval of Police 
Complaints and Arrest Warrant Affidavits by Attorney for the Commonwealth in Cases Where Victims 
are 65 years old or older. The vertical prosecution model has required that all aspects of Allegheny 
County’s criminal justice system be trained properly, follow protocol and seek permission before 
charging. DA Zappala has provided information to the PDAA on this program and has recommended 
its use by members of the PDAA. 

RECOMMENDATIONS TO VICTIM SERVICES PROVIDERS

RECOMMENDATION 125: The Task Force recommends that advocates, attorneys, law enforcement, and courts 
work collaboratively with the Office of Victim Services, Office of Victim Advocates and other victim service 
providers to continue to evaluate and improve services to elder crime victims. See Elder Abuse and Neglect 
Committee Report, §III.C.2.d. (Page 213.)

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION IS IN PROGRESS

In 2015, members of the Advisory Council, the OEJC, and AOPC began discussing ways to 
collaborate with the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency’s Office of Victim Services. 

The Court Administrator of Pennsylvania, members of the Advisory Council, and the OEJC met with 
the chairperson and executive director of the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency 
in 2016 to apprise them of the Advisory Council’s work. The Victim Services Advisory Committee, 
through its strategic planning process, made services to elder victims of crime a priority for 2016.

n October 2016, the OEJC, through the AOPC’s STOP Violence Against Women grant application, 
sought funding to create an informational brochure and companion poster in English and Spanish 
about the warning signs of elder abuse and how to report suspected abuse. 

  I

The OEJC was awarded STOP grant funding in 2017 to create the informational elder abuse brochure 
and poster (which has tear-off sheets that provide the telephone number of the Department of 
Aging’s statewide elder abuse hotline). The brochures and posters have been distributed to all of 
the Commonwealth’s common pleas, magisterial district, and municipal courts to display and make 
available in public areas. Through a new collaboration with PA Forward, a statewide initiative of the 
Pennsylvania Library Association, the elder abuse brochures and posters will be made available in 
libraries throughout the Commonwealth. 

RECOMMENDATIONS TO BAR ASSOCIATIONS

RECOMMENDATION 126: The Task Force recommends that discussions among attorneys and judges to better 
define the roles of counsel in guardianship matters be encouraged, and involve the participation of the PBA and 
local bar associations. See Guardians and Counsel Committee Report, §VIII.C.1.a. (Page 51).

RECOMMENDATION 127: The Task Force recommends that the PBA and local bar associations be involved in 
providing support, advice and ethical counsel for attorneys willing to assume any of the roles of counsel in a 
guardianship matter. See Guardians and Counsel Committee Report, §VIII.C.1.c. (Page 51).

and 

√ THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THESE RECOMMENDATIONS HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED 

While the implementation of these recommendations has been accomplished, work is ongoing. 

Throughout 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018, members of the Advisory Council made presentations at 
events sponsored by the Pennsylvania Bar Institute on the Advisory Council’s work and issues in 
guardianship matters, including the role of counsel. 

In December 2018, Justice Todd sent a letter to the President of the Pennsylvania Bar Association 
(PBA) requesting collaboration and involvement from the PBA in order to formalize a relationship 
between the PBA and the Advisory Council on the worthwhile initiatives of the Task Force 
Recommendations on behalf of Pennsylvania’s elders. 

RECOMMENDATION 128: The Task Force recommends that, where appropriate, the PBA, the Pennsylvania Bar 
Institute, and local bar associations, working with the OEJC, develop training sessions as recommended in this 
Report. See Guardians and Counsel Committee Report, §X.C.1.a. (Page 55) and §X.C.1.i. (Page 56).

√ THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED 

n 2015, the Advisory Council and the OEJC collaborated with the Pennsylvania Bar Institute to 
participate in its 18th Annual Elder Law Institute (in July) and 22nd Annual Estate Law Institute 
(in November). The OEJC also collaborated on an educational program for lawyers regarding 
guardianships, presented to the York County Bar Association. Although not a training program, the 
Pennsylvania Bar Association Quarterly’s October 2015 edition published an article, “The Pennsylvania 
Supreme Court Elder Law Task Force Report and Recommendations: A Blueprint for Justice.” 

  I

While the implementation of this recommendation has been accomplished, work is ongoing.

In March, 2016, the OEJC again collaborated on an educational program for lawyers regarding 
guardianships, presented to the York County Bar Association. In November 2016, Advisory Council 
member John Meck presented an update on the work of the Advisory Council to the Pennsylvania Bar 
Institute’s Estate Law Institute.

In April 2017, President Judge Woods-Skipper and others participated in the Philadelphia Bar 
Association’s training program on Elder Investment Fraud and Financial Exploitation: Ethical Traps 
for Lawyers and Navigating the Challenges of Diminished Financial Capacity. In November 2017, 
John Meck again presented an update on the work of the Advisory Council to the Pennsylvania Bar 
Institute’s Estate Law Institute.

