The Supreme Court

o f   P e n n s y l v a n i a

http://www.pacourts.us/courts/supreme-court/committees/supreme-court-boards/elder-law-task-force

601 Commonwealth Avenue
P.O. Box 61260
Suite 1500
Harrisburg, PA 17106

Report and Recommendations 
of the Elder law task force

NOVEMBER 2014

The Elder Law Task Force

Explanatory Statement

While we recognize that many adults live long, healthy and productive lives well beyond the 
age of 60, for the purposes of this Report, the Elder Law Task Force defines 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 is on elders. 

Disclaimer Statement

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

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

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

or

Office of Attorney General Elder Abuse Hotline:  1-866-623-2137

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1

Table of Contents

Forewords:

Chief Justice Ronald D. Castille ..........................................................................................................2
Madame Justice Debra Todd ...............................................................................................................3
Court Administrator of Pennsylvania Zygmont A. Pines ......................................................................4

Preface ...................................................................................................................................................6

PART I
Members and Staff of the Elder Law Task Force ....................................................................................7
Background ..........................................................................................................................................10
Scope of the Challenge Nationally and in Pennsylvania ...................................................................10
Guardianships ...................................................................................................................................12
Elder Abuse and Neglect ...................................................................................................................17
Access to Justice ..............................................................................................................................22
Need for the Elder Law Task Force ...................................................................................................23
Mission of the Elder Law Task Force .................................................................................................25
Methodology .........................................................................................................................................26
Structure and Focus of the Elder Law Task Force  ...........................................................................26
Elder Law Task Force and Committee Meetings ...............................................................................27
Presentations Made to the Elder Law Task Force .............................................................................28
Elder Law Task Force Research and Analysis ..................................................................................29

PART II
Reports of the Elder Law Task Force Committees ...............................................................................31
Guardians and Counsel Committee Report ......................................................................................32
Guardianship Monitoring Committee Report ...................................................................................112
Elder Abuse and Neglect Committee Report ................................................................................. 186

PART III
Overarching Findings and Recommendations of 

the Elder Law Task Force Concerning Court Administration, 
Judicial Education, Funding, and Public Awareness ...................................................................... 220
Categorized Recommendations of the Elder Law Task Force  .......................................................... 233
Recommendations to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania  ....................................................... 233
 
Recommendations	to	the	Office	of	Elder	Justice	in	the	Courts	
	
 
 
and to the Advisory Council on Elder Justice in the Courts .................................................. 239
Recommendations to the Legislative Branch .............................................................................. 241
 
Recommendations to the Executive Branch ............................................................................... 243
 
Recommendations to the Federal Government .......................................................................... 244
 
Recommendations to Prosecutors .............................................................................................. 244
Recommendations to Victim Services Providers ........................................................................ 244
Recommendations to Bar Associations ...................................................................................... 244
Recommendations to the Public ................................................................................................. 245

 

Abbreviations and Acronyms ............................................................................................................. 246
Definitions .......................................................................................................................................... 248
Endnotes ........................................................................................................................................... 255
Bibliography ....................................................................................................................................... 263
Appendices ........................................................................................................................................ 272

Appendix A:  

Appendix B: 

Appendix C: 

Appendix D: 

March 31, 2014, letter to the Chairman and Ranking Members of  
the U.S. House Committee on Appropriations  and the Subcommittee  
on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies ........................................................... 272

April 11, 2014, letter to the Chairwoman and Ranking Member of  
the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and Science of the  
U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee .................................................................................... 280

Red Flags of Abuse Fact Sheet  .............................................................................................. 283

11 Things that Anyone Can Do to Prevent Elder Abuse Fact Sheet ......................................... 285

chief’s letter

2

2

3

3

4

4

5

5

  Our nation and Commonwealth are truly blessed to have an increasing number of elders who are 
living longer, healthier and active lives. Those of the “Greatest Generation” who served our country, and 
others of advanced years, have contributed, and continue to contribute, to our society. These citizens 
impart a wealth of wisdom, a deep understanding of our past and an abiding faith that links the past, 
present, and future. They enable us to pass down traditions from one generation to another, providing 
stability and continuity. Indeed, many elders are not only active in the workplace, but also are volunteers 
in	our	hospitals,	nonprofits	and	government	where	they	selflessly	devote	countless	hours	to	others.	Yet,	
with the aging population, which has given so much to subsequent generations, come unique challenges 
that affect our institutions, including the judiciary.

 
As  the  Commonwealth’s  population  continues  to  age,  the  court  system  is  facing  unprecedented 
needs. Court cases dealing with the protection of vulnerable elders, including guardianships and elder 
abuse proceedings, are expected to increase substantially.1 The Pennsylvania courts’ capacity to “provide 
services and remedies must be bolstered to meet the growing numbers and needs of older adults. The 
range,	efficacy,	and	quality	of	services	that	abused,	neglected,	and	exploited	older	persons	receive	from	
the	courts	is	a	matter	of	public	trust	and	confidence.”2

As the National Center for State Courts (“NCSC”) policy paper on elder abuse states, “[t]he judicial 
 
system supports proposed budgets and laws that provide resources for the courts that enable them to 
develop practices and responses to a host of issues impacting the older population….Additional court 
resources will become critical as the courts experience an increase in cases involving elder abuse and 
an aging population as a result of the demographic shift in American society.”3 The Elder Law Task Force 
(“Task Force”) concurs with this assessment.

  With challenges, however, come opportunities: “State courts are uniquely positioned to create programs 
and policies that will improve court responses to the growing problem of elder abuse,” guardianships, 
and access to justice for elders.4 “Although courts have neither the power of the sword nor the purse, 
they	do	have	the	neutral	moral	authority	to	call	public	and	private	officials	together	to	discuss	how	best	
to address a shared problem. Courts around the country have exercised this authority to explore more 
effective (and cost-effective) ways of dealing with such matters as substance abuse, child protection, and 
domestic violence….These endeavors demonstrate how judicial leadership at state and local levels can 
fuel improvements in the legal system to better address elder law issues.”5 

The  Task  Force  believes  the  recommendations  contained  in  this  Report  lay  the  foundation  for 
 
substantive  improvements  in  the  way  Pennsylvania’s  court  system  interacts  with  elders,  and  provide 
a practical and achievable blueprint to enable the Commonwealth’s courts, as well as other entities, to 
successfully address the many challenges presented by Pennsylvania’s expanding aging population. 

