Second Progress Report on the 
Work of the Advisory Council 
on Elder Justice in the Courts
f o r   t h e   y e a r s   2 0 1 9   -   2 0 2 1

THE ADVISORY COUNCIL ON  
ELDER JUSTICE IN THE COURTS

MISSION STATEMENT

The mission of the Advisory Council on Elder Justice in the Courts is 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 and is not a substitute for the advice of legal counsel. 

The Advisory Council considers its work to be “accomplished” if it reviewed, analyzed and acted on the 

recommendation of the Task Force and moved the recommendation forward to the appropriate body  
(e.g., the legislature, the executive branch or the Orphans’ Court Procedural Rules Committee of the 
Supreme Court) in accordance with the direction of the Task Force, even if, in certain cases, the ultimate 
objective of the recommendation has not yet been attained.

If you suspect an elder is being abused, please call: 
Statewide Elder Abuse Hotline: 
1-800-490-8505 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Foreword by Justice Todd 

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Members and Staff of the Advisory Council on Elder Justice in the Courts  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Status of Implementation of the Elder Law Task Force’s Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Recommendations to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Recommendations to the Office of Elder Justice in the Courts 
and to the Advisory Council on Elder Justice in the Courts  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Recommendations to the Legislative Branch  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Recommendations to the Executive Branch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Recommendations to the Federal Government. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Recommendations to Prosecutors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Recommendations to Victim Services Providers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Recommendations to Bar Associations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Recommendations to the Public . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

New Projects/Initiatives of the Advisory Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

New Legislative Initiatives Supported by the Advisory Council   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Appendices

Appendix A: Abbreviations and Acronyms  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Appendix B: Training Programs, Educational Presentations and Additional Activities  
of Members of the Advisory Council in Support of Improving the Lives of  
Pennsylvania’s Elders  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Appendix C: Presentations and Educational Forums made to the Advisory Council . . . . . . 81

Appendix D: Pennsylvania Orphans’ Court Rules: Chapter XIV. Guardianships  
of Incapacitated Persons   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
 

 

 
 

4

5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Pennsylvania is the nation’s eighth oldest state in terms of the percentage of elders, and our Supreme 
Court’s dedication to elder justice in our Commonwealth is unwavering. Older Pennsylvanians continue to 
represent a growing demographic, as now 25.2% of our Commonwealth’s population is age 60 and over. 
However, our aging population also faces unique needs and challenges. Indeed, 8.4% of these older adults 
live below the poverty line. Our Commonwealth’s older adults deserve a government that is dedicated to 
recognizing the challenges they face and to providing real and practical solutions. 

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania’s (Supreme Court) creation of the Elder Law Task Force (Task 
Force), the Advisory Council on Elder Justice in the Courts (Advisory Council), and the Office of Elder 
Justice in the Courts (OEJC) makes manifest the Court’s commitment to achieving real results that will 
benefit our aging population in practical ways. Indeed, the quality, breadth, and depth of services that our 
Commonwealth’s judiciary provides to abused, neglected, and exploited older persons is a matter of public 
trust and confidence. The accomplishments and ongoing work of the Advisory Council and the OEJC 
described in this Second Progress Report reflect our Supreme Court’s ongoing and steadfast commitment 
to Pennsylvania’s elders. 

The progress made by the Advisory Council and the OEJC in the ongoing effort to advance access to 
justice to Pennsylvania’s aging population is nothing short of incredible, particularly when one factors in 
the unique challenges brought by the Covid-19 pandemic. While certain goals are still in progress, over the 
last three years significant strides have been made in improving the lives of our Commonwealth’s elders. 
Of the 130 recommendations made in the Task Force’s 2014 Report, 73 recommendations have been 
accomplished (29 of which, while accomplished, involve ongoing work); 2 recommendations have been 
deferred; 41 recommendations are in progress; and 14 recommendations are to be considered. While there 

1

remains much more to do, the following is a summary of our considerable achievements thus far. 

Whether by increased protections and advances through enhanced Guardianship Tracking System 
(GTS) data collection, the creation of practical and user-friendly resources such as the Elder Abuse and 
Guardianship Bench Books, addressing the significant hurdles brought on by the pandemic, critical 
legislative victories criminalizing the exploitation of elders, or the appointment of counsel for guardianship 
proceedings, the Advisory Council and the OEJC have worked tirelessly to advance the cause of access to 
justice for Pennsylvania’s elders.

The Advisory Council, and the OEJC have once again made concrete their devotion, diligence, and 
passion for championing the rights of our Commonwealth’s elders in practical and meaningful ways, 
resulting in real change to the approaches and procedures by which our courts assist our aging population.

GUARDIANSHIP TRACKING SYSTEM 

It is indisputable that one of the greatest achievements of the Advisory 

Council and the OEJC has been the creation, implementation, and 
expansion of the GTS. GTS is a statewide, web-based application that 
was created entirely in-house by the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania 
Courts’ (AOPC) Information Technology Department (IT) staff under 
the direction of Amy Ceraso, former Director of AOPC’s IT, and Amy 
Whitworth, IT Analyst Manager, who has been an integral part of the 
success of GTS. GTS is used by guardians, court staff, orphans’ court 
clerks, and judges and is now the exclusive method for the electronic 
filing of mandated guardianship reports, and provides guardians with a 
uniform and efficient e-filing experience.

The statewide data collected and contained in GTS allows the Advisory Council to track guardians’ 
compliance with filing mandated reports, assist courts with their guardianship monitoring responsibilities 
and take a data-driven approach to guardianship reform. This, in turn, allows the OEJC, IT, and the 
Guardianship Counsel and Monitoring Committee (GCMC) to regularly review GTS data and raise potential 
concerns about information and developments to the Advisory Council’s attention. All pending and active 
cases in which an adjudication of incapacity was made and the protected person is alive and under 
guardianship have been migrated into GTS.

In 2020, IT was able - for the first time – to accurately identify the total number of active guardianships 

in the Commonwealth as well as other critical information. In Pennsylvania, as of December 31, 2021, 
there were 18,380 active guardianship cases in GTS, with 382 professional guardians and 19,261 non-
professional (family/lay) guardians. The total amount of guardianship assets under court supervision was 
over 1.7 billion dollars ($1,765,624,771.61). 

The ability to generate accurate and comprehensive statistics from the data collected by GTS is a 
significant accomplishment, as nationally there is a dearth of statistics on guardianship cases. Timely, 
accurate, and complete GTS data on guardianship cases has become a vital tool for the Commonwealth’s 
courts to better monitor these cases, and to be proactive in preventing elder abuse and exploitation. 

Specifically, GTS allows courts to scrutinize red flags prompted on guardianship cases and respond to 

potential problems immediately, thereby better protecting persons under guardianship. The capacity of 
GTS to automatically flag potential concerns of loss and neglect is an important feature that assists courts 
with their monitoring responsibilities at a time when funds for staff resources to thoroughly review each 
guardianship report are scarce. The ability to flag areas of concern also allows for a uniform protocol for the 

2

reviewing of guardianship reports. Moreover, GTS may alert orphans’ courts statewide of any instances of 
abuse, neglect, or financial exploitation by an active guardian by allowing an orphans’ court judge to place 
an alert on that guardian. This, in turn, eliminates the potential for that guardian to serve in another county 
that has no record of the previous misconduct.

Not surprisingly, since its implementation, GTS has received national recognition, winning the National 

Association of Court Management’s Court Process Innovations Award in 2019. Similarly, the American 
Bar Association’s (ABA) Commission on Law and Aging featured GTS in the March/April 2019 edition of 
its journal, Bifocal, and in 2020, the ABA’s Judicial Division Record published an article on GTS. Related 
thereto, other states’ court systems and court management organizations nationwide have sought to 
emulate GTS. In November 2019, Senior Judge Paula Francisco Ott, Administrative Judge Lois E. Murphy, 
OEJC Director Cherstin Hamel and IT Analyst Manager Amy Whitworth gave a presentation regarding GTS 
to the National College of Probate Judges, and Senior Judge Ott presented to the ABA’s National Law 
and Aging Conference. Finally, in December 2020, Senior Judge Paula Francisco Ott and Amy Whitworth 
showcased GTS as an innovative model during the December 2020 Massachusetts Colloquium on 
Guardianship Oversight. 

GTS GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE

Obviously, such a complex and valuable application as GTS requires constant updating and supervision. 

In 2019, at the recommendation of the Advisory Council, the Supreme Court approved the creation of a 
GTS Governance Committee (GTS GC) to establish a process for determining whether requests for system 
enhancements to GTS should be made and the priority of such requests. A committee was established 
that includes orphans’ court judges, clerks of the orphans’ courts, guardians, OEJC, IT, and AOPC Legal 
Department and IT staff. The GTS GC meets twice a year and is chaired by Senior Judge Paula Francisco 
Ott.

The GTS GC provides IT with a uniform process for evaluating user enhancement requests in conjunction 

with necessary system upgrades and mandated software changes, such as those dictated by legislation 
and procedural rules changes, as well as provides input on how changes should be implemented in 
GTS, and commentary on procedures and rules related to guardianships. Among the GTS GC’s recent 
accomplishments was the creation of a simplified final reporting process for guardians of an estate where 
an incapacitated person (IP) dies within the first 90 days of adjudication and an Inventory has not been 
filed.

Elder Abuse
Bench Book

P

E N N S Y L V A N I A

The Advisory Council on 
Elder Justice in the Courts
and  
The Administrative Office 
of  Pennsylvania Courts

ELDER ABUSE BENCH BOOK

One of the most valuable contributions to the quest for elder justice has been 

the creation of bench books for the Pennsylvania judiciary. In July 2019, the 
Advisory Council published the first edition of the Pennsylvania Elder Abuse 
Bench Book, the go-to resource for common pleas judges facing issues 
involving elder abuse, regardless of the court division in which they sit. This 
Bench Book reflects the accumulated wisdom of both judges and practitioners 
who focus on elder justice, and combines an outline of the laws pertaining 
to elder abuse with medical information and subject-specific lists of practical 
questions. This Bench Book was provided to all common pleas judges and an 

online version was posted on the Unified Judicial System’s website. 

3

Guardianship
Bench Book

P

E N N S Y L V A N I A

The Advisory Council on
Elder Justice in the Courts
and
The Administrative Office
of Pennsylvania Courts

2020

GUARDIANSHIP BENCH BOOK

Similarly, in September 2020, the Advisory Council published the first 

edition of the Pennsylvania Guardianship Bench Book. This Bench Book is 
a comprehensive reference guide that provides best practices and includes 
information regarding less restrictive alternatives to guardianship, guardianship 
rules and forms, checklists, the management of guardianship cases and 
recent legislation involving guardianship. This Bench Book was provided to all 
orphans’ court judges and an online version was posted on the Unified Judicial 
System’s website. 

ADVISORY COUNCIL’S RESPONSE TO THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC

Access to Justice for Elders During the Covid-19 (Coronavirus) Pandemic

The Covid-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on both the health of our elders and the ways in 
which the judiciary conducts its business. As Governor Tom Wolf was preparing to order the closure of all 
non-life sustaining business due to the public health emergency, the Supreme Court issued an order on 
March 16, 2020, authorizing the president judge in each county to declare a local judicial emergency to 
protect the health and safety of court personnel and the public. Subsequent orders directed that all courts 
should generally be open to conduct business with limited in-person access and proceedings. Most judicial 
districts operated under an emergency declaration from March 2020 through July 6, 2021, at which time 
they returned to pre-pandemic operating status by order of the Supreme Court.

Shortly after courthouses throughout the Commonwealth either ceased or limited their in-person 

operations, the Advisory Council recognized the need to promptly address the extraordinary challenges 
created by the Covid-19 pandemic that were severely impacting vulnerable older Pennsylvanians and their 
access to justice. Specifically, the OEJC and the Pennsylvania Department of Aging issued a joint press 
release to ensure that the Commonwealth’s elders knew that the courts remained open for immediate 
legal protection, including temporary protection from abuse actions, guardianship representation and any 
pleadings or motions relating to public health concerns and involving immediate and irreparable harm. 
Information was also provided about organizations available to help with legal assistance and the statewide 
Elder Abuse Reporting Hotline.

Critically, the Advisory Council also focused on addressing concerns regarding residents in 

Pennsylvania’s long-term care facilities affected by the Covid-19 pandemic. The number of Coronavirus 
cases skyrocketed in these facilities, and visitation by families, guardians, attorneys, and long-term care 
ombudsmen had been largely eliminated. This, in turn, raised concerns about abuse, neglect, isolation, 
and the potential loss of civil rights through lockdowns. As a result, the Advisory Council issued a public 
statement in support of the report, Immediate Actions Pennsylvania Must Take to Address the COVID-19 
Crisis in Long-Term Care Facilities. The report was issued by the PA Advocates for Improved COVID-19 
Response in Long-Term Care Facilities, a coalition of advocates for older persons and persons with 
disabilities.

Advanced Communication Technology

The pandemic drove other changes to the judicial process. For example, in April 2020, the Advisory 

Council determined the increased use of advanced communication technology (ACT) would allow 
homebound elders and long-term care residents who required access to essential court services and 
had internet access to fully participate in court proceedings from a safe environment. Judges, attorneys, 

4

guardians, elders, and their family members uniformly reported that their experience with ACT was 
favorable. This led, inter alia, to the continued use, where appropriate, of ACT following the termination 
of judicial emergencies and to proposals to the Orphans’ Court Procedural Rules Committee (OCPRC) to 
adopt a rule providing that judges have the discretion to conduct remote proceedings or allow some parties 
to participate virtually.

Ultimately, in December 2021, the OCPRC published proposed new Orphans’ Court Rule 1.20 governing 
the use of ACT. The new rule incorporates a definition of ACT, and delegates rule-making authority relative 
to the use of ACT to the judicial districts in the form of local rules. Public comments on the new rule 
proposal were received and the OCPRC (along with other committees) submitted a recommendation to the 
Supreme Court on April 14, 2022. 

Resources for Courts, Guardians and the Public During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Immediately after the Supreme Court issued its March 16, 2020 order, updates were provided on the 

Unified Judicial System’s website about the judiciary’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic’s effect on court 
operations and proceedings. Similarly, the Advisory Council and OEJC posted resource information for the 
public regarding elders on the “Frequently Asked Questions” page. In May 2020, the OEJC provided all 
president judges, district court administrators, clerks of the orphans’ courts, and guardians with information 
and resources for guardians to help them carry out their duties during the pandemic. The OEJC stressed 
that guardianship reports remained due and that guardians still had a duty to maintain contact with the IP 
during the pandemic. In a similar vein, in March 2021, the OEJC sent information about frequently asked 
questions regarding the Covid-19 vaccine to guardians of IPs in nursing homes. 

REPORT REVIEWER TRAINING FOR JUDGES, COURT STAFF,  
AND ORPHANS’ COURT CLERKS

The reviewing of guardianship reports is considered one of the best ways for courts to monitor and 
protect the safety, well-being, and financial assets of persons under guardianship. In 2021, the OEJC 
created an educational program comprised of three courses for reviewing reports, each of which covers a 
different guardianship report.

LESS RESTRICTIVE ALTERNATIVES TO GUARDIANSHIP

Responding to the latest trend in guardianships, over the last two years, the GCMC has been examining 
less restrictive alternatives to guardianship. Such alternatives include supported decision-making, advance 
directives, powers of attorney, and formal and informal services, all of which further an IP’s greater self-
determination. As part of this inquiry, Administrative Judge Lois E. Murphy and Karen C. Buck, Esquire 
were invited to serve as delegates to the Fourth National Guardianship Summit: Maximizing Autonomy 
and Ensuring Accountability, organized by the National Guardianship Network and hosted by Syracuse 
University’s College of Law. At the conclusion of the Summit, the delegates adopted 22 recommendations, 
including the elimination of plenary guardianships (and, if a guardianship is imposed, require tailored 
guardianship orders in all cases) (Recommendation 3.2), and that statutes, court rules, policies, and 
processes in every state should require courts to consider supported decision-making as one of the 
alternatives to guardianship at appointment and periodically thereafter (Recommendation 2.3).

Since the Summit, the GCMC has been working on the creation of optional forms for final decrees 
to increase the efficacy of limited guardianship, as well as an article on supported decision-making, 
an educational presentation for the legislature about alternatives to guardianship, and encouraging 

5

ESOURCE GUIDES FOR HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS AND  

FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS REGARDING POWERS OF ATTORNEY  
AND GUARDIANSHIP ORDERS

The Advisory Council recognized the difficulty and confusion created when frontline, non-legal staff in 
the health care and financial sectors are presented with legal documents such as powers of attorney and 
guardianship orders, resulting in delayed access to IP’s health care and/or financial information if legal 
documents are interpreted incorrectly or if requests are denied by frontline staff.

In November 2019, in an effort to eliminate confusion on the part of frontline staff and help reduce 
occurrences of elder abuse and financial exploitation, the Advisory Council and OEJC partnered with 
representatives from the health care and financial sectors to create three resource guides: (1) a Resource 
Guide for Health Care Providers; (2) a Resource Guide for Financial Institutions Regarding Powers of 
Attorney (POA) and Guardianship Orders; and (3) Definitions for Resource Guides for Financial Institutions 
and Health Care Providers.

Work on these resource guides continued throughout 2020 and 2021, and, in December 2021, the 

Resource Guide for Health Care Providers and Definitions for Resource Guides for Financial Institutions and 
Health Care Providers were published. Work on the Resource Guide for Financial Institutions Regarding 
Powers of Attorney (POA) and Guardianship Orders is near completion, and publication is expected in 
2022. 

  R

modifications to a guardianship training provided to pro bono attorneys to include alternatives to 
guardianship. 

TOWN HALLS ON ELDER ABUSE AND FINANCIAL EXPLOITATION

As a result of the Covid-19 pandemic, the Elder Abuse and Neglect Committee considered ways to 
increase public awareness about elder abuse and financial exploitation in a virtual setting. In the spring 
of 2021, under the leadership of Administrative Judge Sheila A. Woods-Skipper, and with interagency 
collaboration, two one-hour, virtual “town hall” sessions focused on the prevention of and response to 
elder abuse and financial exploitation were developed. The first town hall session, Understanding and 
Identifying Elder Abuse, was presented on June 16, 2021, and the second town hall session, Preventing 

6

and Responding to Financial Exploitation, was presented on June 23. Attendees heard from victims and 
panelists about their experiences with elder abuse and financial exploitation, what Pennsylvania’s courts 
and justice partners have been doing to address these issues, how to recognize elder abuse and financial 
exploitation, and what to do if abuse is suspected; and received information regarding the investigation of, 
and remedies for, financial exploitation.