In 2018, members of the Advisory Council continued to participate in training programs with the 
Pennsylvania Bar Institute and local bar associations. A list of all training programs and educational 
presentations made by Advisory Council members may be found in Appendix B. 

56

RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE PUBLIC

RECOMMENDATION 129: The Task Force recommends that Pennsylvanians who believe an elder displays the 
warning signs of mistreatment should report such symptoms by calling either of the state’s two Elder Abuse 
Hotlines. 
Statewide Elder Abuse Hotline: 1-800-490-8505
Office of Attorney General Elder Abuse Hotline: 1-866-623-2137  
[renamed “Elder Protection Helpline” in 2017]
Abuse reports can be made on behalf of an older adult who lives in his or her home or in a care facility (e.g., 
nursing facility, personal care home, hospital, etc.). A caller may remain anonymous, and has legal protection 
from retaliation, discrimination and civil or criminal prosecution. See Overarching Administrative Findings and 
Recommendations, §XI.C.1. (Page 232).

and 

RECOMMENDATION 130: The Task Force recommends that everyone learn the signs that indicate elder abuse, 
and take steps to prevent it. See Overarching Administrative Findings and Recommendations, §XI.C.2. (Page 
232).

√ THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THESE RECOMMENDATIONS HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED

While the implementation of these recommendations has been accomplished, work is ongoing. 

The Advisory Council and the OEJC continue to take every opportunity to encourage the reporting of 
elder abuse through presentations to bar associations; training programs for providers of guardianship 
services; and educational programs for judges, court staff, and elder justice-related entities; and 
through the distribution of informational material on the subject of elder abuse. The Department of 
Aging’s Statewide Elder Abuse Hotline number was provided to all common pleas and magisterial 
district judges through the distribution of the Advisory Council’s Elder Abuse Bench Card. 

In October 2016, the OEJC, through the AOPC’s STOP Violence Against Women Grant Application, 
sought funding to create an informational brochure and companion poster in English and Spanish on 
the warning signs of elder abuse and how to report suspected abuse. 

The OEJC was awarded STOP grant funding in 2017 to create an informational elder abuse brochure 
and poster (which has tear-off sheets that provide the telephone number of the Department of 
Aging’s statewide elder abuse hotline). The brochures and posters have been distributed to all of 
the Commonwealth’s common pleas, magisterial district, and municipal courts to display and make 
available in public areas. Through a new collaboration with PA Forward, a statewide initiative of the 
Pennsylvania Library Association, the elder abuse brochures and posters will be made available in 
libraries throughout the Commonwealth. 

The hope is that the public will be encouraged to call the Department of Aging’s Statewide Elder 
Abuse Hotline to report abuse if they are aware of the hotline and know that they can report suspected 
abuse anonymously. The brochure and poster will be updated as needed in the future. The Elder 
Abuse Hotline operated by the OAG, which operates only during business hours, was renamed the 
“Elder Protection Helpline” in 2017 to avoid confusion with the Department of Aging’s hotline. 

In addition, resource materials created by the National Center on Elder Abuse (NCEA) to help identify 
signs of abuse and to help prevent elder abuse are available to the public on the Unified Judicial 
System’s website at www.pa.courts.us. See NCEA’s Red Flags of Abuse fact sheet at Appendix F, and 
NCEA’s 12 Things that Anyone Can do to Prevent Elder Abuse fact sheet at Appendix G.

57

Advisory Council 

Advisory Council on Elder Justice in the Courts 

APPENDIX A
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

Area Agency on Aging

American Bar Association 

Alleged Incapacitated Person 

Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts 

Continuing Legal Education

Pennsylvania Criminal Procedural Rules Committee 

Criminal Rule 500 

Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 500 

Department of Aging 

Pennsylvania Department of Aging

Judicial Education 

AOPC’s Judicial Education Department 

AOPC’s Information Technology Department 

Department of Human Services

United States Department of Justice 

Elder Abuse and Neglect Committee 

Elder Abuse Task Force 

Guardianship Support Agency

Guardianship Tracking System 

Incapacitated Person 

Elder Investment Fraud and Financial Exploitation Prevention Program 

Guardianship Counsel and Monitoring Committee 

Supreme Court Orphans’ Court Procedural Rules Committee 

Office of Attorney General

Older Adult Protective Services Act

Orphans’ Court Case Management System 

Office of Elder Justice in the Courts 

Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes

Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association

United States Social Security Administration 

AAA 

ABA 

AIP 

AOPC 

CLE 

CPRC 

DHS 

DOJ 

EANC 

EATF 

EIFFE 

GCMC 

GSA 

GTS 

IP 

IT 

OAG 

OAPSA 

OCCMS 

OCPRC 

OEJC 

Pa.C.S. 