Preface

PREFACE

6

PART I 

 

MEMBERS AND STAFF OF THE ELDER LAW TASK FORCE

7

Members:

Chair:

Honorable Debra Todd
Justice, Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Allegheny County

Administrative Chair:

Zygmont A. Pines, Esquire
Court Administrator of Pennsylvania 
Philadelphia County

Keelin S. Barry, Esquire
The	Law	Office	of	Keelin	S.	Barry,	LLC
Attorney
Philadelphia County

Ronald Barth
President/CEO, LeadingAge PA
Cumberland County

Honorable Penny L. Blackwell
Senior Judge, Court of Common Pleas 
York	County	

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

Ronald W. Costen, PhD, Esquire
Director, Institute on Protective 
   Services, Temple University 
Dauphin County

Carol Ruckert Fiorucci 
Register of Wills & Orphans’ Court Clerk 
Beaver County 

Wilmarie González 
Director, Bureau for Advocacy, 
   Protection & Education
Pennsylvania Department of Aging
Dauphin County

Drew Grivna 
President/CEO, 
Pennsylvania Guardianship Services, LLC
Beaver County

Carol Sikov Gross, Esquire 
Sikov and Love, P.A. 
Attorney
Allegheny County

Kathleen Gustine, Esquire
Director of Legal Services for the Elderly
Southwestern Pennsylvania
    Area Agency on Aging
Washington County

Neil E. Hendershot, Esquire 
Serratelli, Schiffman & Brown, P.C. 
Attorney
Dauphin County

Honorable Jay J. Hoberg
Judge, Court of Common Pleas 
Lancaster County 

Jeffrey R. Hoffmann, Esquire 
Friedman Schuman, P.C. 
Attorney
Montgomery County

Honorable Todd A. Hoover 
President Judge, Court of Common Pleas 
Dauphin County

Crystal Lowe 
Executive Director 
Pennsylvania Association of 
   Area Agencies on Aging 
Dauphin County

Diane A. Menio 
Executive Director, Center for Advocacy 
    for the Rights and Interests of the Elderly 
Philadelphia County

Honorable Lois E. Murphy 
Judge, Court of Common Pleas  
Montgomery County 

Risé P. Newman, Esquire 
Spector Gadon & Rosen, P.C.
Attorney
Philadelphia County

Deborah Cooper Nixon, Esquire
Assistant District Attorney
Philadelphia County

Honorable Joseph D. O’Keefe 
Administrative Judge – Orphans’ Court Division,  
Court of Common Pleas
Philadelphia County 

Honorable Lawrence J. O’Toole 
Administrative Judge – Orphans’ Court Division,  
Court of Common Pleas 
Allegheny County 

Joseph M. Olimpi, Esquire
Olimpi,	Kramer	&	York,	LLC
Attorney
Beaver County

Honorable Paula Francisco Ott
Judge, Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Chester County

Stephen P. Paschall, Esquire
Lovett Bookman Harmon Marks LLP
Attorney
Allegheny County

John B. Payne, Esquire
Garrison Law House, P.C. 
Attorney
Allegheny County

Katherine C. Pearson, Esquire 
Professor of Law and Director of
   Elder Law and Consumer Protection Clinic 
Pennsylvania State University
Dickinson School of Law
Cumberland County

Robert N. Peirce, Jr., Esquire
Robert Peirce & Associates, P.C. 
Attorney
Allegheny County

Raymond Pepe, Esquire
K&L	Gates
Attorney
Dauphin County

Louise A. Rynd, Esquire
General Counsel 
Pennsylvania Bankers Association
Dauphin County

Paul Stefano, Esquire
Deputy Court Administrator, Orphans’ Court 
Division, Court of Common Pleas 
Allegheny County 

Catharine E. Thurston, Esquire
Deputy General Counsel
Governor’s	Office	of	General	Counsel
Dauphin County

District Attorney Eugene Vittone
Washington County 

Wendy M. Welfley
Immediate Past President
Register of Wills and Clerks of Orphans’ Court 
Association; Recorder of Deeds, Register of Wills 
& Orphans’ Court Clerk
Perry County

Harriet Withstandley, Esquire 
Chief Counsel 
Pennsylvania Department of Aging 
Dauphin County

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

District Attorney Stephen A. Zappala, Jr.
Allegheny County 

Sharon Ackerman, Register of Wills & Clerk 
of Orphans’ Court of Somerset County and 
former Schuylkill County District Attorney Karen 
Byrnes-Noon were contributing members who 
were unable to serve for the duration of the Task 
Force’s work.

MEMBERS AND STAFF OF THE ELDER LAW TASK FORCE

8

MEMBERS AND STAFF OF THE ELDER LAW TASK FORCE

9

Kim Nieves, PhD
Director of Research & Statistics Department
Administrative	Office	of	
   Pennsylvania Courts

Patricia A. Ranieri, Esquire
Deputy Court Administrator
Court of Common Pleas
Montgomery County 

Additional Staff who provided valuable assistance 
on this project include: 

AOPC: Meghan Campbell, Nicholene 
DePasquale,	Kim	DiSimone,	Fran	Fencel,	
Gretchen Hallman, Rhonda Hocker, Maria 
Ilgenfritz,	Amy	Kelchner,	James	Koval,	Rhonda	
Walters	Lenig,	Cathy	Martin,	Kelly	McClain,	
Shavonne	Mowrey,	Keith	Nigro,	Leo	Perrong,	
Mary Raffaele, Ryan Seiders, Lauren Steele, and 
Damian Wachter. 

Supreme Court: Jeffrey Bauman, Esquire, 
Kimberly	Collins,	Esquire,	Britt	Felton,	Allison	
Freed, Esquire, Lynn Snyderman, Esquire, 
Theresa Traini, Sean Winters, Esquire, and Corrie 
Woods, Esquire. 

