House Aging and Older Adult Services Committee 
Informational Meeting 
Supreme Court Elder Law Task Force 
Office of Elder Justice in the Courts 
Advisory Council on Elder Justice in the Courts 
April 13, 2016 
 
INTRODUCTION 

Good morning Chairmen Hennessey and Samuelson and members of the 

Aging and Older Adult Services Committee.  Thank you for the opportunity to 

talk with you about the work of the Supreme Court’s Elder Law Task Force, its 

comprehensive report and recommendations, and the subsequent work of the 

Office of Elder Justice in the Courts and the Advisory Council on Elder Justice 

in the Courts. 

I am Paula Francisco Ott, and I am a judge on the Superior Court of 

Pennsylvania. I serve as the co-chair of the Advisory Council on Elder Justice 

in the Courts.  With me are Zygmont Pines, the previous state court 

administrator, my co-chair of the council and one of the driving forces behind 

the courts’ work on elder justice; and George Zanic, president judge of 

Huntington County, a former member of the task force, and a member of the 

advisory council. 

A 2014 resolution adopted by the national Conference of Chief Justices 

and the Conference of State Court Administrators recognized that state courts 

would “experience a substantial increase in adult guardianships and 

conservatorship cases” resulting from a growing population of older adults 

and increased longevity.   

Well before the adoption of this resolution, Pennsylvania courts 

recognized the need to study the growing issues impacting the elder 
 

1 

community and their interaction with the legal system.  These issues included 

guardianship, abuse and neglect, and access to justice. 

The Supreme Court concluded that it was necessary to review the way 

in which state courts – from magisterial district courts to the appellate courts 

– address the needs of elders.  There was also recognition that the changes 

could not be effectuated by the judiciary alone.  As was noted by the National 

Center of State Court’s Center for Elders in the Courts, because of the 

multiplicity of issues involved in elder law cases, a court’s response is most 

effective when it works with community stakeholders and taps into their 

expertise and resources.  

 

FORMATION OF THE ELDER LAW TASK FORCE 

In 2013, the Supreme Court convened the Elder Law Task Force, a 

multi-disciplinary task force to study, identify and make recommendations to 

address particular concerns regarding elders.   

The task force was a “blue ribbon” panel consisting of 38 elder issue 

experts.  Members included jurists, elder advocates and attorneys, orphans’ 

court clerks, prosecutors, educators and representatives of the financial 

industry – all professionals with expertise and interest in elders and their 

interaction with the courts.  Then-Chief Justice Castille asked Justice Debra 

Todd to undertake the formation and leadership of the task force, and the 

Justice, together with Zig Pines, led the task force in its work. 

The charge of the task force was clear – to lay a foundation for 

substantive improvements in the way elders in Pennsylvania interact with the 

court system and to develop a blueprint to address those challenges.  

Specifically, the task force was to “review current practices and problems, 

2 

 

examine promising practices in other states and deliver a blueprint of 

recommendations to address the needs and challenges of the 

Commonwealth’s aging population.” 

Because the scope of the task force was far reaching, three committees 

were formed to better focus on specific areas of interest.  Included were 

committees on guardians and counsel, guardianship monitoring and elder 

abuse and neglect.  Each committee was charged with studying specific areas 

and reporting back to the full task force.    

The task force and its committees worked diligently throughout 2013 

and 2014.  The entire task force met four times.  The committees also held 

numerous meetings during the same time frame, either in person or by phone 

or videoconference.  For the task force’s second meeting, legislative staff from 

the aging and judiciary committees was invited to attend.  Justice Todd and 

the members of the task force recognized the judiciary was not the sole 

branch of government with a potential role in implementing task force 

recommendations, and Justice Todd believed it was important for legislative 

staff to understand the work of the task force and have the opportunity to 

pose questions.  

All members of the task force, each with their own full-time jobs, gave 

freely of their time to serve and be active and integral participants in the 

 
discussions, formation of recommendations and the compilation of the report.  
ELDER LAW TASK FORCE REPORT 

In November 2014, after 18 months of work, the comprehensive report 

of the Elder Law Task Force was released.  We have provided members of the 

committee with a copy of this report. 