PDAA 

SSA 

VA 

VOCA 

Supreme Court 

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 

Task Force 

Elder Law Task Force 

U.S. Attorney’s Office 

United States Attorney’s Office 

United States Department of Veterans Affairs 

Victims of Crime Act

York County Court 

Administrative Office of York County Courts 

58

APPENDIX B
ADVISORY COUNCIL TRAINING PROGRAMS AND EDUCATIONAL PRESENTATIONS

2015

March 24, 2015
Pennsylvania Legal Aid Network Excellence  
Awards Dinner
Report on the Work of the Elder Law Task Force
Justice Debra Todd

May 27, 2015
Legal Education/Training Sponsored by Pennsylvania 
Department of Aging and the Institute on Protective 
Services at Temple University
Allentown, PA
Overview of the Elder Law Task Force’s Report  
and Recommendations for Prosecutors and  
the Aging Network
Judge Paula Francisco Ott, Ronald W. Costen, Ph.D., 
Esquire, and Wilmarie Gonzalez

June 15, 2015
New Jersey Court System-Atlantic/Cape May Vicinage
Galloway, NJ
Elder Abuse Training Program
Judge Paula Francisco Ott, Brenda K. Uekert, Ph.D., and 
Tim Dibble 

July 21, 2015
Register of Wills/Orphans’ Court Clerks Association 
Annual Conference
Skytop, PA
Update on The Guardianship Tracking System
Judge Paula Francisco Ott, Cherstin Hamel, Amy Ceraso, 
Esquire, Barbara Holmes, and Russel Montchal

July 24, 2015
Pennsylvania Conference of State Trial Judges
Hershey, PA
Elder Justice in the Courts: The Elder Law 
Task Force’s Report and Recommendations –  
What Every Pennsylvania Trial Judge Needs to Know 
Justice Debra Todd, Judge Paula Francisco Ott, Judge 
Lois E. Murphy, President Judge Sheila A. Woods-Skipper, 
President Judge George N. Zanic, Karen C. Buck, Esquire, 
and Keelin Barry, Esquire

July 25, 2015
Pennsylvania Bar Institute 18th Annual  
Estate Law Institute 
Harrisburg, PA
Update on the Work of the Advisory Council  
on Elder Justice in the Courts
Judge Paula Francisco Ott, Judge Lois E. Murphy, 
President Judge Sheila A. Woods-Skipper,  
and Cherstin Hamel

September 11, 2015
Butler County Bench-Bar Conference
The Supreme Court’s Recent Initiatives  
Focusing on Elder Law
Justice Debra Todd

September 14, 2015 to May 2016
Minor Judiciary Continuing Education 
Harrisburg, PA 
Elder Abuse Training
Darren Breslin, Esquire

September 18, 2015
Monroe County Bench-Bar Conference
The Supreme Court’s Recent Initiatives  
Focusing on Elder Law
Justice Debra Todd

September 18, 2015
Pennsylvania Coalition of Affiliated Healthcare  
and Living Communities (PACAH)
State College, PA
Elder Law Task Force: Addressing the  
Needs of Pennsylvania’s Aging Population
President Judge George N. Zanic, John N. Kennedy, 
Esquire, John F. Meck, Esquire, and Cherstin Hamel

November 18, 2015
Pennsylvania Bar Institute 22nd Annual Estate  
Law Institute
Philadelphia, PA
Update on the Work of the Advisory Council  
on Elder Justice in the Courts
Judge Paula Francisco Ott, Judge Lois E. Murphy, 
President Judge Sheila A. Woods-Skipper, and John F. 
Meck, Esquire 

59

2016

March 15, 2016 
Pennsylvania Council on Aging
Gettysburg, PA
Update on the Work of the Elder Law Task Force
Karen C. Buck, Esquire and Joseph M. Olimpi, Esquire

March 29, 2016 
York County Bar Association
York, PA
Guardianship of Incapacitated People
Zygmont A. Pines, Esquire, Cherstin Hamel,  
and Joan Krechmer

April 13, 2016
Pennsylvania House Aging and Older Adult  
Services Committee
Harrisburg, PA
Testimony
Judge Paula Francisco Ott, President Judge George N. 
Zanic, and Zygmont A. Pines, Esquire

April 27, 2016
Luzerne & Lackawanna County Bar Associations
Scranton, PA
Elder Law Continuing Legal Education Presentation
The Supreme Court’s Recent Initiatives Focusing  
on Elder Law
Justice Debra Todd

May 4, 2016
Senior Law 2016 Gala
Philadelphia, PA
Remarks on Award presented to the Elder Law Task 
Force
Justice Debra Todd, Judge Paula Francisco Ott,  
and Zygmont A. Pines, Esquire 

May 12, 2016 
New District Court Administrator Orientation Program
Harrisburg, PA
Update on the Work of the Advisory Council  
on Elder Justice in the Courts and Office of Elder 
Justice in the Courts
Cherstin Hamel

July 29, 2016 
Pennsylvania Conference of State Trial Judges
Hershey, PA 
Determining Capacity in Older Adults
Judge Lois E. Murphy, Judge Shawn D. Meyers,  
Dr. Bruce M. Bushwick, and Dr. Rocksheng Zhong