Staff:

Darren M. Breslin, Esquire
Assistant Director of Judicial Programs
Administrative	Office	of	
   Pennsylvania Courts

Rhonda Campbell
Chief Judicial Assistant to 
Honorable Debra Todd
Justice, Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Kimberly Cataldo
Research Analyst
Research & Statistics Department
Administrative	Office	of	
   Pennsylvania Courts

Amy J. Ceraso, Esquire
Director of Judicial Automation
Administrative	Office	of	
   Pennsylvania Courts

Stephen M. Feiler, PhD
Director of Judicial Education
Administrative	Office	of	
   Pennsylvania Courts

Cherstin M. Hamel
Assistant Director of Judicial Programs
Administrative	Office	of	
   Pennsylvania Courts

 

Owen J. Kelly, Esquire
Administrator, Judicial Programs
Administrative	Office	of	
   Pennsylvania Courts

Joseph J. Mittleman, Esquire
Director of Judicial Programs
Administrative	Office	of	
   Pennsylvania Courts

Brenda	K.	Uekert	and	Richard	Van	Duizend
Elder Abuse and Exploitation: How Courts Can 
Take Leadership in Developing Effective Responses. 6

 
Population  trends  in  the  Commonwealth  are 
reflective	 of	 national	 trends.11  Pennsylvania  has 
nearly 2.7 million persons (21.4%) 60 and over, and 
more  than  300,000  persons  (2.4%)  85  and  over. 
By the year 2020, it is predicted approximately 3.3 
million Pennsylvanians will be 60 and over, and by 
2030,  this  population  is  expected  to  exceed  3.6 
million.12

Age totals as % of PA population

       

         

Scope of the Challenge Nationally  
and in Pennsylvania

“The large numbers of older persons living longer will have an impact 
on every social institution – government, health care, justice systems, and the economy.”

 

 

 

45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

increase 

 
The  Conference  of  Chief  Justices  (“CCJ”) 
and the Conference of State Court Administrators 
(“COSCA”)  predict  “state  courts  are  likely  to 
experience  a  substantial 
in  adult 
guardianships  and  conservatorship  cases  as 
a  result  of  the  large  population  of  older  adults, 
increased  longevity,  greater  awareness  of  mental 
health and capacity issues, and an increase in the 
numbers of adults with disabilities.”7 Cases in which 
elder abuse is an underlying factor are anticipated 
to be heard with increasing frequency. Judges and 
Court Administrators will be challenged by access 
to justice issues related to elders.

 
The 2010 United States Census recorded “the 
greatest number and proportion of people age 65 
and  older  in  all  of  decennial  census  history:  40.3 
million, or 13% of the total population,” and predicts 
the  “‘Boomer  Generation’  effect  will  continue  for 
decades.”8  By  2050,  an  anticipated  88.5  million 
people 65 and over will comprise 20 percent of the 
total  population.9  In  2010,  there  were  5.8  million 
people 85 and over. It is projected this age group 
will increase to 19 million by 2050.10

50+

60+

70+

80+

CENSUS
2000

CENSUS
2010

PROJECTION
2020

PROJECTION
2030

Pennsylvania Department of Aging,  
State Plan on Aging (2012-16), Page 9

According  to  the  U.S.  Census  Bureau’s  2010 
census,  the  Commonwealth  is  the  nation’s  fourth 
“oldest  state  in  the  percentage  of  the  population 
65  and  over,  after  Florida,  West  Virginia,  and 
Maine.”13  As  of  July  2013,  more  than  2  million 
Pennsylvania residents were 65 and over, and the 
population is continuing to age. The rural counties 
of  Sullivan,  Cameron,  Potter,  Forest,  and  Warren 
comprise  the  counties  with  the  largest  proportion 
of  those  65  and  over.14  Approximately  280,000 
elders in Pennsylvania have been diagnosed with 
Alzheimer’s  Disease,  and  675,000  adults  65  and 
over have some form of disability.15 

BACKGROUND

10

 
As the population in the United States continues 
to age, courts, including those in our Commonwealth, 
are 
facing  unprecedented  challenges.  The 
increasing  population  of  elders  anticipated  during 
the next 20 years “is likely to result in a substantial 
increase in court cases regarding the protection of 
vulnerable elderly persons, including guardianship, 
conservatorship,  and  elder  abuse  proceedings.”16 
Elders will also seek redress in civil, criminal, and 
other types of cases.

According to an article by Max Rothman and  
 
Burton Dunlop in the Journal of the American Judges 
Association,  the  number  of  older  people  being 
arrested and jailed for domestic violence, assaults, 
drug-related  charges,  misdemeanor  charges  and 
motor  vehicle  violations  is  growing.  In  addition, 
civil matters such as landlord-tenant and property 
disputes,  and  litigation  arising  from  a  variety  of 
other  factual  situations  involving  elders  is  also 
increasing. The  article  notes  that  more  elders  will 
also  enter  the  courthouse  to  serve  as  jurors  and 
witnesses,  seek  divorces,  and  obtain  information 
and  assistance,  and  that  these  elders  may  be 
dealing  with  dementia,  mental  illness,  substance 
abuse, or complex medical conditions.17

“Numerically,  aging  with  concomitant  age-
 
related degenerative illness accounts for the largest 
anticipated  increase  in  the  number  of  people 
with  potentially  diminished  capacity.”18  By  2025, 
most  states  are  expected  to  see  an  increase  in 
Alzheimer’s Disease prevalence. Close to half of all 
people over 85, the fastest growing segment of our 

population,  have  Alzheimer’s  Disease  or  another 
kind  of  dementia. A  2013  study  conducted  by  the 
RAND Corporation found that nearly 15 percent of 
individuals  71  and  over,  about  3.8  million  people, 
have dementia, and that by 2040, the number will 
“balloon” to 9.1 million.19 

According  to  the  National  Center  on  Elder 
 
Abuse (“NCEA”), “[r]esearch indicates that people 
with dementia are at greater risk of elder abuse than 
those without. Approximately 5.1 million American 
elders over 65 have some kind of dementia. One 
2009 study revealed that close to 50% of people with 
dementia experience some kind of abuse. A 2010 
study found that 47% of participants with dementia 
had been mistreated by their caregivers.”20 Related 
thereto,  COSCA  asserts  the  growing  number 
of  elders  with  diminished  capacity  will  increase 
caseloads	significantly	in	probate,	civil,	and	criminal	
courts which must appoint and monitor guardians 
and  adjudicate  disputes  involving  governmental 
services  related  to  mental  health  matters,  abuse, 
and exploitation.21 

In 

the 

the  Commonwealth, 

 
increasing 
population  of  elders  impacts  all  layers  of  the 
judiciary  and  all  types  of  cases  to  one  degree  or 
another. The  number  of  Pennsylvania  elders  who 
will  be  plaintiffs  and  defendants  in  civil  actions, 
defendants  and  victims  in  criminal  actions,  and 
witnesses and jurors in all actions will continue to 
grow, and the guardianship system is expected to 
be	significantly	impacted.22

11

BACKGROUNDGuardianships

“[N]o matter your age, finances or social status, none of us in this room today  
are beyond potential abuse or neglect and any one of us at any time could 
become incapacitated and in need of assistance.”