3 

 

The report contains 130 recommendations.  I want to stress that they 

are just that – suggestions and proposals as to the best course of action based 

on the work and study of the 38 experts who served on the task force. As I 

suggested earlier, the task force realized early in the process that the changes 

necessary to achieve its goals would go beyond areas over which the Supreme 

Court has jurisdiction, and would require partners during the endeavor. 

Of the 130 recommendations, a substantial majority – 91 – are 

recommendations made to the Supreme Court.  The other 39 

recommendations extend to the judiciary’s sister branches, prosecutors, bar 

associations, the federal government, the public and victim services providers.   

Before discussing the legislative recommendations, allow me to provide 

the committee with an idea of some of the recommendations that have already 

been enacted and those that are well on their way to enactment. 

 ENACTMENT OF THE FIRST TWO TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS 

The Supreme Court has adopted the first two recommendations of the 

task force.  

The first recommendation, adopted in January 2015, was the creation of 

the Office of Elder Justice in the Courts (office) within the Administrative 

Office of Pennsylvania Courts.  The office, staffed by one person, its  director, is 

charged with assisting the Supreme Court with implementation of the task 

force recommendations and providing support to the advisory council.  The 

office develops and participates in presentations and training sessions for the 

advisory council, judges and attorneys; fosters collaboration with other elder 

justice entities; participates in elder justice interdisciplinary teams; serves as 

 

4 

a resource on elder issues to the entire Unified Judicial System; and responds 

to requests from the public. 

The second recommendation adopted by the Supreme Court was the 

establishment of the Advisory Council on Elder Justice in the Courts (advisory 

council).  The advisory council serves as a link between the stakeholders and 

the Supreme Court and the AOPC.  It also serves as a liaison to our sister 

branches of government and other parties regarding the implementation of 

the task force recommendations and other matters involving elder justice. The 

advisory council provides direction to the Office of Elder Justice in the Courts 

and focuses on the prioritization of the recommendations, continuing to refine 

them when necessary, so that the best possible methods are used to 

implement them.  

The advisory council is comprised of 24 members, who are identified in 

the membership list that was provided to you, and Justice Todd who is the 

Supreme Court liaison.  The council’s membership, like that of the task force, 

is diverse.  It includes elder advocacy organizations and attorneys, jurists, 

health care and family service professionals, educators, representatives from 

the legislative and executive branches and county elected officials.  Its two 

committees, Guardianship Counsel and Monitoring and Elder Abuse and 

Neglect, are chaired by Judge Lois Murphy from Montgomery County and 

President Judge Sheila Woods-Skipper from Philadelphia County, respectively.  

The advisory council meets quarterly; the committees meet on a monthly or 

   

5 

bimonthly basis.  

 

 

THE IMPORTANCE OF REFINEMENT AND COLLABORATION  

It is important to emphasize that when the task force members made 

their 130 recommendations, they understood that the changes would not 

come overnight.  The group of stakeholders who now serve on the advisory 

council bring a myriad of experience, expertise and viewpoints to the table.  

Many of the task force recommendations have already been discussed and 

debated by the advisory council.  The complexity of many of the issues and the 

passionate viewpoints of experts in the elder law field, two factors I know this 

committee is aware of, will result in a long-term, but necessary, process to 

further develop and refine the recommendations. 

An example of this evolution is found in one of the legislative 

recommendations requesting that the General Assembly provide for creation 

of elder abuse task forces in all counties/judicial districts.  The task force 

believed that local elder abuse task forces are necessary vehicles to provide 

education to, and share information with, judges, court staff, guardians and 

practitioners. 

At the time the task force was working on its recommendations, the 

House of Representatives unanimously passed House Resolution 929.  This 

resolution directed the Legislative Budget and Finance Committee (LBFC) to 

identify those local area agencies on aging service areas without 

multidisciplinary elder abuse task forces, and investigate the need to establish 

such task forces.  The LBFC submitted a report of its findings and 

recommendations to the House.   

As a result of the LBFC report, the advisory council dedicated a part of 

its October 2015 agenda to a presentation by the LBFC.  Based on the results 

of the LBFC study, the advisory council modified task force recommendation 
6 

 

109 to recommend the creation and continuation of elder abuse task forces 

where feasible, rather than mandate them in every county or judicial district.  