July 29, 2016 
Pennsylvania Conference of State Trial Judges
Hershey, PA 
Criminal and Civil Responses to Elder Abuse  
and Financial Exploitation
Judge Paula Francisco Ott, President Judge Sheila A. 
Woods-Skipper, President Judge George N. Zanic,  
Ronald Costen, Esquire, and Dana Goldberg, Esquire

August 29, 2016
National Adult Protective Services Association -  
27th Annual Conference 
Philadelphia, PA
Elder Justice Reform Efforts in Pennsylvania 
Judge Paula Francisco Ott, Zygmont A. Pines, Esquire, 
Pennsylvania Secretary of Aging Teresa Osborne,  
and Cherstin Hamel

September 15, 2016
Monroe County Elder Abuse Task Force
Stroudsburg, PA
P4A Update on the Work of the Advisory Council  
on Elder Justice in the Courts
Arthur N. DiLoreto 

September 29, 2016
Pennsylvania Legal Aid Network Conference
Harrisburg, PA
Update on the Work of the Advisory Council  
on Elder Justice in the Courts
Judge Paula Francisco Ott, Karen C. Buck, Esquire,  
and Pamela Walz, Esquire 

October 25, 2016 
Mid-Atlantic Association for Court Management 
Conference
Ocean City, MD
Five Strategies to Better Manage Cases Involving 
Elderly Litigants
Judge Paula Francisco Ott and Brenda Uekert, Ph.D. 

November 8, 2016
Pennsylvania Bar Institute/Estate Law Institute 
Philadelphia, PA
Update on the Work of the Advisory Council  
on Elder Justice in the Courts
John F. Meck, Esquire

60

2017 

February 23, 2017
Pennsylvania Conference of State Trial Judges
Pittsburgh, PA
Competing Representation of Alleged Incapacitated 
Persons, Appointment of Counsel for Incapacitated 
Persons and Ethical Considerations for Counsel 
Joseph M. Olimpi, Esquire, Judge Emil Giordano,  
and Todd T. Turin, Esquire 

March 22, 2017
Federal Elder Justice Task Force Meeting
Harrisburg, PA
Update on the Work of the Advisory Council  
on Elder Justice in the Courts and Office  
of Elder Justice in the Courts
Cherstin Hamel and Amy Ceraso, Esquire

April 6, 2017
Philadelphia Bar Association
Philadelphia, PA
Elder Investment Fraud and Financial Exploitation: 
Ethical Traps for Lawyers and Navigating the 
Challenges of Diminished Financial Capacity
President Judge Sheila A. Woods-Skipper, Pennsylvania 
Secretary of Banking and Securities Robin Wiessman, 
Dr. David Galinsky, Dana Goldberg, Esquire, Stefanie Z. 
Hamilton, Esquire, and Lori Stiegel, Esquire

April 12, 2017
Financial Security Officers of Eastern Pennsylvania
Breinigsville, PA
P4A Update on the Work of the Advisory Council  
on Elder Justice in the Courts
Arthur N. DiLoreto

May 4, 2017
National Equal Justice Conference
Pittsburgh, PA
Opening Remarks, Court-led Access to Justice  
for Vulnerable Populations
Justice Debra Todd, Judge Paula Francisco Ott,  
and Karen C. Buck, Esquire 

May 9, 2017
Judicial District Regional Unit I Meeting 
Williamsport, PA
Update on the Work of the Advisory Council  
on Elder Justice in the Courts and Office  
of Elder Justice in the Courts
Frank Lill

June 15, 2017
Pennsylvania Capitol World Elder Abuse Awareness Day 
Harrisburg, PA 
Remarks
Zygmont A. Pines, Esquire, Pennsylvania Secretary of 
Aging Teresa Osborne, Pennsylvania Secretary of Banking 
and Securities Robin Wiessmann, Pennsylvania State 
Police Lieutenant Colonel Stephen A. Bucar, and David 
Shallcross of the OAG

June 20, 2017
Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency’s 
Victim Services and Protective Services Working 
Together Regional Symposium
Lewisburg, PA
Update on Work of the Advisory Council on  
Elder Justice in the Courts and Office of Elder  
Justice in the Courts
Cherstin Hamel

August 7, 2017
Conference of Chief Justices/Conference of  
State Court Administrators Annual Conference
Philadelphia, PA
Remarks at Elders and the Courts Committee Meeting 
(at the request of Thomas B. Darr, Court Administrator of 
Pennsylvania)
Zygmont A. Pines, Esquire

October 5, 2017
Judicial District Regional Unit III Meeting 
Oil City, PA
Update on the Work of the Advisory Council  
on Elder Justice in the Courts and Office  
of Elder Justice in the Courts
Frank Lill

October 11, 2017
Fayette County Bar Association, Bench-Bar 
Conference
Farmington, PA
The Supreme Court’s Recent Initiatives  
Focusing on Elder Law
Justice Debra Todd

October 12, 2017
Pennsylvania State Police Crime Section Commanders’ 
and Patrol Section Commanders’ Conferences
Gettysburg, PA
Collaboration and Communication: Upholding the 
Older Adults Protective Services Act
President Judge George N. Zanic and Secretary of Aging 
Teresa Osborne 