Senator Gordon H. Smith,  
United States Senate Special Committee on Aging23

as  unnecessary.  Alternatively,  an  unfavorable 
outcome could subject the person with diminished 
capacity  to  an  unnecessary  loss  of  fundamental 
rights,  restriction  of  self-determination,  loss  of 
the freedom to choose and take risks[,] or abuse, 
neglect  and  exploitation.”25  Given  the  loss  of 
individual rights and the seriousness of a person’s 
incapacity, guardianship is considered an option of 
“last resort.”26

 
Although  a  number  of  state  entities  aid  the 
court  in  ensuring  an  IP  receives  care  and  is 
kept  safe  from  harm,  it  is  the  court  that  plays  a 
significant	 leadership	 role	 in	 providing	 the	 IP	 with	
decision-making assistance. The court is charged 
with  making  a  formal  determination  of  incapacity, 
ensuring that the IP’s procedural due process rights 
are protected, determining the scope of a guardian’s 
duties  and  powers,  limiting  the  restrictions  on  the 
IP’s  autonomy,  if  necessary,  and  assuring  that 
guardians	perform	their	fiduciary	responsibilities.27

 
According  to  an  estimate  from  the  NCSC, 
there  are  at  least  1.5  million  open  (i.e.,  current) 
guardianships  nationally.28  However,  a  reliable 
number  of  current  adult  guardianships  does 
not  exist,  and  solid  data  on  the  incidence  of 
guardianship abuse is also lacking. “While some of 
this information is available at the individual court 
level, few states can provide accurate and reliable 
numbers….Most  courts  in  the  United  States  are 
not  able  to  readily  document  the  number  of  open 
guardianship cases without reviewing actual case 
files.	 Where	 statistics	 are	 available,	 the	 perpetual	
nature of guardianships and the poor level of court 
monitoring  have  resulted  in  questionable  case 
status data.” 29

 
The  Pennsylvania  Joint  State  Government 
Commission  (“JSGC”)  observes,  “[b]ecause  of 
the  potentially  rising  need  for  guardianships,  it 
is  important  to  determine  the  number  of  current 

 
A  guardianship  protects  the  interests  of  an 
incapacitated  person  (“IP”),  particularly  an  elder, 
and is a relationship created by state law in which 
the court gives a person or entity (the guardian) the 
duty and power to make decisions (personal and/
or property) for another (the ward).24 For purposes 
of this Report, “incapacitated person” is used in lieu 
of the term “ward.”

In Pennsylvania, cases concerning guardianship 
 
(called “conservatorship” in some states) are heard 
in  the  Orphans’  Court  (called  “Probate  Court”  in 
many  states). The  court  may  appoint  a  “guardian 
of  the  person,”  who  makes  decisions  about  the 
health,  safety,  and  physical  well-being  of  the  IP, 
or  a  “guardian  of  the  estate,”  who  oversees  the 
management of the person’s resources, or both.

 
Judges  recognize  that  guardianship  decisions 
are  weighty  ones.  “Each  time  a  guardianship 
petition	 [for	 adjudication	 of	 capacity]	 is	 filed,	 the	
life  of  a  person  with  diminished  capacity  may  be 
forever changed. A favorable outcome could mean 
the court makes a well-informed decision to appoint 
a  guardian  with  appropriate  powers  to  provide 
for  the  basic  needs  and  protection  of  the  person 
with diminished capacity or to dismiss the petition 

BACKGROUND

12

guardianships  as  a  predictor  of  future  needs  and 
future costs for the Commonwealth.”30 

The	 2013	 caseload	 statistics	 of	 the	 Unified	
	
Judicial System of Pennsylvania (“UJS”), compiled 
by	the	Administrative	Office	of	Pennsylvania	Courts	
(“AOPC”),  show  2,812  new  guardianship  cases 
were	 filed	 statewide,	 and	 967	 cases	 remained	
pending at the end of 2013.31 Filings have remained 
relatively stable over the past three years. Due to a 
dearth of data tracking and guardianship monitoring 
procedures,  the  AOPC  is  unable  to  produce  key 
statistics relating to guardianship cases, including 
the number of current guardianships in any given 
year.  Although  the  Orphans’  Court  Clerks  are 
required  to  report  the  number  of  guardianships 
granted yearly, no express responsibility is placed 
on them to track when a guardianship is terminated 
or  missed  submissions  of  guardian  reports.  In  all 
but	five	counties,	Orphans’	Court	Clerks	are	elected	
officials.	The	clerks	generally	do	not	have	a	direct	
relationship  with  the  judicial  district’s  president 
judge	 or	 court	 administration	 office	 and	 operate	
independently.  In  order  to  provide  the  number  of 
current  guardianships,  it  will  be  necessary  for 
each Orphans’ Court Clerk to monitor the status of 
guardian report submissions as well as the point at 
which a guardianship is no longer active. 

 
Another  source  of  statewide  data  on 
guardianship cases is provided by the Act 24 reports 
filed	annually	by	Orphans’	Court	Clerks.	In	1992,	Act	
24 amended 20 Pa.C.S. Chapter 25 to, inter alia, 
make greater use of limited guardianships.32 These 
reports assist the Commonwealth in evaluating the 
operation  and  costs  of  the  guardianship  system. 
Act 24 data provided to the AOPC in 2013 shows 
2,991	guardianship	petitions	were	filed,	and	2,547	
guardianships  were  granted.33  There  were  1,921 
petitions	 filed	 (or	 64%	 of	 2,991	 new	 petitions),	 in	
which the alleged incapacitated person (“AIP”) was 
60 and over. 