NEW LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVES

Criminalizing the Posting of Audio, Video, or Still Images of Care-Dependent  
Persons on Social Media with the Intent to Ridicule or Demean

Of tremendous concern to the OEJC was the improper posting of photographs, audio, or video of 
care-dependent persons. This is considered to be a form of elder abuse and called for the enactment 
of legislation criminalizing such conduct. Through AOPC’s Legislative Affairs Department, the Advisory 
Council sought to call attention to such social media abuse of care-dependent persons to the legislature.

Subsequently, the Advisory Council was involved in developing and providing feedback and policy 
guidance on the drafting of the legislation that would criminalize such actions against elders. The bill 
amended the current criminal offense of abuse of a care-dependent person to include the use of “any 
audio, video or still image of [a] care-dependent person in any format or medium, on or through any 
electronic service, wireless communication or any form of electronic service or wireless communication 
as pertaining to communication” with the intent to ridicule or demean. The bill was passed by the General 
Assembly and signed into law by Governor Tom Wolf on June 30, 2021.

Creating and Defining a New Criminal Offense: Financial Exploitation of Elderly  
or Care-Dependent Persons 

Similarly, legislative action was called for regarding the financial exploitation of elderly or care-dependent 

persons. Financial exploitation, as defined in the legislation, ranges from third degree misdemeanor to 
first degree felony depending upon the amount of money, assets or property involved. The legislation was 
passed by the General Assembly and signed into law by Governor Tom Wolf in June of 2021.

Appointment of Counsel in Guardianship Proceedings 

Under Pennsylvania law and the United States Constitution, a court must appoint counsel to represent 
persons in certain court proceedings where individuals’ constitutional rights are in jeopardy, such as the 
imposition of criminal penalties, termination of parental rights, and involuntary mental health commitment, 
among others. In adult guardianship proceedings, persons are at risk of losing all their fundamental 
constitutional rights to decision-making and autonomy concerning their finances and their residential and 
medical decisions. Thus, the lack of adequate representation in this area is a matter of significant concern. 

Pennsylvania’s guardianship statute envisions a right to counsel but places the burden on the alleged 
incapacitated person (AIP) to request counsel. Unfortunately, this results in many instances of an AIP not 
being represented at trial. The concept for the appointment of counsel in adult guardianship cases was laid 
out in a 2012 report of the Advisory Committee on Decedents’ Estates Laws of the Joint State Government 
Commission. Following from the report, Senator Stewart Greenleaf introduced legislation incorporating the 
numerous legislative recommendations made in the report, which include the appointment of counsel for 
AIPs. 

While Senator Greenleaf introduced the bill in every session through the 2017-2018 legislative session  
as part of a comprehensive package, and in the 2019-2020 legislative session, Senator Art Haywood took 
up the cause, difficulties remained in passage. At the urging of the Advisory Council, discussions were  

7

held on the idea of decoupling some of the provisions from the larger bill into their own stand-alone 
bills, e.g., appointment of counsel. As a result, in September 2021, Representative Gary Day introduced 
appointment of counsel legislation. A public hearing was held on the bill on October 26. Administrative 
Judge Lois E. Murphy and Pamela Walz, Esquire testified as a part of a panel, in hopes of ultimate action 
by the legislature. Senate Judiciary Chair Lisa Baker and Senator Art Haywood have circulated a  
co-sponsorship memo for legislation that would, among other things, require the appointment of counsel 
for AIPs.

8

ADVISORY COUNCIL MEMBERS

Advisory Council on Elder Justice in the Courts 2020

LEADERSHIP
Chair
Honorable Paula Francisco Ott*
Senior Judge

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

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

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

STANDING MEMBERS
Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Aging
Honorable Robert Torres
Staff Designees, Neeka Jones, Esquire and 
Deborah Hargett-Robinson, Esquire 

Pennsylvania Senate
Senator Maria Collett
Staff Designee, Tom Holroyd

Pennsylvania House of Representatives 
Representative Gary Day
Staff Designee, Shannon Walker

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

Chair, Supreme Court Orphans’ Court 
Procedural Rules Committee
Kenneth G. Potter, Esquire
RHP Law Group LLC

Pennsylvania Bar Association Designee
Anne N. John, Esquire
Past President, Pennsylvania Bar Association
John and John, Attorneys at Law

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

9

Allegheny County Orphans’ Court Division
Honorable Lawrence J. O’Toole
Administrative Judge

Philadelphia County Orphans’ Court Division
Honorable Sheila A. Woods-Skipper*
Administrative Judge

MEMBERS

Keelin S. Barry, Esquire
Law Offices of Keelin S. Barry, LLC

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

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

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 Interests of the Elderly 
Philadelphia

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

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

Mary Catherine Scott, Esquire
Director and Assistant Clinical Professor,  
Central Pennsylvania Law Clinics
Widener University School of Law
Harrisburg

Eugene A. Vittone, II, Esquire (Deceased)
District Attorney 
Washington County 

Pamela Walz, Esquire
Co-Director, Aging and Disabilities Unit
Community Legal Services 
Philadelphia

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

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

*Long Range Planning Committee Members

10

CONTRIBUTING STAFF

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

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

Suzan Chau, Esquire
Supervising Attorney
Elder Justice Resource Center 
First Judicial District

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

Keith Hinkel Jr.
Analyst, Office of Elder Justice in the Courts
Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts

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

Sonja P. Waters
Senior Systems Analyst, Information Technology
Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts

Amy Whitworth
IT Analyst Manager, Information Technology
Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts 

11

FORMER ADVISORY COUNCIL MEMBERS

Deborah Curry 
President
Pennsylvania Registers of Wills and  
Clerks of Orphans’ Court Association

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

Lawrence A. Frolik, Esquire 
Professor
University of Pittsburgh School of Law

Honorable Thomas P. Murt
Representative
Pennsylvania House of Representatives

Wilmarie Gonzalez 
State Long-Term Care Ombudsman/Director
Pennsylvania Department of Aging

Honorable Teresa Osborne
Secretary
Pennsylvania Department of Aging

Honorable Arthur L. Haywood, Ill 
Senator
Pennsylvania Senate

Honorable Tim Hennessey
Representative
Pennsylvania House of Representatives

Susan Kauwell
President
Pennsylvania Registers of Wills and  
Clerks of Orphans’ Court Association

Joan Krechmer 
Executive Director
Jewish Family Services of York

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

Wendy M. Welfley
President
Pennsylvania Registers of Wills and  
Clerks of Orphans’ Court Association

Honorable John T. Yudichak 
Senator
Pennsylvania Senate

12

THE SECOND PROGRESS REPORT ON THE 
STATUS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF 
THE ELDER LAW TASK FORCE’S RECOMMENDATIONS

This Second Progress Report lists the recommendations as stated in the Task Force’s Report and 

Recommendations, followed by the status of their implementation from 2019 through 2021. Information 
on the implementation of the recommendations prior to 2019 can be found in the First Progress Report on 
the Work of the Advisory Council on Elder Justice in the Courts (January 2015 through December 2018) 
(First Progress Report). The page numbers referenced within each recommendation refer to the pages in 
the Task Force’s Report and Recommendations (available at www.pacourts.us), which provide background 
information regarding each recommendation. 

The Advisory Council considers its work to be “accomplished” if it reviewed, analyzed and acted on the 
recommendation of the Task Force and moved the recommendation forward to the appropriate body (e.g., 
the legislature, the executive branch or the Orphans’ Court Procedural Rules Committee of the Supreme 
Court) in accordance with the direction of the Task Force, even if, in certain cases, the ultimate objective of 
the recommendation has not yet been attained.

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

One of the most important foundational objectives of the Elder Law Task Force (Task Force) was the 

establishment of the OEJC. The OEJC opened on January 2, 2015, with one full-time staff member 
(Director Cherstin Hamel), and is housed within the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Court’s (AOPC) 
offices in the Pennsylvania Judicial Center in Harrisburg. The OEJC receives an appropriation within the 
Unified Judicial System’s budget to fund the operation of the OEJC as it endeavors to implement the Task 
Force’s recommendations and related initiatives of the Advisory Council on Elder Justice in the Courts 
(Advisory Council). A full-time analyst was hired in February 2017. Keith Hinkel Jr. has been the OEJC 
analyst since April 2019. 

In January 2020, upon her retirement from the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, Judge Paula Francisco 
Ott, the Advisory Council’s chair, was designated Senior Judge to the OEJC. Senior Judge Ott’s office is 
located in the Pennsylvania Judicial Center.

Public awareness about the OEJC is increasing, likely due to information provided on the Unified 

Judicial System’s website and through trainings offered to guardians. From 2019 through 2021, the OEJC 
responded to 111 inquiries and requests for assistance with guardianship and other elder justice issues. 

13

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. Members of the Advisory Council 

continue to meet quarterly to implement the Task Force’s recommendations, discuss matters involving 
elder justice and promote initiatives to support elders. Meetings during the Covid-19 pandemic were held 
virtually. 

Advisory Council members are volunteers who give generously of their time and expertise. Senior Judge 

Paula Francisco Ott serves as the chair. Zygmont A. Pines, Esquire, the former Court Administrator of 
Pennsylvania, is the vice-chair. Justice Debra Todd is the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania’s (Supreme 
Court) Liaison. The Advisory Council is divided into two working committees. The Elder Abuse and Neglect 
Committee (EANC) is chaired by Administrative Judge Sheila A. Woods-Skipper and co-chaired by 
President Judge George N. Zanic. The Guardianship Counsel and Monitoring Committee (GCMC) is chaired 
by Administrative Judge Lois E. Murphy and co-chaired by Diane Menio. 

Additionally, a Long-Range Planning Committee was created in September 2016 to guide the goals, 

priorities, and policies of the Advisory Council, establish a mission statement, and create Internal Operating 
Procedures. Internal Operating Procedures were approved in August 2017, and a Conflict of Interest Policy 
and Disclosure Form were adopted in March 2018. The Long-Range Planning Committee guides the 
Advisory Council on the implementation of the Task Force’s recommendations and other matters promoting 
initiatives to support elders. Members of the Long-Range Planning Committee meet quarterly.

In August 2021, the Advisory Council lost a beloved member with the untimely death of Eugene “Gene” 

Vittone II, the district attorney of Washington County. Gene was a respected member of the Advisory 
Council since 2015, and a member of the Task Force from 2013 to 2014. His tireless efforts to combat 
elder abuse and neglect and his contributions to the Advisory Council furthered access to justice for 
Pennsylvania’s elders. To honor Gene’s memory and contributions to elder justice, the Advisory Council 
issued a public statement and a resolution.

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

Information on the implementation of this recommendation can be found in the First Progress Report. 

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

From 2019 through 2021, the OEJC and AOPC’s Judicial Education Department continued to develop 

and present educational sessions to judges and attorneys handling guardianship matters. In addition, 
Advisory Council members continue to make educational presentations and provide training programs. 

14

A list of those training programs and educational presentations, as well as additional activities of the 
members of the Advisory Council, can 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

Information on the implementation of this recommendation can be found in the First Progress Report.

See also Recommendation 5.

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 continued in 2018 
and 2019; and, in September 2020, the Advisory Council published the first edition of the Pennsylvania 
Guardianship Bench Book, which was developed by AOPC’s Judicial Education Department with 
oversight from Administrative Judge Lois E. Murphy, who served as Editor-in-Chief. Contributors included 
Senior Judge Paula Francisco Ott, Judge Cheryl L. Austin, Judge Matthew D. Carrafiello, Retired Judge 
Emil A. Giordano, Judge Richard M. Hughes III, President Judge Shawn D. Meyers, Senior Judge Katherine 
B. L. Platt, Judge Edward D. Reibman, Linda Hee, Esquire, Michele Mathes, Esquire, Gloriana Noreika, 
Esquire, Pamela Walz, Esquire, Keelin Barry, Esquire, and Diane Menio.

This Bench Book is a comprehensive reference guide that provides best practices regarding Task Force 

Recommendations 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 15, 16, 18, 20, 26, 40, 41, 45, 46, 47, 48, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 
60, 62, 78, 82, and 83. This Bench Book also includes information regarding less restrictive alternatives to 
guardianship, guardianship rules and forms, checklists, the management of guardianship cases, and recent 
legislation involving guardianship. New Orphans’ Court Rules and forms pertaining to guardianships were 
adopted by the Supreme Court and became effective on June 1, 2019.  

This Bench Book was provided to all orphans’ court judges. An online version is posted on the Unified 

Judicial System’s website. 

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 IN PROGRESS 

15

Information on the implementation of this recommendation can be found in the First Progress Report. 

See also Recommendation 5.

See also page 6 regarding the Resource Guide for Financial Institutions Regarding Powers of Attorney 

and Guardianship Orders. The Resource Guide is intended to help frontline staff in financial institutions 
identify when to advance a document holder’s request involving a guardianship order (including an 
emergency guardianship) or power of attorney to their legal department. 

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

Information on the implementation of this recommendation can be found in the First Progress Report. 

See also Recommendation 5.

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 (IP) 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

Information on the implementation of this recommendation can be found in the First Progress Report.

See also Recommendation 5.

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

The GCMC is examining less restrictive alternatives to guardianship. Such alternatives include supported 

decision-making, advance directives, powers of attorney, and formal and informal services, all of which 
further an IP’s greater self-determination. Administrative Judge Lois E. Murphy, Karen C. Buck, Esquire, 
and Pamela Walz, Esquire met with advocacy groups to discuss what supported decision-making might 
look like in Pennsylvania. “Supported decision-making describes the process by which most individuals 
make decisions - by consulting with friends, family, social services, community organizations, and/or other 
sources of support to weigh the pros and cons of a decision, review potential outcomes, and finally make 
a choice. The practice of supported decision-making takes many forms - from recognition of organic 
decision-making networks to formal, written supported decision-making agreements.” (American Bar 
Association website). 

In May 2021, Administrative Judge Lois E. Murphy and Karen C. Buck, Esquire were invited to serve as 
delegates to the Fourth National Guardianship Summit: Maximizing Autonomy and Ensuring Accountability, 
organized by the National Guardianship Network and hosted by Syracuse University’s College of Law. 
One hundred twenty-five guardianship stakeholders, among them judges, family guardians, attorneys, and 

16

advocates, gathered virtually to discuss the current state of the adult guardianship system in the U.S. and 
make recommendations for its reform and improvement. 

At the conclusion of the Summit, the delegates adopted 22 recommendations, including the elimination 

of plenary guardianships (and, if a guardianship is imposed, require tailored guardianship orders in all 
cases) (Recommendation 3.2), and that statutes, court rules, policies and processes in every state should 
require courts to consider supported decision-making as one of the alternatives to guardianship at 
appointment and periodically thereafter (Recommendation 2.3).

The GCMC has been working on a supported decision-making article for publication, creating optional 
forms for final decrees to increase the efficacy of limited guardianship, planning an educational presentation 
to the Advisory Council and legislature about alternatives to guardianship and encouraging modifications to 
guardianship training provided to pro bono attorneys to include alternatives to 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).

√ THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED

Information on the implementation of this recommendation can be found in the First Progress Report. 

See also Recommendation 5. 

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 TO BE CONSIDERED 

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

Information on the implementation of this recommendation can be found in the First Progress Report. 

See also Recommendation 5. 

17

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 United States Attorney’s Office (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, they attended the U.S. Attorney’s Office’s Task Force session on SSA/VA fiduciary 
programs dealing with privacy and exploitation issues. 

In 2019, the OEJC continued to attend Federal Elder Justice Task Force meetings. Discussions about 
educational programs have been on hold since the end of 2019 due to the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic. 

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

Information on the implementation of this recommendation can be found in the First Progress Report. 

See also Recommendation 5. 

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

Information on the implementation of this recommendation can be found in the First Progress Report. 

The release of Guardianship Tracking System (GTS) data to the public is governed by the Electronic Case 

Record Public Access Policy of the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania (ECR Policy). Upon AOPC’s 
recommendation, the Supreme Court amended Sections 1.00, 3.00, 6.00, and 7.00 of the ECR Policy to 
incorporate electronic case record information residing in GTS. Section 3.00 was amended to provide 
that information maintained in GTS is not accessible by the public, except for aggregate, statistical, and/
or other data that does not identify an IP, as determined by AOPC. The amendments became effective on 
January 1, 2022. 

18

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 HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED 

Information on the implementation of this recommendation can be found in the First Progress Report. 

See also Recommendation 5. 

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 

Information on the implementation of this recommendation can be found in the First Progress Report. 

See also Recommendation 5. 

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

Information on the implementation of this recommendation can be found in the First Progress Report. 

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

GTS automatically sends electronic notifications to guardians to remind them regarding upcoming reports 

to be filed with the court. Notifications are also sent to guardians and court users concerning reports that 
are overdue one day past the due date and at 20 days past if the report has still not been received. GTS 
also provides the means for a court user to generate and print a paper overdue notice at any time after a 
report becomes overdue. The system displays lists of upcoming and overdue guardianship reports and 
provides functionality that allows the user to sort and filter the lists and to generate reports listing overdue 
cases.

Reports may be overdue for various reasons. Courts follow their local process for addressing overdue 
reports, which may include contacting a guardian to request that a report(s) be filed or holding a hearing to 
determine why a report(s) has not been submitted. In 2021, the OEJC and AOPC’s Information Technology 
Department (IT), together with the GTS Governance Committee (GTS GC), developed and implemented a 
process to assist courts with addressing cases with overdue reports. The OEJC also created the Report 
Reviewer Best Practices Training - Overdue Reports Reference Guide for courts to help them address 
overdue reports. The Guide includes common reasons reports become overdue, tools to help manage 
overdue reports, and best practices for finding missing or unresponsive guardians. 

19

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

Information on the implementation of this recommendation can be found in the First Progress Report. 

See also Recommendation 5. 

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

Information on the implementation of this recommendation can be found in the First Progress Report. 

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

In 2020, the GCMC began to develop content for a model handbook for newly appointed Pennsylvania 
guardians. The content of the online educational modules and the model handbook are being coordinated 
with the content of the Fundamentals of Guardianship: What Family and Non-Professional Guardians Need 
to Know training.

The Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania’s website’s “Guardianship in Pennsylvania” page contains 
general information about GTS and the schedule of GTS workshops for guardians offered by IT. In 2019, to 
reach guardians statewide, IT began presenting the workshops for guardians virtually. The workshops are 
offered twice monthly. They provide a demonstration of how to register to use GTS, and how to complete 
and file guardianship reports electronically. Since March 2019, 734 guardians have attended workshops. 

GTS is accessed through the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania’s web portal, which provides 
resources, court information, and specialized electronic services to guardians and the public. Guardians 
registered to use GTS can submit guardianship reports online and pay any associated fees charged by the 
counties. Forms available online include the Inventory, Annual Report of Guardian of the Person, Annual 
Report of Guardian of the Estate, orphans’ court forms, and other court-related forms. Instructions are 
provided for select forms. The web portal also includes an online library of GTS video tutorials and training 
guides.