The interaction with the LBFC also demonstrates one of the more 

important goals of the office and the advisory council – collaboration.  The 

advisory council understands the realities facing all levels of government 

today.  Budgets continue to be tight and all entities must do their best to 

identify efficiencies and work with others on common goals.   

Members of the advisory council and the state court administrator have 

met with the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency to share its 

work and discuss where, moving forward, there can be a collaborative 

relationship to pursue goals of common interest.  I also met recently with the 

Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing to discuss the feasibility of enhanced 

sentences for crimes committed against elders, another of the task force’s 

recommendations.  Obviously, the legislature will play the central role in the 

enactment of enhanced sentences, and it is one of the reasons we are 

appreciative of the opportunity to appear before you today.   

It is a goal of the advisory council to take advantage of any opportunity 

to work collaboratively with any and all interested parties, and to build upon 
 

the efforts that already exist, particularly if they are effective.  

TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS IN PROGRESS

 

The advisory council has identified a number of the recommendations 

that can be achieved in the short-term  and are in the process of enactment.  

The recommendation that the education of judges and court 

participants be a primary focus is already underway and will continue.  The 

office and the advisory council have already participated in 13 presentations 
7 

 

and training sessions before a diverse collection of groups including the 

Pennsylvania Council on Aging, the Pennsylvania Legal Aid Network, the 

Department of Aging, Temple University’s Institute on Protective Services, the 

Elder Abuse Awareness Conference and the Pennsylvania Bar Institute, county 

bar associations and county elected officials.  Educational presentations have 

also been made to magisterial district judges as a part of their continuing 

education and to common pleas judges during the Conference of State Trial 

Judges.  

 

One of the handouts committee members received today is the Elder 

Abuse and Neglect Bench Card.  This bench card was one of the judicial 

education recommendations made by the task force.  The advisory council 

worked with the AOPC Judicial Education Department to develop, finalize and 

approve the Bench Card, which is aimed at providing judges with the tools and 

resources for identifying and reporting elder abuse.  The Bench Card has been 

distributed to all common pleas judges. In addition, magisterial district judges 

are receiving training on the Bench Card during their statutorily-required 

continuing education sessions.  Going forward, all common pleas judges and 

magisterial district judges, elected and appointed, will receive education on 

the Bench Card during their respective new judge trainings.   

 

There are a number of additional judicial education recommendations 

that are in progress.  Along with the training sessions mentioned earlier, work 

is continuing by the office and the AOPC Judicial Education Department on the 

development of training sessions for jurists, attorneys and family guardians.  

A specific example is the office’s ongoing collaborative effort with the York 

County courts that resulted in the creation of a model education program for 

attorneys who handle guardianship matters.  The program, which was 

8 

 

originally presented in 2015 through the York County Bar Association, is 

continuing to be refined and presented.  A model training session for family 

guardians has also been developed and presented, and additional refinement 

of future sessions is underway.    

 

Expanding on the concept of the Elder Abuse Bench Card, the 

development of two bench books is underway.  One book focuses on 

guardianship, and will be utilized by orphans’ court judges.  The second book 

focuses on issues regarding elder abuse, and is for judges of all divisions.    

Steering committees have been formed to facilitate the development of the 

bench books.        

The task force recommended that the Supreme Court, through the 

Criminal Procedural Rules Committee, consider if the official comment to 

Pa.R.Crim.P. 500 should be amended to ensure testimony of elder victims and 

witnesses in criminal cases is preserved by videotape deposition, for the use 

at trial if the elder victim’s memory has deteriorated since the crime was 

committed.  The proposed revision was published for comment last year, and 

the Criminal Rules Committee is currently working to send a final proposal to 

the Supreme Court for its consideration in the near future.    

            The task force also proposed new orphans’ court forms and changes to 

existing forms.  One new form is a standardized physician/licensed 

psychologist deposition form to ensure consistent quality and quantity of 

pertinent information for judges to consider when determining an individual’s 

capacity.  The proposed deposition form, as well as proposed revisions to 

other guardianship forms, were published for comment last year by the 

Orphans’ Court Procedural Rules Committee.   

 

9 

The Orphans’ Court Procedural Rules Committee continues its work on 

rescinding and revising forms recommended by the task force, including the 

annual report of the guardian of the estate and person, and the guardian’s 

inventory.  Based on the comments received, a guardianship forms 

subcommittee of the Orphans’ Court Procedural Rules Committee was 

convened with the purpose of making further refinements to the forms.  It is 

anticipated that later this year, the proposed guardianship rules and revised 

forms will be published together for public comment as the next step in the 

rulemaking process.   