 
For  over  25  years,  reports  and  studies  have 
criticized courts for failing to monitor guardians or 
hold  them  accountable.  A  1987  nationwide  study 
by  the  Associated  Press  asserted  that  “courts 
‘routinely take the word of guardians and attorneys 
without  independent  checking  or  full  hearings.’  In 
short, it claimed that sometimes courts responsible 
for overseeing guardianships ‘ignore their wards.’”34 

 
In  2010,  a  U.S.  Government  Accountability 
Office	 (“GAO”)	 report,	 Guardianships:  Cases  of 
Financial  Exploitation,  Neglect,  and  Abuse  of 
Seniors,  identified	 hundreds	 of	 allegations	 in	 45	

states and the District of Columbia between 1990 
and  2010  that  involved  physical  abuse,  neglect, 
and	 financial	 exploitation	 by	 guardians.	The	 GAO	
found several common themes: 

1.  state  courts 

failed 

to  adequately  screen 
potential guardians, appointing individuals with 
criminal	convictions	and/or	significant	financial	
problems to manage estates worth hundreds of 
thousands or millions of dollars; 

2.  state  courts  failed  to  adequately  oversee 
guardians after their appointment, allowing the 
abuse of vulnerable seniors and their assets to 
continue; and 

3.  state courts failed to communicate with federal 
agencies  about  abusive  guardians  once  the 
court  became  aware  of  the  abuse,  which  in 
some cases enabled the guardians to continue 
to	receive	and	manage	federal	benefits.35

 
In Guardianship of the Elderly,	Brenda	K.	Uekert	
and  Thomas  Dibble  observe  “Congress,  national 
advocacy  organizations,  and  the  media  have 
increasingly  highlighted  the  use  of  guardianships 
and conservatorships as a means to further exploit 
older  persons.  The  ease  at  which  guardianships 
are  granted,  the  lack  of  court  oversight,  the 
questionable	 qualifications	 of	 guardians,	
the	
general  lack  of  accountability,  soaring  caseloads, 
and poor data management make the guardianship 
system  primed  for  further  abuse,  neglect,  and 
exploitation of elders.”36

frequency 

  News  articles  about  theft,  misuse  of  funds, 
and  power  of  attorney  abuse  are  appearing  with 
increasing 
the  Commonwealth. 
in 
In  2012  and  2013,  the  press  reported  charges 
against  a  number  of  Pennsylvanians  who  had 
depleted elders’ estates of hundreds of thousands 
of	 dollars	 through	 financial	 misconduct:	 “York	
County  woman  arrested  after  stealing  more  than 
$300,000	 from	 elderly	 aunt”	 (York	 Daily	 Record,	
12/31/12);  “Woman  gets  probation  for  stealing 
more  than  $100,000  from  mother”  (Intelligencer 
Journal/Lancaster  New  Era,  5/29/13);  “Nephew 
stole  93-year-old’s  life  savings,  Lehigh  County 
authorities  say”  (Lehighvalleylive.com,  8/10/13); 
“Police: Couple charged in death of older woman, 
misused  victim’s  trust  fund”  (The  Morning  Call, 
7/10/13);	and	“Knox	Man	Sentenced	to	Prison	for	
$250k Theft from Elderly Aunt” (Explore Venango, 
10/24/12).

13

BACKGROUNDCOSCA points out that:

Other  allegations,  [against  guardians]  allege 
mental  anguish  caused  to  the  person  with 
diminished  capacity  or  their  family  members 
as  a  result  of  inconsistent  and  sometimes 
poor  decision-making  by  well-meaning,  but 
unqualified	 guardians.	 In	 those	 instances,	 the	
actions of the guardian may result in unwarranted 
loss  of  self-determination  or  treatment  that 
does	 not	 reflect	 the	 values,	 choices	 and	
preferences  of  the  person  with  diminished 
capacity  or  best  address  that  person’s  well-
being, or unnecessary separation from a loved 
one,	 involuntary	 confinement	 or	 placement	 in	
settings  more  restrictive  than  individual  need 
demands.  Occasionally,  allegations  relate  to 
overtreatment  or,  conversely,  the  withholding 
of necessary medical care. Although the extent 
and  severity  of  guardian  abuse  or  neglect  of 
the  person  with  diminished  capacity  has  not 
been	 satisfactorily	 quantified,	 the	 seriousness	
of  these  persistent,  wide-spread  allegations 
warrants attention.37

  Guardianship  cases  involve  many  issues, 
but	 five	 areas	 pose	 a	 particular	 challenge	 to	
courts across the nation: 

1.  the determination of capacity, 

2.  costs associated with the administration of 

guardianships, 

3.  education/training for judges and court staff, 

4.  court monitoring of the guardianship, and 

5.  data collection.38

Determination of Capacity

 
According  to  Brenda  Uekert  and  Thomas 
Dibble,  the  determination  of  “capacity”  is  not  “an 
exact science,” as capacity is both situational and 
transient,  and  can  be  affected  by  external  factors 
(e.g.,  medications).  They  posit 
that  objective 
criteria	 as	 well	 as	 an	 analysis	 of	 how	 specific	
capacities  impact  a  person’s  ability  to  function  in 
various  settings  must  be  factored  into  the  court’s 
determination of capacity.39

Guardianship Costs

These  same  authors  also  observe 

 
that 
documentation regarding the costs of guardianships 
in the United States does not exist, and they predict 
that  improving  guardianship  practices  will  require 
funds to hire specialized staff, order medical and/

or psychological assessments, require specialized 
training for judges and court staff, collaborate with 
community  resources,  collect  guardianship  case 
data  and  create  court  monitoring  programs. They 
suggest that the lack of federal and state funding, 
together with the growing number of impoverished 
elders  who  require  the  assignment  of  public 
guardians, “creates an undue burden on individual 
courts to fund improvements.”40

Guardianship Education/Training

  Concerns  also  have  been  raised  about  the 
need for better education of the judiciary. According 
to  Uekert  and  Dibble,  “judicial  training  has  not 
kept  pace  with  demands….The  lack  of  judicial 
training  is  associated  with  the  greater  use  of  full 
guardianships,  questionable  monitoring  practices, 
and	 difficulties	 in	 identifying	 and	 replacing	 poor	
performing guardians. The status of judicial training 
is	 compounded	 by	 insufficient	 training	 for	 court	
managers, staff, and volunteers assigned to review 
reports, make home visits, and/or investigate cases. 
In addition to limited judicial and court staff training 
opportunities,	 guardians	 −	 both	 professional	 and	
family members, are unlikely to be fully trained.”41