Since the courts first began using GTS during the pilot phase of implementation in June 2018, the GTS 

Help Desk has responded to over 12,790 phone calls and emails from guardians. 

 In response to the Covid-19 pandemic, in May 2020, the OEJC provided all president judges, district 

court administrators, clerks of the orphans’ courts and guardians with information and resources for 
guardians to help them carry out their duties during the pandemic. The OEJC also reminded guardians that 
their guardianship reports were still due and that they still had a duty to maintain contact with the IP during 
the pandemic. In March 2021, the OEJC provided information on frequently asked questions regarding the 
Covid-19 vaccine to guardians of IPs in nursing homes. 

20

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’ 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

Information on the implementation of this recommendation can be found in the First Progress Report. 

See also Recommendation 5. 

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

Information on the implementation of this recommendation can be found in the First Progress Report. 

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

The courts’ guardianship monitoring responsibilities have been supported not only by the funding and 
implementation of the GTS, but also by the provision of services and resources from the Advisory Council, 
OEJC, and IT. Since 2019, the OEJC, working with IT, has created and implemented processes that assist 
the courts with the monitoring of guardianships, provided technical assistance and resources, and helped 
courts resolve issues identified by GTS.

The OEJC has also presented trainings to assist courts with fulfilling their guardianship monitoring 
responsibilities. In September 2020, the Advisory Council developed and published the Pennsylvania 
Guardianship Bench Book for judges. In 2021, the OEJC created an educational program comprised of 
three courses for reviewing different guardianship reports. The course Monitoring Guardianships Cases: 
What the GTS Can Do for You is designed solely for judges. The courses Reviewing the Inventory and 
Report of Guardian of the Estate and Reviewing the Report of Guardian of the Person are intended for 
court staff and orphans’ court clerks who have been designated to review annual reports and address 
flags raised by GTS. Content includes the role of offices involved in the report review process, fundamental 
principles of monitoring and reviewing reports, and best practices using GTS. The faculty includes Senior 
Judge Paula Francisco Ott and OEJC Analyst Keith Hinkel Jr., Administrative Judge Lois E. Murphy 
(Montgomery County), Judge Richard M. Hughes III (Luzerne County), Orphans’ Court Clerk Virginia Cooper 
(Huntingdon County), Orphans’ Court Clerk Christine Millinder (Centre County), Daniel Buzard, Esquire, 
Allegheny County Guardianship Department Supervisor and Nicole Marek-Klapat, Luzerne County GTS 
administrator. 

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 IN PROGRESS

21

A 2021 priority of the GCMC has been improving the security posted by guardians with responsibility for 

the financial assets of an IP. The GCMC has been researching whether to recommend or require that an 
adequate bond be posted in cases when the IP ‘s assets are over $10,000.

The GCMC is considering the appropriateness of the establishment of a statewide Guardian Security 
Fund similar to Pennsylvania’s Client Security Fund for adult guardianship cases in which the IP’s financial 
assets are at, near or below $100,000, and to examine the issues related to the establishment of such a 
Fund. If established, the Fund would reimburse persons under guardianship who suffer financial losses due 
to the misappropriation of funds by their guardians. 

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

Information on the implementation of this recommendation can be found in the First Progress Report. 

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

In December 2018, all pending cases (cases not yet adjudicated) and active cases (cases in which an 

adjudication of incapacity has been made and the protected person is alive and under guardianship) 
statewide were migrated into GTS, and courts began using GTS to monitor their guardianship cases.

Throughout 2019, IT analyzed the migrated case data to ensure that an accurate inventory of 

guardianship cases could be established. In 2020, IT was able - for the first time - to identify important 
information, including the number of active guardianships in the Commonwealth. The ability to generate 
accurate and comprehensive statistics from the data collected by GTS is a significant accomplishment. 
Nationally, there is a dearth of statistics on guardianship cases. Many courts across the country are unable 
to produce reliable data on the number of guardianship cases filed or the number of current guardianships, 
and they do not have accurate caseload data. Timely, accurate, and complete GTS data on guardianship 
cases has become a vital tool for the Commonwealth’s courts to better monitor these cases. 

In Pennsylvania, as of December 31, 2021, there were 18,380 active guardianship cases in GTS, with 382 

professional guardians, and 19,261 non-professional (family/lay) guardians serving. The total amount of 
guardianship assets under court supervision was $1,765,624,771.61. Over 85% of all guardianship reports 
received by the courts were electronically filed (e-filed) using GTS.

The detailed, statewide guardianship data captured by GTS allows the Advisory Council to track 
guardians’ compliance with filing mandated reports, assist courts with their guardianship monitoring 
responsibilities, and take a data-driven approach to guardianship reform. The OEJC, IT, and the GCMC 
regularly review GTS data and bring potential concerns and information about trends to the Advisory 
Council’s attention. 

The release of GTS data to the public is governed by the ECR Policy. Upon AOPC’s recommendation, the 

Supreme Court amended Sections 1.00, 3.00, 6.00, and 7.00 of the ECR Policy to incorporate electronic 
case record information residing in GTS. Section 3.00 was amended to provide that information maintained 
in GTS is not accessible by the public, except for aggregate, statistical, and/or other data that does not 
identify an IP, as determined by AOPC. The amendments became effective on January 1, 2022.

22

Information that would be accessible under the ECR Policy includes, for example: the name of guardians, 

whether a guardian has been paid, and when a guardian is terminated. The release of aggregate statistical 
data that does not identify IPs reflects the general philosophy that detailed information in these sensitive 
cases should be safeguarded, while reinforcing the judiciary’s commitment to open and accessible case 
records. Given the extensive financial, medical, and related sensitive information provided to a court in 
guardianship matters, these records are generally inaccessible pursuant to the Case Records Public Access 
Policy of the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania and other relevant legal authority. 

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).

√ THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED

Information on the implementation of this recommendation can be found in the First Progress Report. 

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

GTS is a statewide, web-based application used by guardians, court staff, orphans’ court clerks, and 
judges that was implemented in December 2018. GTS is the exclusive method for the electronic filing of 
mandated guardianship reports, and it provides guardians with a uniform and efficient e-filing experience. 

The purpose of GTS is to provide court offices with a tool that facilitates greater control over the 
management of guardianship cases. GTS functionality centers on the automation of court functions: 
electronic notifications to guardians about upcoming and overdue reports, compliance tracking for 
mandatory reporting, the automatic insertion of flags for potential concerns of loss and neglect, statewide 
propagation of alerts placed on guardians, and the delivery of detailed statistics.

GTS allows courts to scrutinize red flags prompted on guardianship cases and respond to potential 
problems immediately, thereby better protecting persons under guardianship. The capacity of GTS to 
automatically flag potential concerns of loss and neglect is an important feature that assists courts 
with their monitoring responsibilities at a time when funds for staff resources to thoroughly review each 
guardianship report are scarce. The flag logic also promotes a uniform protocol for the reviewing of 
guardianship reports.

When a guardian files a guardianship report on paper or electronically in GTS, the court is required by 
statute to review the report to ensure that the safety, well-being, and financial assets of the IP are being 
protected. One example of the impact GTS has had on the lives of IPs involves a guardian in Luzerne 
County who did not file an inventory or annual guardianship report on time. Overdue guardianship reports 
are one of the potential concerns tracked by GTS. After the guardian refused to respond to the court’s 
order to file reports, Judge Richard M. Hughes III asked the police to conduct a wellness check on the IP. 
The IP was found to be homeless because his guardian - his sister - had abandoned him in Wilkes-Barre’s 
public square. The court removed the sister as guardian and appointed a successor guardian who located 
services for the IP. 

GTS includes a mechanism to immediately communicate to orphans’ courts statewide any instances of 
abuse, neglect, or financial exploitation by an active guardian by allowing an orphans’ court judge to place 

23

an alert on that guardian. The placing of alerts on a guardian who has been removed for cause eliminates 
the potential for that guardian to serve in another county that has no record of the previous misconduct.

When a guardian is removed for cause, GTS can generate a list of the guardian’s cases in all counties 

in which the guardian was appointed. In another example of how GTS has impacted the lives of IPs, 
a professional guardian in York County who owned a guardianship agency that provided services in 
numerous counties was arrested and charged with theft and financial crimes. As part of the guardian’s bail 
conditions, she and her agency were prohibited from serving as a guardian. In a matter of minutes, GTS 
was able to generate a list of all cases in the counties in which the guardian or her agency were appointed. 
The OEJC quickly notified all judges in the affected counties about the bail conditions so they could 
appoint new guardians. Should the guardian or her agency ever attempt to be appointed in the future, 
GTS will automatically alert the courts about the crimes with which she was charged. When the alert was 
placed on the guardian in GTS, the system instantly sent a high priority alert to every court user (subscribed 
to GTS notifications) in every county that had an active guardianship case in which the guardian was 
appointed. The notification included a list of active cases customized to the recipient’s county. Through 
data provided on request to GTS, the OEJC was able to monitor the activity on these cases until it was 
confirmed that a successor guardian had been appointed in all the cases. 

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

Information on the implementation of this recommendation can be found in the First Progress Report. 

RECOMMENDATION 26: The Task Force recommends that the Bill of Rights of an Alleged 
Incapacitated Person (AIP) 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 HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED

Information on the implementation of this recommendation can be found in the First Progress Report. 
The Bills of Rights of an Alleged Incapacitated person can be found on page 126, the Bill of Rights of an 
Incapacitated Person can be found on page 127 in the Report and Recommendations of the Elder Law 
Task Force.

See also Recommendation 5. 

24

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 UNDER CONSIDERATION

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 is 
provided to the court through 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 IN PROGRESS

An education program for judges regarding financial exploitation and 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9728 (collection of 
restitution, reparation, fees, costs, fines, and penalties) will be presented at the Annual Conference of the 
Pennsylvania Conference of State Trial Judges in July 2022. 

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

Information on the implementation of this recommendation can be found in the First Progress Report. 

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

In 2018, the Supreme Court adopted Pennsylvania Rule of Disciplinary Enforcement 403, which 
established an emeritus status for retired attorneys to provide pro bono legal representation, and 
Pennsylvania Rule of Continuing Legal Education 105(d), which established an annual continuing legal 
education (CLE) requirement of eight hours for attorneys in emeritus status. 

Since the emeritus pro bono program began in 2019, the number of participating attorneys has 

grown despite the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic. As of September 2021, 25 retired attorneys have been 
participating. The Advisory Council is working with the Pennsylvania Bar Association to increase awareness 
about the program (through local bar associations) and generate pro bono support. The Disciplinary Board 
of the Supreme Court, the Pennsylvania Continuing Legal Education Board, and other boards are also 
working to encourage service by retired attorneys. 

RECOMMENDATION 30: The Task Force recommends that the Supreme Court consider 
providing continuing legal education (CLE) credits to encourage active attorneys to provide 

25

pro bono services to elder Pennsylvanians. See Elder Abuse and Neglect Committee Report, 
§I.C.2.e. (Page 196).

√ THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED

Information on the implementation of this recommendation can be found in the First Progress Report. 

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

In January 2019, the CLE Credit for Pro Bono Service Pilot Project began. This three-year pilot project 
was created 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 an accredited 
provider of pro bono CLE.

From the program’s inception in 2019 through November 2021, 20 organizations (accredited providers of 
pro bono CLE) have participated, 1,063 attorneys have received CLE credit for pro bono work, 2,343.5 CLE 
credit hours have been earned through pro bono service and attorneys have provided 11,717.5 volunteer 
service hours representative of CLE credits reported. 

RECOMMENDATION 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).

√ THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED

Information on the implementation of this recommendation can be found in the First Progress Report. 

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

An Elder Abuse Bench Card was created in 2015 and distributed to all common pleas judges and 
magisterial district judges. In 2021, the Bench Card was enhanced by the EANC to include additional 
information about physical and financial signs of elder abuse, primary risk factors for elder abuse, and 
remediation and case management tools the court can use when elder abuse issues arise. STOP grant 
funding was provided to the OEJC to print and distribute the redesigned Bench Card, which was provided 
to every common pleas judge in 2021. The Bench Card will be distributed to magisterial district judges 
during the “school” for new magisterial district judges and the 13-week continuing education session. 

In 2019, the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General (OAG) and the Pennsylvania Department of Aging 
(Department of Aging) began the development of ElderGuard•PA - Elder and Care Dependent Adult Abuse, 
a resource guide on the OAG’s website for those charged with protecting older Pennsylvanians (including 
persons with disabilities and care-dependent adults) who may be at higher risk for elder abuse. The 
resource guide was originally planned as an app, but was reconfigured as a website in 2020 to allow for 
access across all electronic devices. 

The online resource guide has been created to help law enforcement, emergency medical services, fire 
and rescue services, caregivers, and medical professionals with identifying, investigating, and responding 
to elder abuse. It includes information on how to identify elder abuse, Pennsylvania law regarding abuse, 
where to report abuse, contact information for agencies that assist elders and many other resources.

26

Development of the resource guide, which has been led by David Shallcross, continued in 2021. 
ElderGuard PA is anticipated to “go live” in the spring of 2022. Over the past three years, the Advisory 
Council has reviewed content of the resource guide and continues to provide suggestions.

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

In 2019, the Advisory Council published the first edition of the Pennsylvania Elder Abuse Bench Book, 
the primary resource for common pleas judges facing issues involving elder abuse, regardless of the court 
division in which they sit. The Bench Book was developed with oversight by Administrative Judge Sheila 
A. Woods-Skipper, President Judge George N. Zanic and the EANC. Contributors included Karen C. Buck, 
Esquire, Bruce M. Bushwick, M.D., Judge Ida K. Chen, Rev. Ronald W. Costen, Ph.D., Esquire, Arthur 
DiLoreto, Dana N. Goldberg, Esquire, Judge Christopher P. Mallios, Jr., Diane A. Menio, Teresa Osborne, 
Erin P. Raub, Suzanne Estrella, Esquire, and Darren M. Breslin, Esquire.

The Bench Book reflects the accumulated wisdom of both judges and practitioners who focus on 

elder justice and combines an outline of the laws pertaining to elder abuse, with medical information and 
subject-specific lists of practical questions. The Bench Book was provided to all common pleas judges. An 
online version is posted on the Unified Judicial System’s website. 

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 HAS BEEN DEFERRED

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

Information on the implementation of this recommendation can be found in the First Progress Report. 

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

27

To determine how courts can use victim age data in the criminal court process, educate judges and 
suggest best practices regarding elders involved with the criminal justice system, the Advisory Council 
requested that the Supreme Court approve the tracking of the age of victims 60 or over in the Magisterial 
District Judge Case Management System and the CPCMS, if such information is known. The Supreme 
Court approved modifications to these systems, and data collection began in December 2018. In 
December 2019, a year’s worth of victim age data was examined (protection from abuse (PFA) case data 
was not included, as it is not captured in the statewide case management systems).

IT concluded additional measures were necessary to refine the collection of victim age data. Over the 
past two years, IT has looked for ways to improve the data collection in the statewide case management 
systems. The primary focus has been on encouraging and helping court staff enter accurate and complete 
data into these systems, which has been achieved through a combination of outreach, the creation of 
reports, and minor system changes. Bulletins and presentations have been sent to court staff reminding 
them of the importance of recording the data on documents submitted by law enforcement and to 
periodically run and check reports for errors. A statewide report to assist court staff has been made 
available. Messages have been added that warn users about potentially adding data in the wrong fields, 
and labels of some data fields were revised to help court staff better understand the data to be entered. 
Through these efforts, the data being collected is more accurate and complete.

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 IN PROGRESS

In the fall of 2019, the Advisory Council began discussing how to obtain data that captures the age of 
plaintiffs in PFA matters to determine how many plaintiffs are age 60 and over. Data provided to the AOPC 
Research and Statistics Department (Research) on PFA orders does not include the age of plaintiffs.

The Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) operates the statewide PSP Protection Order Registry. The 

Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence operates the Protection from Abuse Database (PFAD), 
which is a computer archival system designed to complement the operation of the Protection Order 
Registry. PFAD includes data on all PFA proceedings in the Commonwealth. To assist the Advisory Council, 
Research made outreach to several courts regarding the data they provide to PFAD. Preliminary information 
was received, but due to the Covid-19 pandemic, further outreach is on hold. 

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

Information on the implementation of this recommendation can be found in the First Progress Report. 

28

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

Information on the implementation of this recommendation can be found in the First Progress Report. 

While the Task Force recommended that the Supreme Court consider authorizing a pilot “Elder Court”, 
the Advisory Council has determined that establishing “Elder Resource Centers” within the existing court 
systems is a more appropriate way for courts to provide access to justice for elders. 

In 2020, the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic caused significant challenges to Philadelphia’s Elder 

Justice Resource Center’s (EJRC) operations and procedures. In an effort to support the health and safety 
of the public and the EJRC’s staff and volunteers, the EJRC closed temporarily from March through August 
and reopened in September to offer limited assistance by telephone and through email. During the EJRC’s 
closure, the staff under the direction of Administrative Judge Sheila A. Woods-Skipper worked to bring 
people in by appointment. 

While the volunteer attorney program remained suspended, the EJRC continued to provide case 
information to callers, direct callers to resources, and make referrals to legal service organizations and 
community-based organizations.  The EJRC also focused on improving its data collection procedures to 
enhance its ability to track statistical data more efficiently.  

In 2021, the EJRC continued to expand its services while adapting to COVID-19 pandemic restrictions 

and safety practices. The Orphans’ Court Courtroom was adapted to allow for proceedings to be held 
virtually and for hybrid proceedings (participants participated both in-person and remotely). During the 
spring, work to help litigants obtain information on legal forms, procedures, and options for guardianship 
cases was conducted remotely with law students from the Elderly Law Project at Temple University’s 
Beasley School of Law. In July, the EJRC reopened to the public and relaunched the volunteer attorney 
program to include video and telephone conference appointments for the volunteers and self-represented 
litigants. The EJRC also hosted an Access to Justice Technology Fellow for the summer who developed 
an online motion and petition tool featuring guided instructions for self-represented litigants to help them 
prepare court filings for ejectments, landlord-tenant appeals and sheriff’s sale postponements. The tool is 
also used by court staff and volunteers to assist litigants who are unable to use a computer.

Other key highlights and service expansion milestones for the EJRC included creating partnerships 
that allowed the EJRC to make direct referrals for qualified cases to SeniorLAW Center, Philadelphia VIP, 
Community Legal Services, Christian Legal Clinics, and Center for Advocacy for the Rights & Interests of 
the Elderly; securing a part-time staff attorney from the SeniorLAW Center who assisted (virtually and in-
person) with reports of guardianship fraud or abuse and landlord-tenant cases; enabling EJRC computers 
to be used for remote court hearings by litigants and families who did not have internet or access to a 
computer; providing EJRC assistance to lay guardians with GTS report filing; creating volunteer attorney 
CLE training sessions hosted through the Philadelphia Bar Association; and pursuing new resources and 
funding for the EJRC’s future development plans. Many of the EJRC’s achievements would not have been 
possible without its legal services and community partners who contribute and support the EJRC’s mission 
to have a vital role as a major resource for elders.