61

October 13, 2017
Southeastern Judicial Districts Meeting
West Chester, PA
Update on the Work of the Advisory Council  
on Elder Justice in the Courts and Office  
of Elder Justice in the Courts
Frank Lill 

October 18, 2017
Judicial District Regional V Unit Meeting 
Jim Thorpe, PA
Update on the Work of the Advisory Council  
on Elder Justice in the Courts and Office  
of Elder Justice in the Courts
Frank Lill

November 1, 2017
County Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania’s 
Human Services Administrators Conference
Harrisburg, PA
Update on the Work of the Advisory Council  
on Elder Justice in the Courts
Judge Paula Francisco Ott and Pennsylvania  
Secretary of Aging Teresa Osborne

November 15, 2017
Pennsylvania Bar Institute/Estate Law Institute
Philadelphia, PA
Update on the Work of the Advisory Council  
on Elder Justice in the Courts
John F. Meck, Esquire

October 27, 2017
Lackawanna County Bar Association, Bench-Bar 
Conference 
Scranton, PA
The Supreme Court’s Recent Initiatives Focusing on 
Elder Law
Justice Debra Todd

December 18, 2017
Guardianship Tracking System Stakeholder Meeting
Scranton, PA
Update on the Work of the Advisory Council  
on Elder Justice in the Courts and Office  
of Elder Justice in the Courts
Frank Lill

2018 
March 29, 2018
Dickinson Law School, Pennsylvania State University
Carlisle, PA
Dementia Diagnosis and the Law 
Judge Paula Francisco Ott, Judge Lois E. Murphy, Dr. Krish 
Sathian, Claire Flaherty, PhD, Daniel C. Marson, PhD, JD., 
Katherine C. Pearson, Esquire, Sally L. Schoffstall, Esquire, 
Tiffany Jeffers, Laurel S. Terry, and H. Laddie Montague Jr., 
Esquire 

April 5, 2018
Allegheny League of Municipalities
Seven Springs, PA
Allegheny County District Attorney’s Senior Justice 
Initiative
District Attorney Stephen A. Zappala, Jr., and Richard 
Skrinjar 

April 20, 2018
Ten County Meeting
Harrisburg, PA
Update on the Work of the Office of Elder Justice  
in the Courts
Frank Lill

May 9, 2018
IBEW Local #5
Pittsburgh, PA
Second Annual Senior Justice in Courts Panel 
Discussion
District Attorney Stephen A. Zappala, Jr., Richard Skrinjar, 
Julie Capone, Esquire, Kurt Emerling, Robert Peirce, 
Esquire, and Daniel P. Buzard, Esquire 

May 10, 2018
OEJC Training Program for Court Staff
Clarion, PA
Elder Abuse and Exploitation: Practical Tools  
for Assuring Access to Justice
Richard Albrecht and Joseph Ryan 

May 15, 2018
Judicial District Regional Unit 1 Meeting 
Williamsport, PA
Update on the Work of the Office of Elder Justice  
in the Courts
Frank Lill

May 31, 2018
OEJC Educational Session for Judges  
and Training Program for Court Staff
Wilkes-Barre, PA
Elder Abuse and Exploitation: Practical Tools  
for Assuring Access to Justice
Richard Albrecht, Joseph Ryan, and President Judge 
Richard M. Hughes

June 7, 2018
OEJC Educational Session for Judges  
and Training Program for Court Staff
Valley Forge, PA
Elder Abuse and Exploitation: Practical Tools  
for Assuring Access to Justice
Richard Albrecht, Joseph Ryan, and Judge Stanley R. Ott

62

June 14, 2018
OEJC Educational Session for Judges
Mechanicsburg, PA
Elder Abuse and Exploitation: Practical Tools  
for Assuring Access to Justice
Richard Albrecht, Joseph Ryan, and Judge Shawn D. 
Meyers

September 12, 2018
Pennsylvania Council on Aging
Gettysburg, PA
Update on the Work of the Advisory Council  
on Elder Justice in the Courts and the Office  
of Elder Justice in the Courts
President Judge George N. Zanic, Zygmont A. Pines, 
Esquire, Cherstin Hamel, and Amy B. Whitworth

September 13, 2018
OEJC Training Program for Court Staff
Pittsburgh, PA
Elder Abuse and Exploitation: Practical Tools  
for Assuring Access to Justice
Richard Albrecht and Joseph Ryan 

September 24, 2018
Senate Judiciary Committee Public Hearing
Harrisburg, PA
Civil Proceedings in Courts of Common Pleas
Judge Lois E. Murphy, Judge James M. McMaster,  
and Judge Lesa S. Gelb

September 24, 2018
OEJC Training for Family/Lay Guardians
York, PA
Fundamentals of Guardianship: What Family  
Guardians Need to Know
Joan Krechmer