Guardianship Monitoring

 
As stated by Sally Balch Hurme and Erica Wood, 
in Guardian Accountability Then and Now: Tracing 
Tenets for an Active Court Role, “[t]he incapacitated 
person is a living being whose needs may change 
over time. This argues for a more active court role 
in  oversight.”42  Uekert  and  Dibble  point  out  that 
“[i]t  is  the  responsibility  of  the  court  to  actively 
oversee	and	monitor	guardianship	cases	−	indeed,	
court  monitoring  is  the  only  way  to  ensure  the 
welfare of wards, discourage and identify neglect, 
abuse, or exploitation of wards by guardians, and 
sanction guardians who demonstrate malfeasance. 
Yet	 court	 monitoring	 is	 an	 expensive	 and	 timely	
proposition.”43 

A 

 
the 
recommendation  promulgated  at 
Third  National  Guardianship  Summit  (“National 
Guardianship Summit”) stressed:

The court should monitor the well-being of the 
person and status of the estate on an on-going 
basis, including, but not limited to: 

•	 Determining  whether 
alternatives	will	suffice

less 

restrictive 

•	 Monitoring	 the	 filing	 of	 plans,	 reports,	

inventories, and accountings

14

BACKGROUND•	 Reviewing  the  contents  of  plans,  reports, 

inventories, and accounting

•	

Independently  investigating  the  well-being 
of the person and status of the estate

•	 Ensuring  the  well-being  of  the  person 
and  status  of  the  estate,  improving  the 
performance of the guardian, and enforcing 
the terms of the guardianship order.44

COSCA  concludes 
“[e]nsuring  positive 
that, 
outcomes  for  persons  with  diminished  capacity  in 
guardianship  proceedings  requires  establishing 
consistent best practices and procedures.”45 

Data Collection

 
In order for courts to address guardianship cases 
effectively, it is essential that timely, accurate, and 
complete  guardianship  data  be  available.46  Many 
courts  are  unable  to  produce  reliable  data  on  the 
number	of	guardianship	cases	filed	or	the	number	
of current guardianships, and do not have accurate 
caseload measurements. An Orphans’ Court Clerk, 
as	an	independently	elected	or	appointed	official,	is	
not directly under the court’s supervision regarding 
the  collection  of  data.  The	 difficulties	 courts	 face	
in  providing  reliable  guardianship  caseload  data 
illustrate the challenges involved in tracking cases 
that  may  span  many  years.47  An  online  survey 
conducted by the Center for Elders and the Courts 
(“CEC”) found that the inability to produce reliable 
adult guardianship case data is “compounded by the 
lack of statewide case management systems that 
can identify key case events for guardianships.”48 

 
An additional issue that poses a challenge for 
state courts involves the lack of coordination with 
federal  agencies  that  administer  representative-
payment	or	fiduciary	programs.	The	Social	Security	
Administration  (“SSA”)  appoints  representative 
payees	 to	 manage	 income	 benefits	 for	 persons	
who  are  determined  to  be  incapable  of  handling 
their	 financial	 affairs.	 As	 of	 2012,	 representative	
payees  were  managing 
the  Social  Security 
benefits	 of	 approximately	 700,000	 elders	 65	
and  over.49  Other  agencies  with  representative-
payment	programs	include	the	Office	of	Personnel	
Management (“OPM”) and the Railroad Retirement 
Board (“RRB”).

 
The  Veteran’s  Fiduciary  Program  was 
established	by	the	Veterans	Benefit	Administration	
of  the  Department  of  Veterans  Affairs  (“VA”). 
Fiduciaries  are  appointed  for  veterans  who  are 
unable	 to	 manage	 their	 financial	 affairs.	 As	 of	

July	 2011,	 fiduciaries	 were	 managing	 the	 benefit	
payments	of	56,077	VA	beneficiaries	65	and	over	
— a 21 percent increase since September 2003.50

 
SSA  and  other  representative-payment  and 
fiduciary	 programs	 are	 responsible	 for	 monitoring	
representative  payees  to  identify  any  misuse  of 
benefits.	 The	 misuse	 of	 funds	 and	 violations	 by	
representative-payment  programs  have  included 
the	exploitation	of	benefits,	control	of	funds	beyond	
the	benefits,	a	failure	to	keep	records	and	submit	
required reports, and charging excessive fees.51 

 
The GAO found that, while the state courts and 
federal agencies are charged with protecting many 
of the same IPs, there is no systematic coordination 
between  federal  agencies  and  state  and  local 
courts;  their  entities  generally  work  together  only 
on  a  case-by-case  basis.  In  addition,  the  various 
federal  agencies  do  not  systematically  exchange 
information among themselves. If federal agencies 
and  the  courts  do  not  notify  each  other  when,  for 
example,	a	beneficiary	is	incapacitated	or	when	a	
guardian	is	identified	as	abusive	or	neglectful,	“an	
incapacitated person may remain at risk of having 
an	identified	abuser	in	charge	of	his	or	her	benefit	
payments.”52 

 
The extent to which Pennsylvania’s courts send 
notices  of  guardianship  appointment  and  other 
information  to  federal  agencies  that  administer 
representative-payment	 or	 fiduciary	 programs	
is  unknown.  The  AOPC  does  not  exchange 
guardianship case data with any federal agencies. 

According to research conducted by the AOPC, 
 
Pennsylvania’s  Orphans’  Courts  are  confronting 
many of the same guardianship issues challenging 
courts  nationwide.  Among  them  are:  standards 
for  determining  capacity,  inadequate  monitoring 
of  guardianship  cases,  the  need  for  guardianship 
education	and	training,	insufficient	data	collection,	
and	 fiduciary	 misconduct.	 Orphans’	 Court	 judges	
advise the AOPC that the majority of abuses they 
observe arise from the abuse of powers of attorney, 
and that such abuse has been increasing.