The pilot Project for Excellence in Adult Guardianship Proceedings began in the Montgomery County 

Orphans’ Court in 2019, under the leadership of Administrative Judge Lois E. Murphy, and seeks to 
improve court practices in the screening of petitions, the appointment of counsel and guardians (when 
needed), and the monitoring of guardians after their appointment by the court.  The goal of the Project is to 
reduce or vacate guardianships when they are no longer necessary. 

29

The Project focuses on best practices during the hearing, review and monitoring stages of a guardianship 

and the appointment of counsel. Since August 2019, counsel has been appointed in all adult guardianship 
cases.  Additional review hearings have been held to enhance the court’s monitoring of guardian activities. 
In January 2020, pursuant to a local rule of court, professional guardians are required to be certified. 

Montgomery County Orphans’ Court has also been scrutinizing the need for guardianship and insisting 

that attorneys present evidence that less restrictive alternatives have been considered. In a number of 
cases in 2020 and 2021, a guardianship was denied, or only a limited guardianship was granted as a result 
of the consideration of less restrictive alternatives.  The Court also crafted an innovative form order to 
confirm that a guardianship is not needed, that a less restrictive alternative has been identified, and that 
family members - where appropriate - are serving as health care representatives with the authority to make 
health care decisions under Pennsylvania law.

In 2019, Allegheny County District Attorney Stephen A. Zappala Jr. began working with the Allegheny 

County Court of Common Pleas to plan a pilot elder resource center. Models in other states were 
examined. Work began to retrofit two courtrooms to provide mobile audio and visual enhancement 
equipment, but due to the Covid-19 pandemic, further work is on hold. 

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

Information on the implementation of this recommendation can be found in the First Progress Report. 

Since 2019, numerous counties have integrated aspects of GTS into their local case management 
systems: 53 counties integrated petition e-filing, 39 counties integrated case action publication, and 21 
counties integrated GTS e-commerce (payments). 

Guardians can e-file guardianship reports 365 days a year at any time that is convenient for them, receive 
guidance on how to complete sections of the reports, view reports from previous years, populate data from 
a previous report into the current year’s report and receive reminders when their reports are due. GTS also 
automatically eliminates arithmetic errors on submitted reports.

In 2019, the first year GTS was operational in all counties, 82% of guardian reports were e-filed. In 2020, 

the e-filing rate grew to 86%, and that percentage has been maintained through December 31, 2021. 

Since its implementation, GTS has received national recognition. GTS won the National Association of 

Court Management’s Court Process Innovations Award in 2019. The American Bar Association’s (ABA) 
Commission on Law and Aging featured GTS in the March/April 2019 edition of its journal, Bifocal. In 2020, 
the ABA’s Judicial Division Record published an article on GTS. 

Other states’ court systems and court management organizations nationwide have expressed interest in 
learning about and/or replicating GTS. In November 2019, Senior Judge Paula Francisco Ott, Administrative 
Judge Lois E. Murphy, OEJC Director Cherstin Hamel and IT Analyst Manager Amy Whitworth presented on 
GTS to the National College of Probate Judges, and Senior Judge Ott presented to the ABA’s National Law 
and Aging Conference. In December 2020, Senior Judge Ott and Amy Whitworth showcased GTS as an 
innovative model during the December 2020 Massachusetts Colloquium on Guardianship Oversight. 

30

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

Information on the implementation of this recommendation can be found in the First Progress Report. 

In 2019, discussions continued between the OEJC and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District 

regarding the collection and exchange of data regarding abusive Social Security representative payees 
and United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) fiduciaries. In August 2019, the OEJC met with the 
Social Security Administration (SSA) and the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA). NAPA was 
a participant in the study to examine better coordination and information sharing between SSA and state 
courts with guardianship jurisdiction that was mandated under 2018 representative payee legislation. The 
study resulted in a report, Social Security Administration’s Representative Payee Program: Information 
Sharing with the States, which was published in June 2020.

In February 2021, the OEJC participated in a meeting with SSA’s Office of Strategic & Digital 

Communications, the ABA’s Commission on Law and Aging and the Working Interdisciplinary Networks of 
Guardianship Stakeholders (the OEJC is considered a part of this network). SSA wanted to initiate further 
communication with state guardianship stakeholders and find opportunities for improvement in light of the 
report. 

A month later, the OEJC, and IT staff were interviewed by members of the User Experience Group for 
SSA’s Data Exchange Product. The purpose of the interview was to help define Pennsylvania’s current and 
future needs regarding a data exchange with SSA.

In September 2021, several orphans’ court clerks contacted the Advisory Council to express concerns 

about SSA’s processing of professional guardians’ applications to become representative payees. The 
OEJC reached out to a regional SSA office to explain the concerns and request assistance. SSA resolved 
most of the concerns, and communications between the OEJC and SSA continue.

RECOMMENDATIONS 4O - 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. All recommendations were submitted to the Supreme 
Court Orphans’ Court Procedural Rules Committee (OCPRC) for consideration.

In December 2017, the OCPRC submitted a proposal to the Supreme Court 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. Not all 
recommendations were included in the proposal sent to the Supreme Court. If a recommendation was 
incorporated into the new guardianship rules, a specific reference to that rule is noted. In addition, for 
reference, those rules are attached as Appendix D. New Orphans’ Court Rules 14.1 through 14.14 
pertaining to guardianships were adopted by the Supreme Court and became effective on June 1, 2019. 
Throughout the process of the adoption of these new Orphans’ Court Procedural Rules, the GCMC 
assisted the OCPRC by reviewing the proposed rules and forms and providing feedback.

31

In August 2021, the OEJC, IT, and the GTS GC proposed modifications to several guardianship 

forms - the Inventory, the Annual Report of Guardian of the Person, and the Annual Report of Guardian 
of the Estate - to the OCPRC. The modifications clarify report text for guardians, increase data integrity 
and accuracy, and respond to requests from end users and the OCPRC. The OCPRC submitted the 
Recommendation to the Court without publication pursuant to Pa.R.J.A. 103(a)(3).  

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

Information on the implementation of this recommendation can be found in the First Progress Report. 

See Pa.R.O.C.P. 14.6(b). See also Recommendation 5. 

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

Information on the implementation of this recommendation can be found in the First Progress Report. 

See Pa.R.O.C.P. 14.6(b). See also Recommendation 5.

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

Information on the implementation of this recommendation can be found in the First Progress Report. 

Although this recommendation did not result in a specific rule, since 2019, GTS has enabled courts to 
generate a list - by county or statewide - of individuals who are serving as guardians. GTS can also indicate 
whether the guardian is a professional and/or agency guardian. When professional guardians create an 
online account to use GTS, they are asked to indicate the counties in which they are willing to serve as 
a guardian of the estate, a guardian of the person or both. Guardians are asked to provide their contact 

32

information and completed trainings or certifications. Guardians can update their profiles at any time. This 
information is saved on a guardian’s record that can be viewed by court users, who can then search for 
guardians willing to work in their counties. GTS provides court users with a list of guardians who match 
their search criteria, the total number of active cases statewide on which the guardian is currently serving 
and a history of any alerts that may have been placed on the guardian.

GTS includes a mechanism to immediately communicate to orphans’ courts statewide any instances of 
abuse, neglect, or financial exploitation by an active guardian by allowing an orphans’ court judge to place 
an alert on that guardian. The placing of an alert on a guardian who has been removed for cause eliminates 
the potential for that guardian to serve in another county that has no record of the previous misconduct.

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

Information on the implementation of this recommendation can be found in the First Progress Report. 

Although this recommendation did not result in a specific rule, whether a proposed guardian has 

completed any training is to be considered by a judge when deciding who should be appointed guardian.

A training program for family and lay guardians has been developed by the York County Court of 
Common Pleas and the OEJC that includes instruction for individual guardians. While training is not 
required for family and lay guardians before they assume their duties, the Advisory Council allocated funds 
to present training. The free training program, “Fundamentals of Guardianship: What Family Guardians Need 
to Know,” was piloted in several counties in late 2018.

Training of newly-appointed family and lay guardians of IPs age 60 and over has continued to be a priority 

for the Advisory Council and OEJC. Since 2019, funding has been allocated for the OEJC’s presentations 
of a revised and expanded Fundamentals of Guardianship: What Family and Non-Professional Guardians 
Need to Know training around the Commonwealth. The training is now presented by a nationally certified 
guardian and OEJC staff, and focuses on the fundamentals of guardianship, the powers, duties and 
responsibilities of a guardian, guardian ethics and liabilities, decision-making processes, best practices for 
guardians, and resources/tools for guardians. To assist the courts in addressing a guardian’s failure to file 
mandated guardianship reports, the training also includes instruction regarding report filing requirements 
and the GTS. 

With the advent of the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020, the OEJC had to cancel in-person presentations of 
the training to protect the health and safety of the presenters and guardians. The OEJC pivoted to rework 
the training into a virtual format and enhance the content. Virtual presentations have been offered in 2021, 
and guardian participation exceeded in-person attendance from previous years. From 2019 to 2021, 281 
guardians have attended the training. 

The guardians who have attended include a significant number of parents who serve as guardians 
of intellectually disabled persons ages 18 to 59. Because of its ongoing focus on the monitoring of all 
guardianships and guardianship reform, the Advisory Council determined that training for the guardians 
of younger adults would be incorporated into the training, but that it would seek to transition the training 
needs of the 18 to 59 population to other organizations or partner with those organizations. The curriculum 
has been supplemented with additional information and resources for these guardians.

33

The GCMC is creating a model handbook for newly-appointed Pennsylvania guardians and online training 

modules for guardians that will coordinate with and expand upon the content of the Fundamentals of 
Guardianship: What Family and Non-Professional Guardians Need to Know training. 

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

Information on the implementation of this recommendation can be found in the First Progress Report. 

See Pa.R.O.C.P. 14.2(c). 

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

During the 2019-20 legislative session, Representative Mark Gillen introduced House Bill 2209, which 

required court-appointed guardians or prospective guardians to submit to the court a report of federal 
criminal history record information, a report of criminal history record information from PSP or a statement 
from PSP that the central repository contains no information relating to the individual, and validation of the 
guardian’s or prospective guardian’s eligibility to legally work in the United States 

Pursuant to Pennsylvania Orphans’ Court Rule 14.2(c)(2), a PSP criminal background check (issued within 

six months of the filing of the petition) is required for every 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, 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

Information on the implementation of this recommendation can be found in the First Progress Report. 

See also Recommendation 5.

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 

34

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

Information on the implementation of this recommendation can be found in the First Progress Report. 

See Pa.R.O.C.P. 14.6(b)(1)(ix) and 14.6(b)(2)(ix). 

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

Recommendation 5 and Recommendation 43.

RECOMMENDATION 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

Information on the implementation of this recommendation can be found in the First Progress Report.

See Pa.R.O.C.P. 14.6(b). See also Recommendation 5.

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

Information on the implementation of this recommendation can be found in the First Progress Report.. 

See Pa.R.O.C.P. 14.4, which addresses counsel but does not require counsel in all cases.

Please see the section New Legislative Initiatives Supported by the Advisory Council on page 70 for more 

information about the Advisory Council’s efforts regarding the appointment of counsel. 

See also Recommendation 5. 

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 

35

(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

Information on the implementation of this recommendation can be found in the First Progress Report. 

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

Since 2019, clerks of the orphans’ courts and their staffs have had the ability to generate standardized 
reports from GTS to assist them with monitoring of guardianship cases. Reports are available on cases that 
have been filed, cases that are pending adjudication and guardian caseloads.

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 [Continuing Legal Education] 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. 

Members of the Advisory Council have participated in and provided programs for attorneys (presented 
through the Pennsylvania Bar Institute and local bar associations) concerning the various roles attorneys 
serve in guardianship matters. A list of all training programs and educational presentations made by 
Advisory Council members may be found in Appendix B. 

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  

Information on the implementation of this recommendation can be found in the First Progress Report. 

See Pa.R.O.C.P. 14.4. See also Recommendation 5. 

36

RECOMMENDATION 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  

Information on the implementation of this recommendation can be found in the First Progress Report. 

See Pa.R.O.C.P. 14.4. See also Recommendation 5. 

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    

Information on the implementation of this recommendation can be found in the First Progress Report. 

See also Recommendation 5.

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 

Information on the implementation of this recommendation can be found in the First Progress Report. 

See Pa.R.O.C.P. 14.4(b) and 14.7(a)(2). See also Recommendation 5. 

RECOMMENDATION 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

Information on the implementation of this recommendation can be found in the First Progress Report. 

See Pa.R.O.C.P. 14.8 and 14.10.

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

The reviewing of guardianship reports is one of the best ways for courts to monitor and protect the safety, 

well-being, and financial assets of persons under guardianship. In 2021, the OEJC created an educational 

37

program comprised of three courses for reviewing different guardianship reports. The course Monitoring 
Guardianships Cases: What the GTS Can Do for You is designed solely for judges. The courses Reviewing 
the Inventory and Report of Guardian of the Estate and Reviewing the Report of Guardian of the Person 
are intended for court staff and orphans’ court clerks who have been designated to review annual reports 
and address flags raised by GTS. Content includes the role of offices involved in the report review process, 
fundamental principles of monitoring and reviewing reports, and best practices using GTS. Judges who 
attend receive one and a half hours of continuing judicial education credits. The faculty includes Senior 
Judge Paula Francisco Ott and OEJC Analyst Keith Hinkel Jr., Administrative Judge Lois E. Murphy 
(Montgomery County), Judge Richard M. Hughes III (Luzerne County), Orphans’ Court Clerk Virginia Cooper 
(Huntingdon County), Orphans’ Court Clerk Christine Millinder (Centre County), Daniel Buzard, Esquire, 
Allegheny County Guardianship Department supervisor and Nicole Marek-Klapat, Luzerne County GTS 
administrator. 

See also Recommendation 5.

RECOMMENDATION 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 

Information on the implementation of this recommendation can be found in the First Progress Report. 

See explanatory comment for Pa.R.O.C.P. 14.4. See also Recommendation 5.

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

Information on the implementation of this recommendation can be found in the First Progress Report. 

See Pa.R.O.C.P. 14.2(b). 

Since January 1, 2020, pursuant to Montgomery County Orphans’ Court Rule 14.2(b-1), Required 

Certification and Criminal Background Check of Guardians, professional guardians (an individual or entity 
appointed as guardian for three or more incapacitated or partially incapacitated adults) have been required 
to be certified by the Center for Guardianship Certification and recertified every two years.

In the 2019-20 legislative session, language regarding the certification of professional guardians was 

added to Senate Bill 23 by Senator Art Haywood. The language would have required professional guardians 
to be certified as directed by the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services (DHS) and submit proof of 
certification to the court prior to appointment as guardian of the person or guardian of the estate of an IP. 
Certification included a disclosure of potential adverse interests regarding the relationship between the 
professional guardian and the IP. The bill was not considered during the legislative session. 

During the 2021-22 legislative session, Senate Judiciary Chair Lisa Baker and Senator Art Haywood 
circulated a co-sponsorship memo for legislation that would require that the certification provision direct 

38

that individuals seeking guardianship of three or more IPs shall provide certification to the court by DHS 
or a qualified entity as determined by DHS prior to a third guardianship appointment. Certification to 
include, but is not limited to, work history and training, a review of state and federal criminal history record 
information, a core competency examination and disclosure of potential adverse interests regarding the 
relationship between the individual and the AIP. These provisions are modeled after Montgomery County 
Orphans’ Court Rule 14.2(b-1), Required Certification and Criminal Background Check of Guardians. 

RECOMMENDATION 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. 
Guardianship Monitoring Committee Report, §III.C.1. (Page 117).

√ THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED

Information on the implementation of this recommendation can be found in the First Progress Report.

See Pa.R.O.C.P. 14.8(a). 

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

Information on the implementation of this recommendation can be found in the First Progress Report. 

See Pa.R.O.C.P. 14.8(a). 

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

Information on the implementation of this recommendation can be found in the First Progress Report.

In 2021, the Fundamentals of Guardianship: What Family and Non-Professional Guardians Need to Know 

training was enhanced with additional topics, including a guardian’s responsibilities under the Uniform 
Federal Firearms Act. The Act is a federal statute that prohibits a person who is adjudicated incapacitated 
from possessing, using, controlling, selling, transferring, manufacturing, or obtaining a firearm. The Act also 
states that within 60 days of a person being adjudicated incapacitated, the guardian is to arrange for the 
sale or transfer of the IP’s firearms to another eligible person who is not a member of the IP’s household. 

See also Recommendation 5. 

39

RECOMMENDATION 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).

√ THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED

Information on the implementation of this recommendation can be found in the First Progress Report.

See Pa.R.O.C.P. 14.8. 

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

Information on the implementation of this recommendation can be found in the First Progress Report.

See also Recommendation 5. 

RECOMMENDATION 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).

√ THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED

Information on the implementation of this recommendation can be found in the First Progress Report. 

See Pa.R.O.C.P. 14.8(d). 

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

Courts follow their local process for addressing overdue reports, which may include contacting a 

guardian to request that a report(s) be filed or holding a hearing to determine why a report(s) has not been 
submitted. To assist with the requirements of Orphans’ Court Rule 14.8, in 2021 the OEJC and IT, together 
with the GTS GC, developed and implemented a process to assist courts with addressing cases with 
overdue reports. The OEJC also created the Report Reviewer Best Practices Training – Overdue Reports 
Reference Guide for courts to help them address overdue reports. The Guide includes common reasons 
reports become overdue, tools to help manage overdue reports, and best practices for finding missing or 
unresponsive guardians. 

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 

40

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

Information on the implementation of this recommendation can be found in the First Progress Report. 

See Pa.R.O.C.P. 14.8(f). 

Recommendation 17.

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

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

Information on the implementation of this recommendation can be found in the First Progress Report. 

See Pa.R.O.C.P. 14.8. 

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

GTS allows courts to scrutinize red flags prompted on guardianship cases and respond to potential 

problems immediately, thereby better protecting the IP. The capacity of GTS to automatically flag potential 
concerns of loss and neglect is an important feature that assists courts with their monitoring responsibilities 
at a time when funds for staff resources to thoroughly review each guardianship report are scarce. The flag 
logic also promotes a uniform protocol for the reviewing of guardianship reports.