Another recommendation that is in progress that I believe this 

committee will find of interest pertains to access to justice for elders.  It 

involves the development of a pilot elder court in Philadelphia.  An elder court 

would be similar in concept to the very popular veterans courts we have 

across Pennsylvania.  

President Judge Sheila Woods-Skipper has created an elder justice 

working group to look at the concept of an elder court and has been 

identifying the needs of elders in the court system.  The working group is also 

identifying the types of cases the court would hear and the judicial and staff 

training that would be necessary.  The goal is to have a written proposal for a 

pilot program presented to be presented to the advisory council and then to 

Justice Todd later this year.  

LEGISLATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS

The task force identified several recommendations that will require 

legislative approval.  A number of those focused on specific legislation that 

 

10 

 

 

  

 

 

was pending at the time the task force was undertaking its work, while others 

focused on policy changes that were not in legislative form then. 

 

As I emphasized earlier, these are simply recommendations from the 38 

experts who participated on the task force and developed the report.  The 

recommendations represent policy changes that the group identified and 

believed are necessary to improve the manner in which elders in 

Pennsylvania interact with the court system.  The advisory council 

understands that many factors must be considered with the legislative 

policymaking process.  The council is very interested in working with this 

committee, as well as other legislative committees, toward reaching positive 

policy outcomes.   

 

One of the advisory council’s legislative priorities for 2016 is the 

enactment of provisions providing for training of employees of financial 

institutions on the identification, prevention and reporting of elder financial 

abuse. 

Chairman Hennessey’s legislation, House Bill 786, requires financial 

institutions that currently have internal training programs to include in the 

curriculum information to assist employees with the recognition of the signs 

of potential financial abuse of an older adult and informing employees about 

the applicable provisions of the Older Adult Protective Services Act (OAPSA), 

and the process for making an abuse report.   

Another OAPSA change advanced by the task force’s report was the 

reporting involving financial institutions of suspected financial abuse or 

exploitation and the delay of suspicious financial transactions by elder 

customers.  The advisory council will continue to monitor all OAPSA 

 

11 

legislation on these issues and stands ready to provide feedback where 

appropriate.   

 

In addition to having an interest in OAPSA legislation governing 

financial institutions, the Department of Banking has invited some members 

of the advisory council to participate on an advisory board designed to 

enhance Pennsylvania’s efforts to protect elders from financial exploitation.  

The advisory board will support the work of the department’s elder fraud 

prevention initiative with the ultimate goal of providing continuing legal 

education on topics such as diminished financial capacity, signs of fraud and 

exploitation, ethics, and reporting of fraud and exploitation. The program will 

be developed this year in collaboration with the American Bar Association.  

 

I mentioned earlier preliminary discussion with the Pennsylvania 

Commission on Sentencing.  The task force originally recommended the 

enactment of mandatory minimum sentences in addition to those provided for 

in current law for the conviction of crimes against elders.  This 

recommendation was modified by the advisory council as it recognized that 

mandatory minimum sentences might not be a preferred option of the 

legislature or judges.  The recommendation now suggests that as an 

alternative to mandatory minimum sentences, the legislature could look 

instead at enhanced sentences for certain crimes against elders.  The advisory 

council looks forward to working with the legislature and the sentencing 

commission on this endeavor. 

The advisory council will continue to monitor several bills of interest 

that are currently pending and comment on those where it is appropriate to 

do so.  The advisory council also continues to look at other legislative 

recommendations proffered by the task force – such as amendments to the 

12 

 

 

current slayer statute – and decide on the most prudent way to present them 

to you and your colleagues.    

 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide remarks on the task force 

recommendations and the ongoing work of the Office of Elder Justice in the 

Courts and the Advisory Council on Elder Justice in the Courts.  On behalf of 

the task force and the advisory council, I thank this committee for its 

recognition of elder issues and their importance to all Pennsylvanians, and for 

the financial support the House has given to departments and agencies who 

work tirelessly on behalf of our elder citizens.  

 

I am happy to answer any questions you might have.  

 

13