Guardianship Case Process

 
The Orphans’ Courts’ core function of protecting 
the  welfare  of  older  IPs  by  the  appointment  of  a 
guardian is governed by Chapter 55 of Title 20 of 
the  Pennsylvania  Consolidated  Statutes. An  IP  is 
defined	 by	 statute	 as:	 “[a]n	 adult	 whose	 ability	 to	
receive  and  evaluate  information  effectively  and 
communicate  decisions  in  any  way  is  impaired  to 
such	a	significant	extent	that	he	is	partially	or	totally	

15

BACKGROUNDunable	 to	 manage	 his	 financial	 resources	 or	 to	
meet essential requirements for his physical health 
and safety.”53 

The process of obtaining a guardianship begins 
 
with	an	interested	party	filing	a	petition	in	Orphans’	
Court  seeking  the  appointment  of  a  guardian 
for  an  alleged  incapacitated  person  (“AIP”).  An 
interested  party  may  be  a  family  member,  friend, 
private/professional 
guardianship 
support agency (“GSA”), or public agency. Anyone 
concerned	 about	 a	 person’s	 welfare	 may	 file	 a	
petition for guardianship.54

guardian, 

 
A court hearing is then scheduled to determine 
if  the AIP  needs  a  guardian.  “Because  a  ruling  of 
‘incapacity’ and appointment of a guardian involves 
the  curtailing  of  many  important  legal  rights,  high 
standards  must  be  met.”55 If clear  and  convincing 
evidence  supports  the  need  for  a  guardianship, 
a  guardian  is  appointed.56 A  guardian  can  be  any 
“qualified”	 individual	 such	 as	 a	 spouse,	 family	
member,  attorney  or  member  of  the  clergy.  A 
guardian	may	also	be	a	corporate	fiduciary,	a	non-
profit	corporation,	a	guardianship	support	agency,	
or a county agency.57 

The court may grant either a plenary or limited 
 
guardianship.58  A  plenary  guardian  has  unlimited 
powers,  allowing  him  or  her  to  make  virtually 
every  kind  of  decision  for  the  IP,  while  a  limited 
guardian’s powers are more constrained. Pursuant 
to 20 Pa.C.S. § 5512.1(a)(6), the “court shall prefer 
limited guardianship.”

 
The  court  may  appoint  a  “guardian  of  the 
person,”  who  has  the  duty  to  assert  the  rights 
and  best  interests  of  the  IP,  or  a  “guardian  of  the 
estate,”  who  oversees  the  management  of  the 
IP’s resources, or both.59 A guardian of the person 
is  obligated  to  respect  the  person’s  wishes  and 
preferences, encourage the person’s participation, 
to  the  extent  possible,  and  assist  the  person  in 
developing and regaining the capacity to manage 
his or her personal affairs.60 Both a guardian of the 
person	and	a	guardian	of	the	estate	must	file	annual	
reports  and  accountings  with  the  court  detailing 
their  activities  on  behalf  of  the  person.61  If  an  IP 
regains the ability to make reasoned decisions, the 
guardianship will be terminated by the court, or the 
court may modify the scope of the guardianship if 
the person regains some capacity.62 

 
In  its  policy  paper  on  guardianships,  COSCA 
found,  “[i]ndividually,  state  court  judges  regularly 
wrestle  with  [guardianship]  decisions  on  a  case-
by-case  basis,  resulting  in  thousands  of  positive 
outcomes.	 But	 inadequate	 fiscal	 and	 program	
insufficient	
inconsistent	 practices,	
resources,	
coordination  among  courts  and  service  agencies, 
and  the  lack  of  consensus  about  standards  and 
acceptable performance outcomes limit the courts’ 
ability  to  implement  innovative  reforms  needed 
to  increase  positive  outcomes  for  persons  with 
diminished capacity.”63

16

BACKGROUND17

 
An NCSC policy paper on elder abuse asserts 
that state courts are vital in addressing the needs of 
elder abuse victims, and suggests a court’s ability 
to  assist  elders  “essentially  determines  whether 
individuals  live  their  remaining  years  with  respect 
and dignity, or are further alienated from the justice 
system with personal safety jeopardized.”68

 
According  to  the  NCEA,  “[i]n  general,  elder 
abuse  refers  to  intentional  or  neglectful  acts  by 
a  caregiver  or  ‘trusted’  individual  that  lead  to,  or 
may lead to, harm of a vulnerable elder.…Physical 
abuse; neglect; emotional or psychological abuse; 
financial	abuse	and	exploitation;	sexual	abuse;	and	
abandonment are considered forms of elder abuse. 
In  many  states,  self-neglect  is  also  considered 
mistreatment.”69  In  Pennsylvania,  pursuant  to  the 
Older  Adults  Protective  Services  Act  (“OAPSA”), 
35  P.S.  §§  10225.101-10225.5102,  self-neglect 
is	 considered	 elder	 abuse.	The	 definition	 of	 “self-
neglect”	is	contained	within	the	OAPSA’s	definition	
of “neglect”.70

 
Elder  abuse  is  estimated  to  affect  nearly  5 
million Americans  each  year.71 The  direct  medical 
costs  associated  with  violent  injuries  to  elders 
are estimated to add more than $5.3 billion to the 
nation’s annual health care expenditures.72

  Research  suggests  that  one  out  of  every  ten 
people 60 and over who live at home suffers abuse, 
neglect,  or  exploitation.73  It  is  estimated  that  only 
one  of  every  24  cases  of  elder  abuse  is  reported 
to authorities.74 Many factors, including poor health, 
the	onset	of	infirmities,	and	the	inability	to	request	
assistive services, can impact an elder’s response 
to abuse.75

  Dementia  and  other  cognitive  impairments 
place	 older	 individuals	 at	 significant	 risk	 for	 elder	
abuse.  One  2009  study  found  that  nearly  half  of 
individuals  with  dementia  had  experienced  some 
form of abuse, and that many of those individuals 

   

 

         

 

 

 

According 

to  Brenda  Uekert  and  Denise 
Dancy, “[e]lder abuse is a national problem with far 
reaching  consequences  for  individuals,  families, 
communities,  and  institutions.”65  In  a  July  2014 
press  release,  the  Department  of  Justice  and 
Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) 
“called on all Americans to take a stand against the 
serious  societal  problem  of  elder  abuse,  neglect 
and	 financial	 exploitation.”66  “The  cost,  on  top  of 
the  human  suffering,  is  immense:  in  stolen  and 
squandered savings; the strain on the court system 
from abusive guardianships; the cost to Medicare 
and  Medicaid  from  fraud;  and  from  the  care  of 
fleeced	 victims	 who	 end	 up	 destitute	 in	 nursing	
homes.”67

Elder Abuse and Neglect

“We must take a stand to ensure that older Americans are safe from harm and neglect. For 
their contributions to our nation, to our society, and to our lives, we owe them nothing less.”