GTS includes a mechanism to immediately communicate to orphans’ courts statewide any instances of 
abuse, neglect, or financial exploitation by an active guardian by allowing an orphans’ court judge to place 
an alert on that guardian. The placing of alerts on a guardian who has been removed for cause eliminates 
the potential for that guardian to serve in another county that has no record of the previous misconduct.

See also Recommendation 17 and Recommendation 55.

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

41

Information on the implementation of this recommendation can be found in the First Progress Report. 

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

Information on the implementation of this recommendation can be found in the First Progress Report. 

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

Recommendation 43.

In 2019, to reach guardians statewide, IT began presenting its GTS workshops for guardians virtually. 
The workshops are offered twice monthly. They provide a demonstration of how to register to use GTS, 
and how to complete and file guardianship reports electronically. Since March 2019, 734 guardians have 
attended a workshop. 

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

Information on the implementation of this recommendation can be found in the First Progress Report. 

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

See also Recommendation 67.

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. 

REVISED 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.)

42

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION IS IN PROGRESS

Information on the implementation of this recommendation can be found in the First Progress Report. 

Further work on the development of a template for interdisciplinary teams has been on hold due to the 

ongoing Covid-19 pandemic. 

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 TO BE CONSIDERED

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

Information on the implementation of this recommendation can be found in the First Progress Report. 

See Recommendation 57.

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

Information on the implementation of this recommendation can be found in the First Progress Report. 

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

See also Recommendation 67.

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

See Recommendation 67.

43

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 IN PROGRESS

In 2019, the GCMC began discussing whether the creation of an office of public guardian should be 
considered by the Advisory Council in order to develop guardianship support services. The OEJC was 
asked to research the role of state courts’ administrative offices of the courts regarding guardianship 
support and monitoring, and states that have an office of public guardian to ascertain how such offices are 
funded. The OEJC contacted all 50 administrative offices of state courts and any offices of public guardian. 
In the fall of 2021, a profile was created for each state that summarized the guardianship monitoring 
practices of the administrative office of the courts and the responsibilities of an office of public guardian or 
other similar guardianship services agency. The GCMC is reviewing the OEJC’s research. 

RECOMMENDATION 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).

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION IS IN PROGRESS

Information on the implementation of this recommendation can be found in the First Progress Report. 

See Recommendation 39.

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 TO BE CONSIDERED

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

44

Information on the implementation of this recommendation can be found in the First Progress Report. 

See also Recommendation 67.

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 continues to study and discuss the issue of fees for guardians for the services they provide to 

IPs. See also Recommendation 5. 

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 IN PROGRESS

In 2019, the GCMC began discussing whether the creation of an office of public guardian should 

be considered by the Advisory Council. The OEJC was asked to research the role of state courts’ 
administrative offices of the courts regarding guardianship support and monitoring, and states that have an 
office of public guardian. The OEJC contacted all 50 administrative offices of state courts and any offices of 
public guardian to ascertain how such offices are funded. In the fall of 2021, a profile was created for each 
state that summarized the guardianship monitoring practices of the administrative office of the courts and 
the responsibilities of an office of public guardian or other similar guardianship services agency. The GCMC 
is reviewing the OEJC’s research. 

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

Information on the implementation of this recommendation can be found in the First Progress Report. 

See Recommendation 39.

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).

45

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 continue to be studied by the 
GCMC as training programs and resource materials for guardians are being developed. 

See also Recommendation 67.

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 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

Information on the implementation of this recommendation can be found in the First Progress Report.

See also Recommendation 5.

RECOMMENDATION 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).

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION IS IN PROGRESS

In 2020, the GCMC began to develop content for a model handbook for newly-appointed Pennsylvania 
guardians. Training materials from the Fundamentals of Guardianship: What Family and Non-Professional 
Guardians Need to Know, the GTS and court handbooks across the Commonwealth were reviewed. The 
GCMC continues to refine the model handbook’s content, and online training modules for guardians that 
are being developed will coordinate with the content of the model handbook.

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).

46

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION IS TO BE CONSIDERED

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 TO BE CONSIDERED

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

Information on the implementation of this recommendation can be found in the First Progress Report.

Public awareness about the OEJC is increasing due to information provided on the Unified Judicial 

System’s website, and training offered to guardians. Inquiries and requests for assistance on guardianships 
and other elder justice issues have increased each year. From 2019 through 2021, the OEJC responded to 
111 inquiries and requests for assistance. 

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

Information on the implementation of this recommendation can be found in the First Progress Report.

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

In March 2019, Mary Catherine Scott, Esquire and Secretary Robert Torres participated in the 12th Annual 

Dean’s Diversity Forum at Widener University’s Commonwealth Law School, What Happens After You’ve 
Built the Present: Race, Policy and the Future of America’s Elderly.

Throughout 2019, the Advisory Council continued its outreach to Pennsylvania’s law schools - Villanova, 

Penn, Temple, Widener, Duquesne, Pitt, Penn State Law and Dickinson Law. President Judge George N. 
Zanic, Karen C. Buck, Esquire, District Attorney Eugene Vittone II, John N. Kennedy, Esquire, Anne N. 
John, Esquire, Mary Catherine Scott, Esquire, Zygmont A. Pines, Esquire, Darren Breslin, Esquire and 
Administrative Judge Sheila A. Woods-Skipper met with law schools to encourage them to focus their 
clinics on elder justice issues and to discuss the possible creation of clinical programs concentrated on 

47

elder abuse/financial exploitation. 

In October 2019, the Supreme Court met with the deans of Pennsylvania’s law schools to encourage the 
schools to focus on elder abuse and/or financial exploitation in their clinical programs. Justice Debra Todd 
expressed to the deans the Supreme Court’s commitment to elder justice in Pennsylvania and reiterated 
that the Advisory Council members remain available to further discuss specific ways the law schools can 
focus on issues of elder justice. 

In 2020, Karen C. Buck, Esquire and John N. Kennedy, Esquire met with the dean of Penn State Law and 

Dickinson Law. 

In 2021, Mary Catherine Scott, Esquire and the Advisory Council began work on the development of a 
syllabus for a law school curriculum designed to broaden law students’ exposure to elder justice issues, 
and to demonstrate to the law schools that education regarding elder justice issues can be provided at low 
cost. The Advisory Council hopes to partner with Widener University’s Commonwealth Law School in 2022 
to pilot the curriculum before it is expanded to other law schools. The EANC will continue to make outreach 
and communicate with law schools to assist them in appropriately developing an elder justice curriculum. 

In July 2021, Justice Todd wrote to the law school deans applauding some of the schools for their 
accomplishments in focusing on the critical issues of elder justice and encouraging other schools to 
increase their focus on elder issues through funding provided to all of the law schools with grants from the 
Interest on Lawyers Trust Account (IOLTA). Justice Todd conveyed to the Interest on Lawyers Trust Account 
Board (IOLTA Board) the Court’s emphasis on law schools using some of their IOLTA funds to focus on 
serving the elder population. Discussions are continuing among the Supreme Court, the IOLTA Board and 
the law school deans on ways the law schools can focus their efforts on developing elder clinics and other 
programs to assist older Pennsylvanians. 

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 TO BE CONSIDERED

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 TO BE CONSIDERED

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).

48

√ THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED

Information on the implementation of this recommendation can be found in the First Progress Report. 

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 subsequent legislative sessions since 2013. Although the bill 
number has changed each session, the content of the bill has not. Information on the initial implementation 
of this recommendation can be found in the First Progress Report on the Work of the Advisory Council on 
Elder Justice in the Courts. 

During the 2019-20 legislative session, Senator Art Haywood introduced the legislation as Senate Bill 23. 

The bill was again not considered during the legislative session. 

The legislature is currently in the 2021-22 legislative session. To date, the comprehensive legislation 

of past sessions has not been introduced. Representative Gary Day has introduced a component of 
Senator Art Haywood’s bill providing for the appointment of counsel in guardianship proceedings. See 
also the section New 2019-2020 Legislative Initiatives Supported by the Advisory Council on page 100. 
Senate Judiciary Chari Lisa Baker and Senator Art Haywood are working on a scaled-down version of 
the comprehensive guardianship bill that will include language providing for the appointment of counsel, 
establishing parameters on who may be appointed as a guardian, requiring guardian certification, amending 
provisions on the determination of incapacity and appointment of guardians, and adding language to 
govern the appointment of supportive teams. 

 

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 subsequent legislative sessions since 2013. Although the bill 
number has changed each session, the content of the bill has not. Information on the initial implementation 
of this recommendation can be found in the First Progress Report on the Work of the Advisory Council on 
Elder Justice in the Courts. 

See Also Recommendation 92.

49

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 TO BE CONSIDERED

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 TO BE CONSIDERED

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 TO BE CONSIDERED

RECOMMENDATION 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

Information on the implementation of this recommendation can be found in the First Progress Report. 

RECOMMENDATION 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

Information on the implementation of this recommendation can be found in the First Progress Report. 

 

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

Senate Bill 117 has been reintroduced in subsequent legislative sessions since 2013. Although the bill 
number has changed each session, the content of the bill has not. Information on the initial implementation 

50

of this recommendation can be found in the First Progress Report on the Work of the Advisory Council on 
Elder Justice in the Courts. 

See Also Recommendation 92.

 

RECOMMENDATION 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).

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 several 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 Art Haywood, 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. 

During the 2019-20 legislative session, Senator Patrick M. Browne circulated a co-sponsorship memo 
to reintroduce the comprehensive bill codifying Section 116 and enacting several recommendations of the 
February 2018 report of the Advisory Committee on Decedents’ Estates Laws. A bill was never formally 
introduced. Senator Art Haywood did not reintroduce his legislation. 

The legislature is currently in the 2021-22 legislative session. No bills have been introduced that address 

Section 116. 

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 

51

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

While legislation providing for mandatory minimum or enhanced sentences for the conviction of crimes 

against elders has not been introduced, Senior Judge Ott and Administrative Judge Woods-Skipper 
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

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 that 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. 

During the 2019-20 legislative session, Representative Tedd C. Nesbit introduced House Bill 1845. The 

legislation sought to amend Chapter 88 of Title 20 to include elder abusers – a term defined by the bill 
– under the Slayer Statute provisions, thereby barring an abuser from benefiting from the estate of the 
abused individual. Upon Representative Tedd C. Nesbit’s election to the court of common pleas in 2019, 
Representative Paul Schemel took the lead on sponsoring the bill. The session expired and the bill was not 
considered. 

The legislature is currently in 2021-22 legislative session. Representative Paul Schemel has circulated a 

co-sponsorship memorandum expressing his intent to reintroduce the legislation.

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 in Act 44 of 
2017. While no specific requirements exist in the law targeting funding to elders, it is estimated the new 

52

$2 temporary surcharge will provide an additional $7.2 million in annual revenue for the Access to Justice 
Account, which could benefit elder litigants. 

During the 2019-20 session, the temporary surcharge for Access to Justice that was enacted in Act 44 

was made permanent in Act 20 of 2019.

The legislature is currently in 2021-22 legislative session. Legislation impacting the Access to Justice 

provisions has not been introduced. 

 

 

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 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 Tim 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 Tim 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 contained provisions that would have – generally – 
defined new terms including financial exploitation and financial institution, provided for duties of financial 
institutions (including training of financial service industry personnel to assist employees in recognizing 
signs of potential financial abuse), allowed for the refusal of fund disbursements and provided for the ability 
to freeze transactions in situations where financial exploitation may have occurred. Finally, Senate Bill 899 
sought to address the decision in Peake v. Commonwealth, 132 A.3d 506 (Pa.Cmwlth.2015), that held 
lifetime bans for individuals convicted of certain enumerated offenses from working in care of older adults 
facially violated due process and violated due process as applied to applicants. The 2017-18 legislative 
session expired before the bills were considered. 

During the 2019-20 legislative session, the legislation was reintroduced by Representative Tim Hennessey 

and Senator Robert Mensch as House Bill 1930 and Senate Bill 819. The House bill was reported from 
the Aging and Older Adult Services Committee. The Senate bill was unanimously passed by the Senate. 
Neither bill advanced further before the legislative session ended. 

The legislature is currently in the 2021-22 legislative session. House Bill 1681 has been reintroduced by 
Representative Tim Hennessey, while Senator Robert Mensch has circulated a prior co-sponsorship memo 
for his legislation. To date, no further movement has occurred.

53

While not a recommendation of the Task Force, on July 31, 2019, Governor Wolf issued Executive Order 

2019-05, which established the Office of Advocacy and Reform and a Council on Reform. Secretary of 
Aging Robert Torres served as a member of the Council on Reform. 

Among other things, the Order directed the Department of Aging to update and disseminate the OAPSA’s 

mandatory reporting training to mandatory reporters. The Office of Advocacy and Reform was required to 
conduct a study on the types of financial exploitation that had been perpetrated and the fiscal impacts the 
losses had on the victims, the economy, and the state. 

In September 2020, the Department of Aging released the Financial Exploitation of Older Adults Study 

Report that reviewed 455 financial exploitation cases involving elders in 14 Pennsylvania counties. In 
the 315 substantiated financial exploitation cases, the average loss was $39,395. Based on that loss and 
the 1,488 substantiated financial exploitation cases statewide, the study extrapolated that elders in the 
Commonwealth had a collective estimated loss of $58 million during fiscal year 2017-2018. 

Among the Study’s recommendations for the prevention of future financial exploitation in Pennsylvania 
was the formation of an interdisciplinary Financial Exploitation Task Force, which met from December 2020 
through April 2021. In June 2021, the Financial Exploitation Task Force issued its Financial Exploitation 
of Older Adults Task Force Report, which contained recommendations for specific actions that could be 
taken in four category areas – education, training, operations, and procedures - to help prevent elders from 
being financially exploited. 

The Council on Reform was tasked with studying best practices regarding the health, safety, and welfare 
of vulnerable Pennsylvanians, and making recommendations to improve the support and protection of this 
population. The Advisory Council offered its assistance to the Council on Reform. 

On November 1, 2019, the Council on Reform issued its Recommendations to Protect Vulnerable 

Populations, which included recommendations for persons aged 60 and above. Recommendations 
focused predominantly on protecting elders from abuse, empowering victims of abuse to come forward and 
eliminating the risk of future abuse or neglect; preventing abuse, reducing social isolation and educating 
about how to identify elders who may be at risk for abuse or neglect; and intervention – providing support 
to vulnerable elders, eliminating systems that cause further trauma to victims and improving how abusers 
are held accountable. 

 

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

See Recommendation 104.

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

See Recommendation 104.

54

RECOMMENDATION 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 TO BE CONSIDERED

RECOMMENDATION 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).

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION IS TO BE CONSIDERED

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 Elder Abuse Task Forces (EATF). 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

Information on the implementation of this recommendation can be found in the First Progress Report. 

 

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

Information on the initial implementation of this recommendation can be found in the First Progress 

55

During the 2019-20 legislative session, the bill was reintroduced as House Bill 398. The bill did not 

advance before the legislative session ended. 

The legislature is currently in the 2021-22 legislative session. Representative Gary Day has introduced 
the bill as House Bill 1430. The bill was amended and reported unanimously from the House Aging and 
Older Adult Services Committee. Important changes were made by the Committee’s amendment, including 
modification of the definition of financial exploitation and removal of the provisions providing for immunity 
for financial advisors who make reports to law enforcement or government agencies. 

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).

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION HAS BEEN DEFERRED

Report. 

 

RECOMMENDATION 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

Information on the implementation of this recommendation can be found in the First Progress Report. 

However, additional legislative funds and funding sources are always needed. 

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 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. 

The bill sought to add a new provision, Section 5515.3 governing bonds, and establish 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 were prescribed, and courts would 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 regarding “cause shown” and whether such determinations are appealable. The 
legislature did not further amend the provision to clarify the term “cause shown.” The 2017-18 legislative 
session expired before the bill was considered further. 

56

During the 2019-20 legislative session and after the retirement of Senator Stewart Greenleaf, Senator 

Art Haywood introduced the legislation as Senate Bill 23. The bill was again not considered during 
the legislative session. The legislature is currently in the 2021-22 legislative session. To date, the 
comprehensive legislation of past sessions has not been introduced. 

An ongoing priority of the GCMC has been improving the posting of adequate security by guardians with 
responsibility for the financial assets of an IP. The GCMC has been researching whether to recommend or 
require that an adequate bond be posted in cases when the IP’s assets are over $10,000.

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

Information on the implementation of this recommendation can be found in the First Progress Report. 

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

Since 2019, the OEJC has collaborated with the AOPC’s Communications Department (Communications) 
to raise public awareness about elder abuse, neglect and exploitation. Each year on June 15, in recognition 
of World Elder Abuse Day, graphics with content about how to report elder abuse and the Pennsylvania 
courts’ efforts to protect vulnerable adults have been posted online through the Unified Judicial System’s 
Facebook and Twitter accounts. 

Given the Covid-19 pandemic, the EANC has been considering ways to increase public awareness about 

elder abuse and financial exploitation in a virtual setting. In the spring of 2021, under the leadership of 
Administrative Judge Sheila A. Woods-Skipper, and with interagency collaboration, two one-hour, virtual 
“town hall” sessions that focused on the prevention of and response to elder abuse were developed. The 
partners (and panelists) in the collaborative effort were the Department of Aging, the OAG, the Pennsylvania 
Department of Banking and Securities and SeniorLAW Center. The OEJC and Communications handled the 
logistics and hosting of the sessions.

The first town hall session, Understanding and Identifying Elder Abuse, was presented on June 16. The 
second town hall session, Preventing and Responding to Financial Exploitation, was presented on June 23. 
Attendees participated virtually by WebEx, YouTube and Facebook. Telephone access was provided for 
those who did not have internet access. 

Attendees heard from victims and the panelists about their experiences with elder abuse and financial 
exploitation, what Pennsylvania’s courts and justice partners have been doing to address these issues, 
how to recognize elder abuse and financial exploitation, what to do/where to report if suspected, and 
investigation of and remedies for financial exploitation. Questions were taken at the end of each town hall, 
and attendees were provided with a list of resources. The town hall sessions were subsequently broadcast 
on the Pennsylvania Cable Network. 

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 

57

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 IN PROGRESS

On July 31, 2019, Governor Tom Wolf issued Executive Order 2019-05, which established the Office of 
Advocacy and Reform and a Council on Reform.  Secretary of Aging Robert Torres served as a member of 
the Council on Reform. 

Among other things, the Order directed the Department of Aging to update and disseminate the OAPSA’s 

mandatory reporting training to mandatory reporters.  The Office of Advocacy and Reform was required to 
conduct a study on the types of financial exploitation that had been perpetrated and the fiscal impacts the 
losses had on the victims, the economy, and the state.  