September 25, 2018
Pennsylvania Bar Institute
Mechanicsburg, PA
New E-filing Requirements and Other Guardianship Rules
Judge Paula Francisco Ott, Judge Jeannine Turgeon,  
Sherry E. Baskin, Esquire, Deborah S. Freeman, Esquire,  
Jean Marfizo King, Wayne M. Pecht, Esquire, Bruce J. 
Warshawsky, Esquire, Sonja P. Waters, and Amy B. Whitworth

September 25, 2018
OEJC Training for Family/Lay Guardians
Lancaster, PA
Fundamentals of Guardianship: What Family  
Guardians Need to Know
Joan Krechmer

October 1, 2018
OEJC Training for Family/Lay Guardians
Blue Bell, PA
Fundamentals of Guardianship: What Family  
Guardians Need to Know
Joan Krechmer

October 2, 2018
OEJC Training for Family/Lay Guardians
Harrisburg, PA
Fundamentals of Guardianship: What Family  
Guardians Need to Know
Joan Krechmer

October 4, 2018
OEJC Training Program for Court Staff
Scranton, PA
Elder Abuse and Exploitation: Practical Tools  
for Assuring Access to Justice
Richard Albrecht and Joseph Ryan 

October 11, 2018
OEJC Training Program for Court Staff
Williamsport, PA
Elder Abuse and Exploitation: Practical Tools  
for Assuring Access to Justice
Richard Albrecht and Joseph Ryan

October 15, 2018
PA Forward Annual Conference
Harrisburg, PA
How Libraries Can Collaborate with the Pennsylvania 
Court System in Addressing the Needs of Older 
Pennsylvanians 
Judge Paula Francisco Ott, Judge Lois E. Murphy, 
Pennsylvania Secretary of Aging Teresa Osborne,  
and Amy B. Whitworth

October 18, 2018
OEJC Training Program for Court Staff
State College, PA
Elder Abuse and Exploitation: Practical Tools  
for Assuring Access to Justice
Richard Albrecht and Joseph Ryan 

October 19, 2018
Allegheny County District Attorney’s Office
Pittsburgh, PA
Powers of Attorney, Guardianship and the  
New Guardianship Tracking System
Judge Paula Francisco Ott, John F. Meck, Esquire,  
and Daniel P. Buzard, Esquire 

October 22, 2018
York County Bar Association
York, PA
The New Guardianship Rules
Wayne M. Pecht, Esquire

October 25, 2018
OEJC Training Program for Court Staff
Grove City, PA
Elder Abuse and Exploitation: Practical Tools  
for Assuring Access to Justice
Richard Albrecht and Joseph Ryan 

63

October 25, 2018
National Law and Aging Conference
Alexandria, Virginia
Court-based Access to Justice Projects  
for Older Americans
President Judge Sheila A. Woods-Skipper,  
President Judge George N. Zanic, Judge Lois E. Murphy, 
and Karen C. Buck, Esquire 

November 8, 2018
OEJC Educational Session for Judges  
and Training Program for Court Staff
Hershey, PA
Elder Abuse and Exploitation: Practical Tools  
for Assuring Access to Justice
Richard Albrecht, Joseph Ryan, and  
Judge Risa Vetri Ferman

November 1, 2018
OEJC Educational Session for Judges  
and Training Program for Court Staff
Philadelphia, PA
Elder Abuse and Exploitation: Practical Tools  
for Assuring Access to Justice
Richard Albrecht, Joseph Ryan, and  
Judge Risa Vetri Ferman

64

APPENDIX C
PRESENTATIONS AND EDUCATIONAL FORUMS MADE TO  
THE ADVISORY COUNCIL ON ELDER JUSTICE IN THE COURTS

2015 
October 14, 2015
Pennsylvania Department of Banking and Securities
Work of the Department of Banking and Securities
Victoria Reider, Deputy Secretary
Christina Kotsalos, Director, Investor Education and 
Consumer Outreach Office

October 14, 2015
Pennsylvania Legislative Budget and Finance 
Committee
Commonwealth’s Network of Elder Abuse Task Force’s 
Report
Dr. Maryann Nardone, Project Manager

2016
April 19, 2016
Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency
Senior Victims of Crime
Kathleen Buckley, Manager, Victims’ Services Programs
Robert Merwine, Director, Office of Criminal Justice System 
Improvements

April 19, 2016
Center for Guardianship Certification
Certification of Guardians:  A Pennsylvania 
Presentation
Denise Calabrese, Executive Director
Sally Balch Hurme, Esquire, Consultant

April 19, 2016
Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association
Work of the Pennsylvania District Attorneys 
Association
Richard W. Long, Esquire, Executive Director

December 8, 2016
United States Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of 
Pennsylvania
Federal Elder Justice Initiatives
Charlene Keller Fullmer, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Deputy 
Chief, Affirmative Litigation
Gerald B. Sullivan, Assistant U.S. Attorney

December 13, 2017
Northampton County’s Senior Law Center 
Judge Jack A. Panella
Superior Court of Pennsylvania

2017
June 8, 2017 & September 27, 2017
Orphans’ Court Division, Allegheny County Court of 
Common Pleas
Proposal for a Guardian Security Fund
Daniel P. Buzard, Esquire, Supervisor, Guardianship 
Department