In September 2020, the Department of Aging released the Financial Exploitation of Older Adults Study 

Report that reviewed 455 financial exploitation cases involving elders in 14 Pennsylvania counties.  In 
the 315 substantiated financial exploitation cases, the average loss was $39,395.  Based on that loss and 
the 1,488 substantiated financial exploitation cases statewide, the study extrapolated that elders in the 
Commonwealth had a collective estimated loss of $58 million during fiscal year 2017-18.   

Among the Study’s recommendations for the prevention of future financial exploitation in Pennsylvania 
was the formation of an interdisciplinary Financial Exploitation Task Force, which met from December 2020 
through April 2021.  Representatives from government agencies, the financial sector, law enforcement, 
elder law firms, and others were included. Due to the collaborative efforts of this group, communications 
and the sharing of information regarding financial exploitation concerns have increased between financial 
institutions and the Area Agencies on Aging.

In June 2021, the Financial Exploitation Task Force issued the Financial Exploitation of Older Adults 

Task Force Report, which contained recommendations for specific actions that could be taken in four 
category areas – education, training, operations, and procedures - to help prevent elders from being 
financially exploited.    

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 IN PROGRESS

See Recommendation 115. The development of formal relationships between the Area Agencies on 

Aging and financial institutions was recommended in the June 2021 Financial Exploitation of Older 
Adults Task Force Report.

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 TO BE CONSIDERED

58

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. 

In 2019, the Advisory Council sent a letter to the secretary of DHS that requested DHS consider 
increasing the allowable amount of the fees for guardian services provided for IPs who receive long-
term care medical assistance grants. The letter also requested that the services of guardians who assist 
individuals maintained in their own homes in the community with support of Community Health Choices 
be an allowable expense under these grants. DHS subsequently requested data on guardianships from the 
GTS from the OEJC. 

In the 2021-22 legislative session, Representative Gary Day introduced legislation to increase the 

reimbursement rate under the medical assistance program for a guardian of an older adult from $100 to 
$300.  The legislation – House Bill 1356 – would require DHS to seek the necessary authorization to raise 
the rate from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services of the U.S. Department of Health.  

The bill was the subject of a public hearing on October 26, 2021, during which Administrative Judge 

Lois E. Murphy and Pamela Walz, Esquire, provided testimony in support of the concept of raising 
the reimbursement rate.  Earlier in the session, Representative Melissa Shusterman introduced House 
Resolution 47, which urges DHS to increase the fee paid to guardians of IPs.

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. 

See Recommendation 118.

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 

59

to raise the 2015 VOCA [Victims of Crime] cap. See Overarching Administrative Findings and 
Recommendations, §X.C.1. (Page 231).

√ THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED

Information on the implementation of this recommendation can be found in the First Progress Report. 

The federal Office for Victims of Crime administers the Crime Victims Fund, which was established under 

the 1984 Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) to help victims and victim service providers with program funding. 
The Crime Victims Fund helps an average of 3.7 million victims of all types of crime annually. From 2014 
through 2018, Congress generally raised the VOCA cap (the appropriations level of the Crime Victims Fund) 
upwards. The cap was more than $4.4 billion in fiscal year 2018.

The VOCA cap was $3.353 billion in fiscal year 2019, $2.641 billion in fiscal year 2020, and $2.015 billion 

in fiscal year 2021. 

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).

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION IS IN PROGRESS 

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 GCIP was proposed. This proposal is 
based on the CIP, which is a model for federal support of court-community collaboration in the child welfare 
arena. The GCIP 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, Maine Senator Susan M. Collins, Chairman, and Pennsylvania Senator 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 Paula Francisco Ott sent a letter to the Special Committee, responding to its 
request on behalf of the Advisory Council. In addition to addressing the four topics, the letter included a list 
of ten policy options, recommendations, 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. 

Efforts are continuing to encourage the federal government to act on proposed legislation that would 

fund a GCIP. In 2020, the ABA adopted Resolution 105, which “Urges Congress to create and fund a 
Guardianship Court Improvement Program for adult guardianship (following the model of the State Court 
Improvement Program for child welfare agencies created in 1993) to support state court efforts to improve 
the legal process in the adult guardianship system, improve outcomes for adults subject to or potentially 

60

subject to guardianship, increase the use of less restrictive options than guardianship, and enhance 
collaboration among courts, the legal system, and the aging and disability networks.” (Resolution 105). 

In May 2021, the Fourth National Guardianship Summit was convened to “…discuss the current state 

of the nation’s adult guardianship system and develop recommendations for reform and improvement 
around the theme of maximizing autonomy and ensuring accountability.” (Recommendations Adopted by 
Summit Delegates.) Administrative Judge Lois E. Murphy and Karen Buck, Esquire, were delegates to the 
Summit.

The Summit’s delegates adopted six multi-part recommendations, among them a call to Congress to 
establish a GCIP that should include, among other things, funding to be provided to the states’ highest 
courts, inter-agency and multi-disciplinary collaboration among guardianship stakeholders, and the 
creation of a “national, non-profit capacity-building and/or resource center with appropriate expertise to 
provide training, technical assistance, and collaborative learning opportunities to participating courts and to 
coordinate national efforts.” (Recommendations Adopted by Summit Delegates.)

On October 1, 2021, as part of the record for the U.S. Senate Judiciary’s Subcommittee on the 

Constitution’s hearing on “Toxic Conservatorships: The Need for Reform,” the National Academy of Elder 
Law Attorneys submitted a statement urging Congress to authorize and fund a GCIP. (NAELA Article 
10/1/2021). 

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). 

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THESE RECOMMENDATIONS IS IN PROGRESS

In the fall of 2019, the Advisory Council was in the process of assisting with training topics to be 

presented at a future conference of the Pennsylvania Association of District Attorneys (PDAA). President 
Judge George N. Zanic and District Attorney Eugene A. Vittone II, communicated with PDAA regarding 
trainings. Due to the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic, further discussions have been on hold. 

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).

and 

61

√ THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RECOMMENDATION HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED

Information on the implementation of this recommendation can be found in the First Progress Report. 

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 HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED

Information on the implementation of this recommendation can be found in the First Progress Report. 

In November 2019, funding from the AOPC’s STOP Violence Against Women grant afforded five 
Pennsylvania judges the opportunity to attend the National Judicial Institute on Domestic Violence’s 
workshop, Enhancing Judicial Skills in Elder Abuse Cases. President Judge George N. Zanic and 
Administrative Judge Sheila A. Woods-Skipper participated from the Advisory Council. 

In 2021, the OEJC was provided with STOP grant funding to print and distribute the enhanced Elder 

Abuse Bench Card and to cover the expenses for all presentations of the magisterial district judge 
educational program, In Your Court: Identifying Elder Abuse and Financial Exploitation. The Elder Abuse 
Bench Card was provided to all common pleas judges in December, and will be provided to magisterial 
district judges in 2022. The educational program will be presented during the Minor Judiciary Education 
Board’s “school” for newly elected magisterial district judges and the 13-week continuing education 
session for magisterial district judges.

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).

√ THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THESE RECOMMENDATIONS HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED 

Information on the implementation of these recommendations can be found in the First Progress 

Report. 

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

In March 2019, Justice Debra Todd and Zygmont Pines, Esquire met with the Pennsylvania Bar 

and 

62

Association’s Executive Director, Barry M. Simpson, Esquire, President Charles Eppolito III, Esquire and 
incoming President Anne N. John, Esquire, to formalize a relationship with the Association and discuss 
collaboration on the Task Force’s initiatives. A standing membership on the Advisory Council was created 
for the president of the Pennsylvania Bar Association (or the president’s designee). PBA President Anne N. 
John, Esquire, joined the Advisory Council as the Pennsylvania Bar Association’s representative. 

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 

Information on the implementation of this recommendation can be found in the First Progress Report. 

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

From 2019 through 2021, members of the Advisory Council continued to participate in training programs 

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

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).

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

Information on the implementation of these recommendations can be found in the First Progress 

Report. 

and 

63

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

In 2019, a new web page called “Elder Justice in the Courts” was posted on the Unified Judicial System’s 

website. The web page consolidated information and resources regarding Pennsylvania courts’ work on 
elder justice issues, elder abuse, guardianship, and GTS.

Since 2019, the OEJC has collaborated with Communications to raise public awareness about elder 
abuse, neglect, and exploitation. Each year on June 15, in recognition of World Elder Abuse Day, graphics 
with content about how to report elder abuse and the Pennsylvania courts’ efforts to protect vulnerable 
adults have been posted online through the Unified Judicial System’s Facebook and Twitter accounts. 

In light of the Covid-19 pandemic, the EANC considered ways to increase public awareness about 
elder abuse and financial exploitation in a virtual setting. In the spring of 2021, under the leadership 
of Administrative Judge Sheila A. Woods-Skipper, and with interagency collaboration, two one-hour, 
virtual “town hall” sessions focused on the prevention of and response to elder abuse. The partners (and 
panelists) in the collaborative effort were the Department of Aging, the OAG, the Pennsylvania Department 
of Banking and Securities, and SeniorLAW Center. The OEJC and Communications handled the logistics 
and hosting of the sessions.

The first town hall session, Understanding and Identifying Elder Abuse, was presented on June 16, 2021. 

The second town hall session, Preventing and Responding to Financial Exploitation, was presented on 
June 23, 2021. Attendees participated virtually by WebEx, YouTube, and Facebook. Telephone access was 
provided for those who did not have internet access. 

Attendees heard from victims and the panelists about their experiences with elder abuse and financial 
exploitation, what Pennsylvania’s courts and justice partners have been doing to address these issues, how 
to recognize elder abuse and financial exploitation, and what to do/where to report if they are suspected, 
and investigation of and remedies for financial exploitation. Questions were taken at the end of each town 
hall, and attendees were provided with a list of resources. The town hall sessions were subsequently 
broadcast on the Pennsylvania Cable Network. 

64

NEW PROJECTS/INITIATIVES OF THE 
ADVISORY COUNCIL

ADVISORY COUNCIL’S RESPONSE TO THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC

Access to Justice for Elders During the Covid-19 (Coronavirus) Pandemic

Since the Advisory Council published its First Progress Report, no event has had as significant 
an impact on the judiciary as the Covid-19 pandemic. As Governor Tom Wolf was preparing to order 
the closure of all non-life sustaining business due to the public health emergency, the Supreme Court 
issued an order on March 16, 2020, authorizing the president judge in each county to declare a local 
judicial emergency to protect the health and safety of court personnel and the public. Subsequent orders 
directed that all courts should generally be open to conduct business with limited in-person access and 
proceedings. Most judicial districts operated under an emergency declaration from March 2020 through 
July 6, 2021, at which time they returned to pre-pandemic operating status by order of the Supreme Court. 

Shortly after courthouses throughout the Commonwealth either ceased or limited their in-person 

operations, the Advisory Council recognized the need to promptly address the extraordinary challenges 
created by the Covid-19 pandemic that were severely impacting vulnerable older Pennsylvanians and their 
access to justice. The medical community had declared that older adults were among those most at risk 
for serious illness or death from the Coronavirus, and there were reported shortages of personal protective 
equipment. Many elders had no idea how to access the courts during the closures and were concerned 
about their safety in public places such as courthouses. 

65

In April 2020, the OEJC and the Department of Aging issued a joint press release to ensure that the 
Commonwealth’s elders knew that the courts remained open for immediate legal protection, including 
temporary PFA actions, guardianship representation, and any pleadings or motions relating to public health 
concerns or involving immediate and irreparable harm. Information was also provided about organizations 
available to help with legal assistance and the statewide Elder Abuse Reporting Hotline. Later that month, 
Justice Debra Todd participated in a television interview on the combined efforts of the Supreme Court, the 
OEJC, and the Department of Aging to reassure elders that the Courts were available to them during the 
Covid-19 emergency. 

In November 2020, the Advisory Council issued a public statement in support of the report, Immediate 
Actions Pennsylvania Must Take to Address the COVID-19 Crisis in Long-Term Care Facilities. The report 
was issued by the PA Advocates for Improved COVID-19 Response in Long-Term Care Facilities, a coalition 
of advocates for older persons and persons with disabilities.

Advanced Communication Technology 

In April 2020, the Advisory Council determined the increased use of advanced communication technology 

(ACT) would allow homebound elders and long-term care residents who required access to essential court 
services and who had internet access to fully participate in court proceedings from a safe environment.

ACT is defined as “any communication equipment that is used as a link between parties in physically 

separate locations, and includes, but is not limited to: systems providing for two-way simultaneous 
communication of image and sound; closed-circuit television; telephone and facsimile equipment; and 
electronic mail” (Rule 103 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure). 

The Advisory Council had followed the progress of orphans’ courts that had been using Zoom, WebEx 

and other video technologies to conduct virtual guardianship hearings and other matters. Judges, 
attorneys, guardians, elders and their family members reported that their experience with ACT was 
uniformly favorable. Some judges stated that virtual proceedings engendered more participation from family 
members and intellectually disabled people and affected the representation of IPs positively. 

In consultation with Court Administrator of Pennsylvania, Geoff Moulton, the Advisory Council discussed 

how the use of ACT could be made more effective and permanent post-pandemic, and that some 
proceedings being relied on during the Covid-19 pandemic may not be able to be conducted remotely 
under the Orphans’ Court Rules. Administrative Judge Lois E. Murphy contacted the OCPRC regarding the 
continued use of ACT following the termination of judicial emergencies and proposed that the committee 
adopt a rule providing that judges have the discretion to conduct remote proceedings or let some parties 
participate virtually.

As part of its efforts to encourage the continued use of ACT post-pandemic, in the fall of 2020, the 
Advisory Council made outreach to the PBA’s Joint Task Force on the Continuity of Delivery of Legal 
Services. The Joint Task Force was addressing the disruption in legal services caused by the pandemic; 
examining the challenges faced by courts, government offices and law firms; and updating processes and 
technologies to enable the legal system to continue to operate under emergencies similar to the pandemic. 
(PBA Joint Task Force Report, pages 1-3). Anne N. John, Esquire, and Karen Buck, Esquire, outlined the 
obstacles and challenges faced by older adults that were amplified by the Covid-19 pandemic, including 
how to assist elders who do not have internet access. 

President Judge George N. Zanic and Administrative Judge Lois E. Murphy were asked to serve as 

members of the AOPC/Pennsylvania Conference of State Trial Court Judges’ Remote Proceedings 
Task Force on Continued Use of ACT Following the Termination of Judicial Emergencies. The Remote 
Proceedings Task Force’s mission was to gather information, share best practices and lessons learned 

66

regarding the use of ACT, and identify and make recommendations to the Supreme Court concerning 
procedural rule changes that may be necessary or desirable to facilitate certain remote court proceedings 
once the local judicial emergencies ended. (Remote Proceedings Task Force Report, pages 1-2). 

In December 2021, the OCPRC published proposed new Orphans’ Court Rule 1.20 governing the use 
of ACT. The new rule incorporates a definition of ACT, and delegates rule-making authority relative to the 
use of ACT to the judicial districts in the form of local rules. Public comments on the new rule proposal 
were received and the OCPRC (along with other committees) submitted a recommendation to the Supreme 
Court in April 2022. 

Concurrent with the Advisory Council’s efforts regarding ACT, Department of Aging Secretary Robert 

Torres was working with AARP and the Pennsylvania Association of Area Agencies on Aging on an initiative 
to provide electronic devices to nursing home residents for virtual visitation with families and others. Within 
two months, 107 cell phones and 6 tablets were provided to facilities in 12 counties. 

Resources for Courts, Guardians and the Public During the Covid-19 Pandemic

Immediately after the Supreme Court issued its March 16, 2020 order authorizing president judges to 

declare a local judicial emergency and courts ceased or limited their in-person operations, the Unified 
Judicial System began providing updates on its website about the statewide court response to the 
Covid-19 pandemic’s effect on court operations and proceedings. The Advisory Council and OEJC posted 
resource information for the public regarding elders on the “Frequently Asked Questions” page.

In May 2020, the OEJC provided all president judges, district court administrators, clerks of the orphans’ 

courts, and guardians with information and resources for guardians to help them carry out their duties 
during the pandemic. The OEJC also reminded guardians that their guardianship reports were still due and 
that they still had a duty to maintain contact with the IP during the pandemic. 

In March 2021, the OEJC sent information about frequently asked questions regarding the Covid-19 

vaccine to guardians of IPs in nursing homes. 

RESOURCE GUIDES FOR HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS AND 
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS REGARDING POWERS OF ATTORNEY 
AND GUARDIANSHIP ORDERS

The Advisory Council recognizes that frontline, non-legal staff in the health care and financial sectors 

are often presented with legal documents such as powers of attorney and guardianship orders. Such 
documents may create confusion at, for example, a nurses’ station or bank teller’s window, when frontline 
staff address requests made by guardians and persons designated as having power of attorney. These 
document holders may receive delayed access to an IP’s health care and/or financial information if a legal 
document is interpreted incorrectly or if a request is denied by frontline staff.

In November 2019, in an effort to eliminate confusion on the part of frontline staff and help reduce 

occurrences of elder abuse and financial exploitation, the Advisory Council and OEJC partnered 
with representatives from the health care and financial sectors to create a Resource Guide for Health 
Care Providers, a Resource Guide for Financial Institutions Regarding Powers of Attorney (POA) and 
Guardianship Orders, and Definitions for Resource Guides for Financial Institutions and Health Care 
Providers. The resource guides are intended to help frontline staff identify when to escalate a document 
holder’s request involving a guardianship order or power of attorney to their institution’s legal department. 

67

The collaborative effort was led by Anne John, Esquire, Dr. Bruce M. Bushwick and Administrative 

Judge Lois E. Murphy. Representatives from the PBA’s Health Law Committee, Pennsylvania Guardianship 
Services, LLC, the Pennsylvania Medical Society and Guardian ElderCare created the health care resource 
guide. Representatives from the Pennsylvania Department of Banking and Securities’ Financial Services 
for Consumers and Businesses Office and Investor Education and Consumer Outreach Office, the PA 
Bankers Association, PNC Bank, the PBA’s Probate Division’s Real Property Probate and Trust Section and 
Pennsylvania Guardianship Services, LLC created the financial institution guide. All representatives created 
the definitions list that is a supplement to both resource guides. The AOPC’s Legal Department provided 
guidance on the production of the resource guides.

 Work on the resource guides continued throughout 2020 and 2021. In December 2021, the Resource 
Guide for Health Care Providers and Definitions for Resource Guides for Financial Institutions and Health 
Care Providers were published and distributed. Work on the Resource Guide for Financial Institutions 
Regarding Powers of Attorney (POA) and Guardianship Orders is almost complete, and approval/
publication are expected in early 2022.

LESS RESTRICTIVE ALTERNATIVES TO GUARDIANSHIP

Although the Pennsylvania Guardianship Bench Book includes best practices regarding the use 
and effectiveness of limited guardianships, over the last two years, the GCMC has been examining less 
restrictive alternatives to guardianship. Such alternatives include supported decision-making, advance 
directives, powers of attorney, and formal and informal services, all of which further an IP’s greater self-
determination.

In 2020, Administrative Judge Lois E. Murphy, Karen C. Buck, Esquire, and Pamela Walz, Esquire, 
met with advocacy groups to discuss what supported decision-making might look like in Pennsylvania. 
“Supported decision-making describes the process by which most individuals make decisions - by 
consulting with friends, family, social services, community organizations, and/or other sources of support to 
weigh the pros and cons of a decision, review potential outcomes, and finally make a choice. The practice 
of supported decision-making takes many forms - from recognition of organic decision-making networks to 
formal, written supported decision-making agreements.” (American Bar Association’s website). 

Several presentations on alternatives to guardianship and supported decision-making have been made 

by Advisory Council members. On March 5, 2020, Administrative Judge Lois E. Murphy and Karen C. 
Buck, Esquire, were members of a panel on supported decision-making at the University of Pennsylvania’s 
Institute on Aging. On July 17, 2020, Administrative Judge Lois E. Murphy and Pamela Walz, Esquire, 
presented on alternatives to guardianship as part of a Pennsylvania Bar Institute webinar. 

In 2021, members of the GCMC continued to meet with advocacy groups regarding supported decision-

making and to plan a presentation to the Advisory Council on the topic. In May 2021, Administrative 
Judge Lois E. Murphy and Karen C. Buck, Esquire, were invited to serve as delegates to the Fourth 
National Guardianship Summit: Maximizing Autonomy and Ensuring Accountability, organized by the 
National Guardianship Network and hosted by Syracuse University’s College of Law. One hundred 
twenty-five guardianship stakeholders, among them judges, family guardians, attorneys and advocates, 
gathered virtually to discuss the current state of the adult guardianship system in the U.S. and make 
recommendations for its reform and improvement. 

At the conclusion of the Summit, the delegates adopted 22 recommendations, including the elimination 

of plenary guardianships (and, if a guardianship is imposed, require tailored guardianship orders in all 
cases) (Recommendation 3.2), and that statutes, court rules, policies and processes in every state should 
require courts to consider supported decision-making as one of the alternatives to guardianship at 
appointment and periodically thereafter (Recommendation 2.3).

68

Since the Summit, the GCMC has been working on the creation of optional forms for final decrees to 

increase the efficacy of limited guardianship. Work is also underway to write and publish an article on 
supported decision-making, plan an educational presentation to the legislature about alternatives to 
guardianship and encourage modifications to guardianship training provided to pro bono attorneys to 
include alternatives to guardianship. 

LEGAL SERVICES FOR GRANDPARENTS

In 2019, Secretary Robert Torres and Karen C. Buck, Esquire, 

worked with a group of statewide agencies to assess what services 
are available for grandparents who are raising grandchildren and how 
to enhance them. At the request of Secretary Torres, Senior Judge 
Paula Francisco Ott participated in the May 16 Grandfamilies Work 
Group Meeting.

In 2020, the Department of Aging worked on a proposal to increase 

funding and reimbursements for grandparents, and SeniorLAW 
Center was awarded a federal grant to enhance legal services for 
grandparents, including sharing information about available legal 
access. In 2021, SeniorLAW Center was awarded another federal 
grant to further enhance legal services for grandparents and 
education about their rights, access to justice and legal issues. An 
update on the work of that grant is scheduled for the March 2022 
meeting of the Advisory Council. 

ACCESS TO JUSTICE FOR VETERANS

According to the VA, almost half of veterans are age 65 and 
over (VA website). In 2019, the director of the Pro Bono Program 
of the Lawyers Serving Warriors Project presented to the Advisory 
Council on serving the legal needs of older veterans and the need 
to increase awareness among veterans regarding legal services that 
are available to them. To raise awareness about legal services for 
veterans, the Advisory Council determined it would be beneficial to 
provide information about the Lawyers Serving Warriors Project and 
similar organizations to the Commonwealth’s 25 veterans treatment 
courts. These courts assist veterans charged with crimes who are 
struggling with addiction, mental illness or co-occurring disorders 
and who come in contact with the criminal justice system. 

The OEJC, working with Advisory Council members, compiled 
an extensive list of legal services programs and organizations for 
veterans and provided it to the AOPC’s problem-solving courts 
administrator for distribution to the coordinators of veterans 
treatment courts. 

69

U.S./U.K. ELDER JUSTICE RESEARCH COLLABORATION

The OEJC and members of the Advisory Council on Elder Justice in the Courts hosted scholar and 
magistrate Dr. Hannah Bows on July 16 and 17, 2019, in Philadelphia and Harrisburg. Dr.  Bows is an 
Assistant Professor in Criminal Law at Durham Law School in the United Kingdom, Deputy Director of the 
Centre for Research into Violence and Abuse, and Co-Director of the Centre for Criminal Law and Criminal 
Justice who researches violence and abuse against elders. She requested to visit Pennsylvania and other 
states to understand how the U.S. responds to abuse and crimes against elders.  Dr. Bows met with Senior 
Judge Paula Francisco Ott, Administrative Judge Sheila A. Woods-Skipper, Zygmont A. Pines, Esquire, 
Karen Buck, Esquire, and Diane Menio in Philadelphia, and with Cherstin Hamel, Damian Wachter, Esquire, 
Representative Thomas Murt, Rev. Ronald W. Costen, Ph.D., Esquire, and Erin Raub in Harrisburg. 

NEW LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVES  
SUPPORTED BY THE ADVISORY COUNCIL

CRIMINALIZING THE POSTING OF AUDIO, VIDEO OR STILL IMAGES 
OF CARE-DEPENDENT PERSONS ON SOCIAL MEDIA WITH THE 
INTENT TO RIDICULE OR DEMEAN

The OEJC’s director suggested to the Advisory Council that the posting of photographs, audio or video 

of care-dependent persons is abusive, and that the enactment of legislation should be considered. The 
Advisory Council agreed and called attention to the social media abuse of care-dependent persons to the 
legislature through AOPC’s Legislative Affairs Department (Legislative Affairs). 

During the 2019 - 20 legislative session, House Bill 400 was introduced by Representative Kate Klunk. 

The Advisory Council was involved in developing and providing feedback and policy guidance on the 
drafting of the legislation. The bill amends the current criminal offense of abuse of a care-dependent person 
to include the use of “any audio, video or still image of [a] care-dependent person in any format or medium, 
on or through any electronic service, wireless communication or any form of electronic service or wireless 
communication as pertaining to communication” with the intent to ridicule or demean. The bill grades the 
offense as a third-degree misdemeanor. The legislation passed the House unanimously, but no further 
action was taken in the Senate before the end of the session. 

During the 2021-22 legislative session, House Bill 400 was reintroduced in identical form by 

Representative Kate Klunk as House Bill 1431. The bill passed the House 198-4, and the Senate 48-2, and 
was signed into law by Governor Tom Wolf on June 30, 2021, as Act 49 of 2021. 

CREATING AND DEFINING A NEW CRIMINAL OFFENSE: FINANCIAL 
EXPLOITATION OF ELDERLY OR CARE-DEPENDENT PERSONS

During the 2019-20 legislative session, House Bill 399 was introduced by Representative Lynda Culver. 
It was similar to language in House Bill 2581 of the 2017-18 session. The legislation sought to create and 
define the offense of financial exploitation of elderly or care-dependent persons.  The bill defined financial 
exploitation as: 

70

The wrongful or unauthorized taking or attempt to take by withholding, appropriating, concealing 
or using the money, assets or property of an older adult or care-dependent person, including any 
act or omission taken by a person, including through the use of a power of attorney, guardian, 
custodian, trustee, personal representative, or conservator of an older adult or care-dependent 
person or by an individual who stands in a position of trust and confidence with an older adult or 
care-dependent person, including business transactions to: 

(1) Obtain or attempt to obtain control, through deception, intimidation, or undue influence, 
over the older adult’s or care-dependent person’s money, assets, or property to deprive the 
older adult or care-dependent person of the ownership, use, benefit or possession of the 
older adult’s or care-dependent person’s money, assets or property; or 

(2) convert or attempt to convert money, assets or property of the older adult or care-
dependent person to deprive the older adult or care-dependent person of the ownership, 
use, benefit or possession of the older adult’s or care-dependent person’s money, assets or 
property.

The grading of the offense – ranging from a third-degree misdemeanor to a first-degree felony – was 
based on the amount involved. Additionally, the bill granted concurrent jurisdiction to the attorney general 
to investigate and institute criminal proceedings for violations of the new crime or related offenses.  The bill 
also included provisions on venue and hearsay evidence in preliminary hearings. 

The legislation was referred to the Aging and Older Adult Services Committee, and Legislative Affairs met 

with Committee staff regarding venue and hearsay evidence in preliminary hearings and provisions that 
were included in the bill, discussing among other issues the court’s role in setting procedures to govern 
those matters. Representative Lynda Culver and staff were amenable to the suggestion that the venue and 
hearsay language be removed from the legislation.

During the 2021-22 legislative session, House Bill 1429 was introduced incorporating the language 

defining the offense and concurrent jurisdiction, but not the venue and hearsay language. The bill passed 
the House unanimously and passed the Senate 48-1. The bill was signed into law by Governor Tom Wolf on 
June 30, 2021, as Act 48 of 2021. 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL IN GUARDIANSHIP PROCEEDINGS

Under Pennsylvania law and the United States Constitution, a court must appoint counsel to represent 
persons in certain court proceedings where individuals’ constitutional rights are in jeopardy, such as the 
imposition of criminal penalties, termination of parental rights, and involuntary mental health commitment, 
among others. In adult guardianship proceedings, persons are at risk of losing all their fundamental 
constitutional rights to decision-making and autonomy concerning their finances and their residential and 
medical decisions. Thus, the lack of adequate representation in this area is a matter of significant concern. 

Pennsylvania’s guardianship statute contemplates a right to counsel but places the burden on the AIP 
to request counsel. As a practical matter, this means that in many cases the hearing date is at hand and 
the AIP is not represented. In some cases, such as when the person under guardianship resides in a state 
mental hospital, this right to counsel has been more clearly recognized and enforced. Pennsylvania’s 
Orphans’ Court Rules require that the court advise persons adjudicated to be incapacitated that they 
have a right to have counsel appointed for them, free of charge, for the filing of an appeal or motion for 
reconsideration, or for seeking to terminate or modify a guardianship. 

The concept for the appointment of counsel in adult guardianship cases was laid out in a 2012 report 

of the Advisory Committee on Decedents’ Estates Laws of the Joint State Government Commission. 

71

Following from the report, Senator Stewart Greenleaf introduced legislation incorporating the numerous 
legislative recommendations made in the report. They included the appointment of counsel for the AIP in 
Senate Bill 1614 (2011-12 legislative session). The language amended 20 Pa.C.S. § 5511 regarding the 
appointment of counsel as follows: 

(a.2) Appointment of counsel.

(1) If counsel has not been retained by or on behalf of the alleged incapacitated person, the 
petitioner under subsection (a) shall notify the court at least seven days prior to the hearing. 

 (2) The court shall appoint counsel to represent the alleged incapacitated person in any 
matter for which counsel has not been retained by or on behalf of the alleged incapacitated 
person: 

(i) in appropriate cases as the court determines; and 

(ii) in all cases in which the court knows in advance that the alleged incapacitated 
person is not expected to be present at the hearing, either in person or by 
videoconference.

The following year, Senator Greenleaf reintroduced the legislation as SB 117 (2013-14 legislative 

session). The Elder Law Task Force, in its 2014 Report and Recommendations, recommended 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.” 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 revised rule went into effect on June 1, 2019. 

Senator Greenleaf continued to introduce the bill every session through the 2017-2018 legislative session. 

In the 2019-20 legislative session, Senator Art Haywood took up the cause of the comprehensive bill, 
including the appointment of counsel provisions, in Senate Bill 23. It is expected Senator Art Haywood will 
again introduce the bill during the 2021-22 legislative session. 

In November 2020, Legislative Affairs met with Representative Gary Day and Aging and Older Adult 
Services Committee staff to review the comprehensive Title 20 bill that had been introduced in multiple 
sessions. At the urging of the Advisory Council, discussions were held on the idea of decoupling some of 
the provisions from the larger bill into their own stand-alone bills, e.g., appointment of counsel. Legislative 
Affairs also communicated with the Joint State Government Commission, which was agreeable to the 
idea of a stand-alone bill requiring the appointment of counsel for AIPs in guardianship proceedings. 
Administrative Judge Lois E. Murphy offered that the GCMC could provide supporting materials regarding 
the rationale for right to counsel, and the difference it makes to appoint counsel in all cases. 

The GCMC crafted a concept paper laying out the recommendation to make the appointment of 

counsel mandatory in guardianship cases, assuring that the due process rights of AIPs are protected as 
constitutionally required. The concept paper was shared with Representative Gary Day and the Advisory 
Council. 

During the 2021-22 legislative session, Representative Gary Day introduced appointment of counsel 
legislation as House Bill 1928. A public hearing was held on the bill on October 26. Administrative Judge 
Lois E. Murphy and Pamela Walz, Esquire, testified as a part of a panel that included Community Legal 
Services, LeadingAge PA and retired judge and chair of the OCPRC, Emil A. Giordano, who testified as 
a private practitioner at the request of Representative Day. The Pennsylvania Association of Elder Law 
Attorneys submitted testimony for the record. The concept paper developed by the GCMC was provided 
to committee members. Senate Judiciary Chair Lisa Baker and Senator Art Haywood have circulated a 
co-sponsorship memo for legislation that would, among other things, require the appointment of counsel in 
these cases.

72

Advisory Council 

Advisory Council on Elder Justice in the Courts 

APPENDIX A
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

Area Agency on Aging

American Bar Association

Advanced Communication Technology 

Alleged Incapacitated Person 

Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts 

Center for Advocacy for the Rights & Interests of the Elderly

Court Improvement Program

Continuing Legal Education

Communications 

AOPC’s Communications Department

CPCMS 

Common Pleas Case Management System 

Department of Aging 

Pennsylvania Department of Aging

First Progress Report 
 

First Progress Report on the Work of the Advisory Council on  
Elder Justice in the Courts

Pennsylvania Department of Human Services

Elder Abuse and Neglect Committee 

Elder Abuse Task Force 

Electronic Case Record Public Access Policy of the Unified Judicial  
System of Pennsylvania

Electronic Filing

Elder Justice Resource Center

Guardianship Court Improvement Program

Guardianship Counsel and Monitoring Committee 

Guardianship Support Agency

Guardianship Tracking System

Guardianship Tracking System Governance Committee

Interest on Lawyers Trust Accounts 

IOLTA Board 

Interest on Lawyers Trust Accounts Board

73

AAA 

ABA 

ACT 

AIP 

AOPC 

CARIE 

CIP 

CLE 

DHS 

EANC 

EATF 

ECR 
 

E-File 

EJRC 

GCIP 

GCMC 

GSA 

GTS 

GTS GC 

IOLTA 

IP 

IT 

LBFC 

NAPA 

OAG 

OAPSA 

OCPRC 

OEJC 

Pa.C.S. 

PDAA 

PFA 

PFAD 

PSP 

Legislative Affairs 

AOPC’s Legislative Affairs Department

Incapacitated Person 

AOPC’s Information Technology Department 

Legislative Budget and Finance Committee

National Academy of Public Administration

Office of Attorney General

Older Adults Protective Services Act

Supreme Court Orphans’ Court Procedural Rules Committee 

Office of Elder Justice in the Courts 

Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes

Pa.R.O.C.P. 

Pennsylvania Orphans’ Court Rules

Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association

Protection from Abuse Order

Protection from Abuse Database

Pennsylvania State Police

Research 

AOPC’s Research and Statistics Department

SSA 

United States Social Security Administration 

Supreme Court 

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 

Task Force 

Elder Law Task Force 

U.S. Attorney’s Office 

United States Attorney’s Office 

VA 

VOCA 

United States Department of Veterans Affairs 

Victims of Crime Act

74

APPENDIX B
TRAINING PROGRAMS, EDUCATIONAL PRESENTATIONS  
AND ADDITIONAL ACTIVITIES OF MEMBERS OF  
THE ADVISORY COUNCIL IN SUPPORT OF IMPROVING  
THE LIVES OF PENNSYLVANIA’S ELDERS

Information on training programs and educational presentations from 2015 through 2018 can be found in 

the January 2015 through December 2018 Progress Report on the Work of the Advisory Council on Elder 
Justice in the Courts. 