December 13, 2017
Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence
Collaboration with Pennsylvania Coalition Against 
Domestic Violence
Rachel Haynes Pinsker, Esquire, Legal Services 
Manager
Jessa Winas-Devine, Technical and Training Specialist  

65

November 14, 2018
Financial Institution Forum
Robin L. Wiessman, Secretary, Pennsylvania Secretary of 
Banking and Securities
Sean Blake, CFE, Investigations/Corporate Security & 
Resilience/Citizens Bank    
Eric G. Hosie, CFP, Group Vice President, Market Manager, 
M&T Securities, Inc.
Linda Mill, CFE, Director, Account Servicing/Deposit 
Operations, Ally Bank
Judge Paula Francisco Ott 

2018 

June 20, 2018
Dickinson Law-Pennsylvania State University
Proposal:  Pennsylvania Judiciary-Specific Education 
Tool for Guardians
Katherine C. Pearson, Esquire, Professor of Law

September 5, 2018
Delaware Courts
Supported Decision-Making – The Delaware 
Experience
Lexie McFassel, Esquire, Public Guardian, State of 
Delaware

September 5, 2018
SeniorLAW Center/AARP
Systemic Advocacy Pro Bono Project
Nora Dowd Eisenhower, Esquire, Project Director, 
SeniorLAW Center
Bill Johnston-Walsh, Esquire, State Director, AARP 
Pennsylvania
Karen C. Buck, Esquire, Executive Director, SeniorLAW 
Center 

66

APPENDIX D

Designed with guardians 
in mind

The Pennsylvania Guardianship Tracking 
System (GTS) will provide an online 
alternative to the paper-based forms 
currently used by guardians to submit 
inventory and annual person and estate 
reports. The GTS will simplify this yearly 
task by providing you with a user-friendly 
interface that calculates financial 
totals automatically, provides onscreen 
assistance, and helps ensure all required 
information is recorded.

In addition, once a guardian uses the GTS 
to file online, certain details entered on 
a previous year’s report can be applied 
to future reports without having to be 
reentered. This way, you will only need to 
update information that has changed.

The GTS design has been a collaborative 
effort incorporating input from guardians, 
judges, court staff, Orphans’ Court clerks 
and others.

Questions about the GTS?
Send an email to: GTSInfo@pacourts.us

The GTS is being designed by the 
Administrative Office of Pennsylvania 
Courts (AOPC) Information Technology 
Department in association with the AOPC's 
Office of Elder Justice in the Courts (OEJC).  
The OEJC assists the Supreme Court of 
Pennsylvania in promoting best practices 
in the areas of guardianship, elder abuse 
and neglect, and access to justice.

PENNSYLVANIA COURTS

GT S

GUARDIANSHIP
TRACKING SYSTEM

Beginning in December of 2018, the 

Guardianship Tracking System (GTS) will 

provide all court-appointed guardians of adult 

incapacitated persons the convenience of 

filing inventory and annual reports online.

The Guardianship Tracking System:

•  Simplifies guardian filings

• 

Is available when you are

•  Understands guardian responsibilities

•  Keeps guardians informed

• 

Is designed with guardians in mind 

Understands your 
responsibilities

Guardians are entrusted to safeguard 
the welfare of others. The GTS 
recognizes and fully supports this 
responsibility by providing you a secure 
way to submit guardianship information 
online.

To use the GTS, a guardian will be 
required to log into the UJS Web Portal 
with a secure user account. The ability 
to file reports is then further protected 
by a unique access code that is issued 
to the guardian by the court. Once filed, 
annual reports and inventories are only 
viewable by the responsible Orphans’ 
Court office.

The payment of filing fees will also be 
accepted online with a credit or debit 
card. The UJS Web Portal has already 
processed hundreds of millions of 
dollars in court-related payments and 
all transactions accepted through 
the GTS will be protected using this 
established payment method.

Keeps you informed

Because life gets busy, the GTS will 
send an e-mail reminder to let you 
know that the due date for an annual 
report is approaching. For your peace 
of mind, the GTS will also send 
confirmation messages to let you know 
when the court has received your 
online submission.

Simplifies Your filings

Available when you are

The GTS is being designed based on 
Pennsylvania Supreme Court-approved 
guardianship reporting forms that must be 
utilized in Orphans’ Court offices statewide. 
For guardians who file reports in multiple 
counties, using the GTS will eliminate 
any inconsistencies experienced with 
the various paper forms and simplify the 
completion and filing of required forms.

The GTS will be available through the Unified 
Judicial System of Pennsylvania Web Portal 
(https://ujsportal.pacourts.us) in late 2018. 
As this exciting time approaches, keep in mind 
that the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania 
(UJS) has a longstanding commitment to the Web 
Portal’s user community that places an emphasis 
on reliability and security. With the GTS you will 
be able to start, pause, continue, and file reports 
at any time, day or night, from any place you have 
access to an internet-connected computer.

67

APPENDIX E

Are you age 60  
or older? 
Know an older 
adult who is being 
abused or taken 
advantage of?  

HELP IS AVAILABLE.
ABUSE IS NOT YOUR FAULT.

CALL 9-1-1 IF YOUR LIFE OR  
THE LIFE OF SOMEONE YOU  
KNOW IS IN IMMINENT DANGER. 

TO REPORT ELDER ABUSE

CALL PENNSYLVANIA’S 

STATEWIDE HOTLINE 

1-800-490-8505

24 HOURS A DAY, 7 DAYS A WEEK. 

This project was supported by PCCD Subgrant # 26422-
2, awarded by the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and 
Delinquency (PCCD) to the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania 
Courts (AOPC). The opinions, findings and conclusions expressed 
within this publication/program/exhibition are those of the 
author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of PCCD, the 
AOPC or the U.S. Department of Justice, Office on Violence 
Against Women.

ABUSE IS NOT YOUR FAULT.
HELP IS AVAILABLE.

Has someone 
physically harmed  
or threatened to  
harm you?

Has someone stolen, 
taken or made threats 
to take control of your 
property or money?

Has someone forced 
you to engage 
in sexual acts or 
threatened to do so?

Has someone denied 
you medication, food 
or basic needs?

Has someone done 
any of these acts to an 
older adult you know?

What is elder abuse?
Any form of mistreatment that results 
in the harm of an older person, 
including:
•  Self-neglect; 
•  Caregiver neglect;
•  Financial exploitation;
•  Emotional abuse;
•  Physical abuse; and
•  Sexual abuse.

Signs of elder abuse
Include, but are not limited to: 
•  Bruises or other injuries; 
•  Poor hygiene; 
•	 Person	has	adequate	financial	

resources, but appears to struggle 
financially	and/or	live	without	
needed care;

•	 An	older	adult	who	appears	

unusually	withdrawn	or	evasive;	
and 

•  An appearance that someone 
is isolating the older adult, or 
controlling	his/her	actions	or	
finances.		

To report elder abuse, 
call Pennsylvania’s 
statewide Hotline at  
1-800-490-8505, 
24 hours a day, 
7 days a week.  

A caller may remain anonymous, 
and has legal protection from 
retaliation, discrimination, and 
civil or criminal prosecution if he 
or she is calling in good faith. 

Abuse reports can be made on 
behalf	of	an	older	adult	whether	
the	person	lives	in	his/her	home	
or in a care facility such as a 
nursing facility, personal care 
home, hospital, etc. 

Victim services, legal services 
and domestic violence 
organizations in your community 
may also be able to help.

HELP IS AVAILABLE. ABUSE IS NOT YOUR FAULT.
CALL 9-1-1 IF YOUR LIFE OR THE LIFE OF SOMEONE YOU KNOW IS IN IMMINENT DANGER. 

68

APPENDIX F

69

70

APPENDIX G

12 Things that Anyone Can Do 
to Prevent Elder Abuse

abuse and neglect.

and ask how he or she is doing.

1 Learn the signs of elder 
2 Call or visit an elderly loved one 
3 Provide a respite break 
4 Ask your bank manager to train tellers on 
5 Ask your doctor to ask 

how to detect elder financial abuse.

for a caregiver.

you and all other senior 
patients about possible 
family violence in their lives.

6 Contact your local Adult Protective 

Services or Long-Term Care Ombudsman
to learn how to support their work helping 
at-risk elders and adults with disabilities.

 

7 Organize a “Respect Your Elders” essay 

or poster contest in your child’s school.

8 Ask your religious congregration’s leader to give 

a talk about elder abuse at a service or to put 
a message about elder abuse in the bulletin.

9 Volunteer to be a friendly visitor to a 

nursing home resident or to a homebound 
senior in your neighborhood.

10 Send a letter to your local paper,

radio or TV station suggesting that 
they cover World Elder Abuse 
Awareness Day (June 15) or 
Grandparents Day in September.

11 Dedicate your bikeathon/marathon/

other event to elder mistreatment 
awareness and prevention.

12 Join the Ageless Alliance. Ageless Alliance

connects people of all ages, nationwide, who 
stand united for the dignity of older adults 
and for the elimination of 
elder abuse. You can join 
(it’s free) and get involved 
at agelessalliance.org.

Find local resources for Seniors, People with Disabilities, and Caregivers! 
Call the ElderCare Locator at 1-800-677-1116 or visit www.eldercare.gov.
For more information on elder abuse prevention,  
please visit www.ncea.aoa.gov.
Find us on Facebook and Twitter!

This document was completed for the National Center on Elder Abuse and is supported in part by a grant (No. 90AB0002/01) to the UCI Center of Excellence from the 
Administration on Aging, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). Grantees carrying out projects under government sponsorship are encouraged to express 
freely their findings and conclusions. Therefore, points of view or opinions do not necessarily represent official Administration on Aging or DHHS policy.”

For more information: www.ncea.aoa.gov

71

If you suspect an elder is being abused, please call:

Statewide Elder Abuse Hotline:  1-800-490-8505

72