2019

February 22, 2019 
Widener Law Commonwealth
Harrisburg, PA 
12th Annual Dean’s Diversity Forum on Elder 
Justice Work at the Civil Law Clinic
Mary Catherine Scott, Esquire

March 5, 2019 
Drexel Law School
Philadelphia, PA
Drexel Law School Presentation 
Karen C. Buck, Esquire

March 19, 2019 
Philadelphia Bar Association
Philadelphia, PA
Delivery of Legal Services - Committee 
Presentation 
Karen C. Buck, Esquire

April 11, 2019 
Dauphin County Area Agency on Aging’s Elder 
Task Force Meeting
Harrisburg, PA 
Widener University Clinic’s Representation  
in the Area of Protective Services
Mary Catherine Scott, Esquire

April 11, 2019 
Dispute Resolution Institute
Philadelphia, PA
Continuing Legal Education Course 
Karen C. Buck, Esquire

April 25, 2019 
Register of Wills and Clerk of Orphans’ Court 
Association Spring Conference
State College, PA
Update on the Work of the Advisory Council  
on Elder Justice in the Courts
Lisa Grayson, Esquire

May 9, 2019 
Allegheny County District Attorney’s Office  
and Other Local Agencies’ Senior Justice  
and Wellness Expo
Pittsburgh, PA 
Panel Discussion on the Current State  
of Senior Justice in Allegheny County
Stephen A. Zappala Jr., Esquire

May 16, 2019 
Pennsylvania Department of Aging
Virtual Meeting
Grandfamilies Work Group Meeting
Senior Judge Paula Francisco Ott and Secretary of 
Aging Robert Torres

June 6, 2019 
Pennsylvania Department of Aging
Harrisburg, PA 
Legal Assistance for Older Pennsylvanians 
Conference
Panel Discussion – Guardianship and Alternatives 
Justice Debra Todd, Senior Judge Paula Francisco Ott 
and Secretary of Aging Robert Torres 

June 7, 2019 
26th Senate District Meeting 
Morton, PA
Briefing on Senior Legal Issues in Delaware 
County 
Karen C. Buck, Esquire

June 16, 2019 
Register of Wills and Clerk of Orphans’ Court 
Association’s Summer Conference
Erie, PA
Update on the Work of the Advisory Council  
on Elder Justice in the Courts
Lisa Grayson, Esquire

75

July 16, 2019 
Legal Scholar Dr. Hannah Bows, Durham 
University Law School, United Kingdom
Harrisburg, PA
Research Visit – How the U.S. Responds  
to Elder Abuse/Crimes Against Elders 
Damian Wachter, Esquire, Cherstin Hamel, 
Representative Thomas Murt, Erin Raub,  
and Ronald W. Costen, Ph.D., Esquire 

July 17, 2019 
Legal Scholar Dr. Hannah Bows, Durham 
University Law School, United Kingdom
Philadelphia, PA
Research Visit – How the U.S. Responds to Elder 
Abuse/Crimes Against Elders 
Senior Judge Paula Francisco Ott, Administrative 
Judge Sheila Woods-Skipper, Zygmont A. Pines, 
Esquire, Karen C. Buck, Esquire and Diane Menio

July 18, 2019 
Pennsylvania Bar Institute Estate Law Institute
Philadelphia, PA 
GTS and New Guardianship Rules Panel and 
Emergency Guardianship Panel
Administrative Judge Lois E. Murphy

July 23, 2019 
Montgomery County Bar Association
Norristown, PA 
The Role of Counsel in Representing  
the Alleged Incapacitated Person
Administrative Judge Lois E. Murphy

July 25, 2019
Pennsylvania Conference of State Trial Judges
Hershey, PA
Guardianship Tracking System –  
Experience and Best Practices
Administrative Judge Lois E. Murphy

August 7, 2019 
Dauphin County Bar Association Meeting
Harrisburg, PA 
Orphans’ Court/Estate Planning Issues
Wayne M. Pecht, Esquire

September 4, 2019 
Chester County Elder Abuse Task Force Meeting
West Chester, PA
Presentation with Honorable Katherine Platt 
Senior Judge Paula Francisco Ott

September 12, 2019 
12th District Town Hall Meeting
Horsham, PA 
Update on the Work of the Advisory Council  
on Elder Justice in the Courts
Pennsylvania State Senator Maria Collett

76

September 30, 2019 
Pennsylvania State University 
State College, PA 
Update on the Work of the Advisory Council  
on Elder Justice in the Courts
President Judge George N. Zanic and  
Karen C. Buck, Esquire

October 15, 2019 
Lower Susquehanna Synod Northern  
Lancaster Conference
Harrisburg, PA
Elder Victimization and an Update on the Work of 
the Advisory Council on Elder Justice in the Courts
Ronald W. Costen, Ph.D., Esquire

October 18, 2019 
Register of Wills and Clerk of Orphans’ Court 
Association Fall Conference
Skytop, PA
Update on the Work of the Advisory Council  
on Elder Justice in the Courts
Lisa Grayson, Esquire

November 1, 2019 
American Bar Association’s National Aging  
and Law Conference
Arlington, VA
Guardianship Tracking System Rapid Fire 
Presentation
Senior Judge Paula Francisco Ott

November 8, 2019 
Pennsylvania Bar Institute Estate Law Institute
Philadelphia, PA 
Guardianship and New Guardianship Rules  
Panel Discussion
Administrative Judge Lois E. Murphy

November 15, 2019 
National College of Probate Judges Fall 
Conference
Philadelphia, PA
Pennsylvania Guardianship Tracking System 
Educational Session
Senior Judge Paula Francisco Ott, Administrative 
Judge Lois E. Murphy and Cherstin Hamel 

November 20, 2019 
Pennsylvania Association of Area Agencies  
on Aging (P4A) Conference of Protective  
Service Workers
Gettysburg, PA 
Guardianship and Alternatives to Guardianship
Administrative Judge Lois E. Murphy and Diane Menio

November 20, 2019 
Lower Susquehanna Synod Northern Lancaster 
Conference
Lancaster, PA 
Elder victimization and the Work of the Advisory 
Council on Elder Justice in the Court
Ronald W. Costen, Ph.D., Esquire

2020

January 10, 2020
Kutztown University
Kutztown, PA 
Work of the Advisory Council on Elder Justice  
in the Court
Ronald W. Costen, Ph.D., Esquire

February 22, 2020 
Pennsylvania Association of Elder Law  
Attorneys Conference
Bedford, PA
Orphans’ Court Procedural Rules Committee’s 
Guardianship Forms, Elder Law Task Force’s 
Involvement in the Creation of New Forms,  
Rules, and the GTS. 
Senior Judge Paula Francisco Ott

March 5, 2020 
University of Pennsylvania’s Institute on Aging 
Philadelphia, PA
Supported Decision-Making for Older Adults:  
What it is and Why it Matters to Pennsylvanians
Administrative Judge Lois E. Murphy and Karen C. 
Buck, Esquire

March 10, 2020 
Department of Justice’s Elder Justice  
Task Force Meeting
Harrisburg, PA
Guardianship Tracking System Overview 
Cherstin Hamel and Amy Whitworth

March 10, 2020 
Public Event by Representative Jack Rader 
Kunkletown, PA
Grandparents Raising Grandchildren 
Secretary of Aging Robert Torres

April 29, 2020 
Fox 43 Television Interview 
Discussion on the Combined Efforts of the 
Supreme Court, the Office of Elder Justice in the 
Courts and the Department of Aging to Protect 
Seniors During the Covid-19 Emergency
Justice Debra Todd

May 7, 2020 
Joint Hearing of the Pennsylvania Senate’s  
Aging and Youth and Health and Human  
Services Committees
Harrisburg, PA
Testimony About the Oversight of the Facilities, 
Access of Guardians and the Ongoing  
Covid-19 Crisis
Pennsylvania State Senator Maria Collett 

July 25, 2020
Pennsylvania Conference of State Trial Judges
Hershey, PA
Guardianship Tracking System –  
Experience and Best Practices
Administrative Judge Lois E. Murphy

July 17, 2020 
Pennsylvania Bar Institute
Webinar
Alternatives to Guardianship
Administrative Judge Lois E. Murphy and Pamela 
Walz, Esquire 

September 23, 2020 
National Center for State Courts
Webinar
Court Management of Guardianship Hearings 
During the COVID-19 Pandemic
Administrative Judge Lois E. Murphy

September 28, 2020 
SeniorLAW Center 
Webinar
Grandparents Raising Grandchildren 
Secretary of Aging Robert Torres and Eugene A. 
Vittone II, Esquire

October 29, 2020 
Pennsylvania Medical Society and the 
Pennsylvania Bar Association’s
Webinar
Health Care Decision-Making for Cognitively 
Impaired Patients 
Administrative Judge Lois E. Murphy

December 3, 2020 
Massachusetts Guardianship Policy Institute’s 
Colloquium on Guardianship Monitoring  
and Oversight
Virtual Conference
Guardianship Tracking System Overview 
Senior Judge Paula Francisco Ott, Amy Whitworth, 
and Keith Hinkel Jr.

77

2021

January 13, 2021
Public Event by Senator Maria Collett 
Virtual Town Hall
Covid-19 Vaccines
Pennsylvania State Senator Maria Collett

January 24, 2021
Office of Elder Justice in the Courts
Webinar
Report Reviewer Training for Judges – Monitoring 
Guardianship Cases: What GTS Can do for You
Senior Judge Paula Francisco Ott and Keith Hinkel Jr.

February 22, 2021 
Pennsylvania Senate Meeting
Harrisburg, PA
Meeting with the Center for Advocacy for the 
Rights & Interests of the Elderly and Community 
Legal Services 
Pennsylvania State Senator Maria Collett

February 25, 2021
Pennsylvania Conference of State Trial Judges
Hershey, PA
Orphans’ Court Judges Meeting Presentation
Senior Judge Paula Francisco Ott

February 26, 2021
Pennsylvania Association of Elder Law  
Attorneys Virtual Meeting 
Current Issues before Pennsylvania’s  
Department of Aging
Secretary of Aging Robert Torres

March 10, 2021
Office of Elder Justice in the Courts 
Virtual Training
Fundamentals of Guardianship: What Family and 
Non-Professional Guardians Need to Know
Joan Kretchmer and Keith Hinkel Jr. 

March 16, 2021
Pennsylvania Senate’s Aging and Youth  
Committee Hearing
Harrisburg, PA
Covid-19 Vaccine Distribution 
Pennsylvania State Senator Maria Collett

March 30, 2021
Pennsylvania Bar Institute
Webinar
Challenges of Representing a Client with 
Diminished Capacity 
Administrative Judge Sheila Woods-Skipper

March 30, 2021
Montgomery County Senior Adult Activities Center
Norristown, PA
Access to Senior Programs
Pennsylvania State Senator Maria Collett

April 28, 2021
Pennsylvania Senate’s Aging and Youth Committee
Harrisburg, PA
Voting Meeting on HB 464  
(Amendments to the Family Caregiver Support Act)
Pennsylvania State Senator Maria Collett

May 7, 2021
Temple University – Lewis Katz School  
of Medicine Virtual Meeting
3rd Mini-Symposium on Aging:  
Aging During COVID
Secretary of Aging Robert Torres

May 18, 2021
Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts 
Judicial Education
Webinar
Emerging Issues in Elder Law 
Administrative Judge Sheila Woods-Skipper and 
Secretary of Aging Robert Torres

May 19, 2021
Temple American Inn of Court
Webinar
Guardianship/Conservatorships: “Oops, I Did It 
Again (That’s Why They Are Dragging Me to Court 
on a Guardianship Hearing)” 
Administrative Judge Sheila Woods-Skipper

May 20, 2021
Pennsylvania Senate’s Aging and Youth Committee 
Harrisburg, PA 
Public Hearing on the Needs of Long-Term Care 
Facilities One Year After the Beginning of the 
COVID-19 Emergency Declaration
Pennsylvania State Senator Maria Collett

March 23, 2021
Pennsylvania Senate’s Aging and Youth Committee
Harrisburg, PA
Voting Meeting on SB 190 (Role of Essential 
Family Caregivers During a Pandemic with Limited 
Access to Loved Ones in Long-Term  
Care Facilities)
Pennsylvania State Senator Maria Collett

May 25, 2021
Pennsylvania Senate’s Judiciary Committee
Harrisburg, PA
Voting Meeting on SB 704 (Establishment  
of an Offense of Institutional Sexual Assault  
by a Caretaker)
Pennsylvania State Senator Maria Collett

78

June 2, 2021
Pennsylvania Senate’s Policy Committee Hearing
Virtual Hearing
Pennsylvania’s Nursing Homes
Pennsylvania State Senator Maria Collett

June 8, 2021
Pennsylvania Senate’s Aging and Youth Committee
Harrisburg, PA
Voting Meeting on Additional Legislation Related 
to Essential Caregivers in Long-Term Care 
Facilities
Pennsylvania State Senator Maria Collett

June 15, 2021
Pennsylvania Department of Aging
Media Briefing
Task Force Recommendations to Address 
Financial Exploitation of Older Adults
Secretary of Aging Robert Torres, David Shallcross 
and Kenneth G. Potter, Esquire

July 12 and 14, 2021 
Register of Wills and Clerk of Orphans’ Court 
Association’s Summer Conference 
Pittsburgh, PA
Executive Committee Update on the Work of the 
Advisory Council on Elder Justice in the Courts
Lisa Grayson, Esquire

July 20, 2021
Office of Elder Justice in the Courts 
Virtual Training
Fundamentals of Guardianship: What Family and 
Non-Professional Guardians Need to Know
Joan Kretchmer and Keith Hinkel Jr. 

July 21, 2021
Office of Elder Justice in the Courts 
Virtual Training
Fundamentals of Guardianship: What Family and 
Non-Professional Guardians Need to Know
Joan Kretchmer and Keith Hinkel Jr. 

June 16, 2021 
Advisory Council on Elder Justice in the Courts
Virtual Town Hall
Preventing and Responding to Elder Abuse
Administrative Judge Sheila Woods-Skipper and David 
Shallcross

July 28, 2021
Pennsylvania Conference of State Trial Judges
Hershey, PA
Presentation to Orphans’ Court Judges 
Senior Judge Paula Francisco Ott

June 17, 2021
Office of Elder Justice in the Courts
Webinar
Report Reviewer Training for Court Staff – 
Reviewing the Inventory and Report of the 
Guardian of the Estate 
Senior Judge Paula Francisco Ott and Keith Hinkel Jr. 

June 23, 2021 
Advisory Council on Elder Justice in the Courts
Virtual Town Hall
Preventing and Responding to Financial 
Exploitation
Administrative Judge Sheila Woods-Skipper

June 23, 2021
Pennsylvania Senate’s Judiciary Committee
Harrisburg, PA
HB 1431 Discussion (Abuse of a Care-Dependent 
Person by a Caretaker)
Pennsylvania State Senator Maria Collett

June 24, 2021
Office of Elder Justice in the Courts
Webinar
Report Reviewer Training for Court Staff – 
Reviewing the Inventory and Report of the 
Guardian of the Estate 
Senior Judge Paula Francisco Ott and Keith Hinkel Jr. 

August 23, 2021
Pennsylvania Senate’s and House of 
Representative’s Aging & Youth and Health and 
Human Services Joint Committee Meeting
Harrisburg, PA 
Department of Human Services Medicaid Contract
Pennsylvania State Senator Maria Collett

August 24, 2021
Dauphin County Bar Association
Webinar
Serving as the Eyes and Ears of the Court –  
Review of Guardianship to Protect both the 
Incapacitated and Guardian
Mary Catherine Scott, Esquire

September 7, 2021 
Pennsylvania Senate’s Oversight Committee 
Chairs Meeting
Harrisburg, PA 
Briefing on Covid-19 Vaccine Booster Shot  
Rollout with the Departments of Health,  
Human Services, and Aging
Pennsylvania State Senator Maria Collett

September 15, 2021 
Pennsylvania Senate’s Aging & Youth and Health 
and Human Services Joint Committee Meeting
Harrisburg, PA
Long-Term Care Industry Regulations
Pennsylvania State Senator Maria Collett

79

November 4, 2021
Office of Elder Justice in the Courts 
Virtual Training
Fundamentals of Guardianship: What Family and 
Non-Professional Guardians Need to Know
Joan Kretchmer and Keith Hinkel Jr. 

November 4, 2021
Office of Elder Justice in the Courts
Webinar
Report Reviewer Training for Court Staff – 
Reviewing the Inventory and Report of the 
Guardian of the Estate 
Senior Judge Paula Francisco Ott and Keith Hinkel Jr. 

December 2, 2021
Office of Elder Justice in the Courts
Webinar
Report Reviewer Training for Court Staff – 
Reviewing the Report of the Guardian of the 
Person
Senior Judge Paula Francisco Ott and Keith Hinkel Jr. 

December 8, 2021
Office of Elder Justice in the Courts 
Virtual Training
Fundamentals of Guardianship: What Family and 
Non-Professional Guardians Need to Know
Joan Kretchmer and Keith Hinkel Jr. 

December 9, 2021
Office of Elder Justice in the Courts 
Virtual Training
Fundamentals of Guardianship: What Family and 
Non-Professional Guardians Need to Know
Joan Kretchmer and Keith Hinkel Jr. 

December 9, 2021
Office of Elder Justice in the Courts
Webinar
Report Reviewer Training for Court Staff – 
Reviewing the Inventory and Report of the 
Guardian of the Estate OR Guardian of the Person
Senior Judge Paula Francisco Ott and Keith Hinkel Jr.

September 15, 2021
Department of Aging, Area Agencies on  
Aging and the Pennsylvania Council on  
Aging Quarterly Meeting
Hershey, PA 
Power of Attorney Resource Guides for Financial 
Institutions and Health Care Providers
Secretary of Aging Robert Torres and Anne N. John, 
Esquire

October 5, 2021
Office of Elder Justice in the Courts 
Virtual Training
Fundamentals of Guardianship: What Family and 
Non-Professional Guardians Need to Know
Joan Kretchmer and Keith Hinkel Jr. 

October 6, 2021
Office of Elder Justice in the Courts 
Virtual Training
Fundamentals of Guardianship: What Family and 
Non-Professional Guardians Need to Know
Joan Kretchmer and Keith Hinkel Jr. 

October 19, 2021
Office of Elder Justice in the Courts 
Virtual Training
Fundamentals of Guardianship: What Family and 
Non-Professional Guardians Need to Know
Joan Kretchmer and Keith Hinkel Jr. 

October 20, 2021
Office of Elder Justice in the Courts 
Virtual Training
Fundamentals of Guardianship: What Family and 
Non-Professional Guardians Need to Know
Joan Kretchmer and Keith Hinkel Jr. 

October 26, 2021
Pennsylvania’s House of Representative’s Aging 
and Older Adult Committee
Harrisburg, PA
Testimony Regarding Proposed Guardianship 
Legislation
Administrative Judge Lois E. Murphy and Pamela 
Walz, Esquire 

November 3, 2021
Office of Elder Justice in the Courts 
Virtual Training
Fundamentals of Guardianship: What Family and 
Non-Professional Guardians Need to Know
Joan Kretchmer and Keith Hinkel Jr.

80

APPENDIX C

PRESENTATIONS AND EDUCATION FORUMS MADE TO THE 
ADVISORY COUNCIL ON ELDER JUSTICE IN THE COURTS 2015-2018

Information on Presentations and Education forums made to the Advisory Council from 2015 through 2019 
can be found in the January 2015 through December 2018 Progress Report on the Work of the Advisory 
Council on Elder Justice in the Courts. 

2019 

June 5, 2019
Office of the Attorney General
368+ App for Review by the Advisory Council
David Shallcross, Director, Elder Protection Unit, Office of Attorney General

June 5, 2019
Office of Chief Counsel/Governor’s Office of General Counsel Pennsylvania Department of Aging
Coordination of Efforts between Pennsylvania’s Department of Aging and Department of Corrections
Neeka Jones, Esquire, Chief Counsel, Governor’s Office of Chief Counsel

June 5, 2019
Pennsylvania Department of Corrections
Presentation on Issues Affecting Incarcerated Elders
John E. Wetzel, Secretary of Corrections

September 19, 2019
Pro Bono Program Lawyers Serving Warriors® (Project of the National Veterans Legal Services Program)
Access to Justice for Elder Veterans
Rochelle Bobroff, Esquire, Director of Pro Bono Program Lawyers Serving Warriors® (Project of the National 
Veterans Legal Services Program)

November 21, 2019 
The Harry and Jeanette Weinberg Foundation
Foundation Overview 
Robert T. Kelly Jr., Esquire, Chair & Trustee Weinberg Foundation 
Earl Millett, Program Officer

2021

September 9, 2021
SeniorLAW Center
Presentation on the Eviction Crisis
Jacob S. Speidel, Esquire, Director, Tenant Rights

81

APPENDIX D

PENNSYLVANIA ORPHANS’ COURT RULES

The following material has been drawn directly from  

the official Pennsylania Code full text database.

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100