U.S. Associate Attorney General Tony West64

BACKGROUNDwere  not  equipped  to  report  the  abuse.76  Several 
other studies concluded that half of those individuals 
with  dementia  were  abused  or  neglected  by  their 
caregivers.77  Cognitive  impairment  also  reduces 
financial	 capacity,	 increasing	 the	 risk	 of	 financial	
exploitation.78

  Women  and  “older”  elders  are  more  likely  to 
be  victims  of  elder  abuse.79  “African  American, 
Latino,  poor,  and 
isolated  older  adults  are 
disproportionately  victimized.”80  A  national  study 
found that, sadly, the vast majority of abuse (90%) 
is perpetrated by family members, most often adult 
children, spouses, partners, and others.81

  While abuse is often perpetrated in an elder’s 
home  by  a  family  member,  abuse  also  occurs 
in  institutional  settings,  such  as  long-term  care 
facilities.82  In  a  study  of  2,000  nursing  home 
residents conducted in 2000, 44 percent reported 
they  had  been  abused,  and  95  percent  reported 
they or another resident had been neglected.83

An  abused  elder  is  three  times  more  likely 
 
to  die  prematurely  than  someone  who  has  not 
been	 abused,	 and	 has	 significantly	 higher	 levels	
of  psychological  distress.84  Compared  with  other 
older  adults,  abused  elders  are  more  likely  to 
have  health  problems,  including  increased  bone 
or  joint  problems,  digestive  problems,  depression 
or anxiety, chronic pain, high blood pressure, and 
heart problems.85

	
The	 financial	 exploitation	 of	 elders	 has	 been	
described  “as  an  epidemic  with  society-wide 
repercussions.”86 A 2011 national study by MetLife 
estimated	that	the	annual	financial	loss	suffered	by	
victims	of	elder	financial	abuse	in	the	United	States	
was at least $2.9 billion — a 12 percent increase 
from 2008.87 The American Bar Association (“ABA”) 
asserts	 the	 financial	 exploitation	 of	 vulnerable	
elders and other adults who are unable to manage 
their	 financial	 affairs	 is	 growing,	 and	 posits	 that	
the	 recession	 has	 fueled	 motives	 for	 financial	
malfeasance.88

 
To ascertain the scope of the growing problem 
of	financial	exploitation	of	elders	in	Pennsylvania,	
the Pennsylvania Department of Aging’s Institute on 
Protective Services (“Institute”) at Temple University 
considered	 the	 findings	 of	 the	 aforementioned	
MetLife	study,	as	well	as	the	New	York	State	Elder	
Abuse  Prevalence  Study,  which  found  that  “for 
each	 case	 of	 financial	 exploitation	 that	 reached	
authorities,  44  cases  went  unreported.”89  The 
Institute  then  conducted  an  internal  unpublished 
reported	 financial	
study	 of	 129	 cases	 of	

exploitation  in  three  representative  counties.90 
It  was  the  Institute’s  projection  that  the  average 
loss  suffered  by  an  exploited  elder  was  $50,000, 
with  a  range  of  between  $25,000  to  $700,000. 
Based	 on	 this	 figure,	 the	 Institute	 estimated	 that	
the  loss  to  the  Commonwealth’s  elders  through 
financial	exploitation	is	between	$400,000,000	and	
$1,900,000,000	annually.	The	problem	of	financial	
exploitation  is  particularly  acute  in  Philadelphia, 
which  has  the  highest  proportion  of  elders  in  the 
nation’s ten largest cities.91

involve 

incidents  commonly 

 
The  National  Adult  Protective  Services 
Association	 (“NAPSA”)	 found	 a	 significant	 growth	
in the number and complexity of reports involving 
financial	 abuse	 of	 elders	 during	 the	 past	 decade.	
These 
“trusted” 
persons in the elder’s life, such as caretakers, family 
members,  neighbors,  friends  and  acquaintances, 
attorneys,  bank  employees,  pastors,  and  doctors 
and nurses.92	Further,	the	financial	abuse	of	elders	
is  vastly  underreported,  with  an  estimated  one  in 
every 44 cases reported. Elder abuse victims are 
four times more likely to be admitted into a nursing 
home.	 Almost	 one	 of	 every	 ten	 financial	 abuse	
victims  will  turn  to  Medicaid  as  a  direct  result  of 
their  own  money  being  stolen.  Finally,  cognitive 
impairment and the need for help with daily activities 
make	victims	more	vulnerable	to	financial	abuse.93 
A  study  in  the  August  2014  Journal  of  General 
Internal Medicine found that roughly 80 percent of 
4,000	 adults	 60	 and	 over	 in	 New	 York	 State	 had	
their  money  or  property  stolen  or  misused  during 
the past year.94

 
The Pennsylvania Department of Aging observes 
that  with  the  recent  economic  downturn,  reported 
incidents  of  elder  abuse,  neglect,  abandonment, 
and  exploitation  in  the  Commonwealth  continue 
to  rise.95	 In	 Fiscal	 Year	 (“FY”)	 2012-2013,	 18,542	
reports stating a need for protective services were 
received  by  Area  Agencies  on  Aging  (“AAAs”).96 
the  reports 
Seventy-four  percent  (13,627)  of 
investigation.97 
were  deemed  appropriate 
Investigations substantiated that 37 percent (4,991) 
of  the  cases  required  protective  services.98	 In	 FY	
2011-2012,  there  were  nearly  18,000  reports  of 
need for protective services, a 17 percent increase 
from  the  prior  year.99	 During	 FY	 2012-2013,	 the	
most  frequent  reports  of  elder  abuse  concerned 
(22%), 
self-neglect 
financial	 exploitation	 (16%),	 and	 emotional	 abuse	
(15%).100

(42%),  caretaker  neglect 

for 

In  Pennsylvania,  the  age  group  most  often 
 
found in need of protective services is 81 and over 

18

BACKGROUNDACT 13 - Number of Reports 
of Alleged Abuse by Fiscal Year

1,000

100

10

1

multiple abuses
serious bodily injury
serious physical injury
sexual abuse
suspicious death
unknown - under 60

9
178
235
8
238

2010-2011

2011-2012

2012-2013
1
24
142
212
7
306

18
164
241
6
258

Pennsylvania Department of Aging,
The Older Adults Protective Services Annual Report
(FY 2012 – 2013), Page 15

(36%).101 The majority are Caucasian women, most 
of whom live alone in their own homes.102 Fifty-one 
percent  of  the  perpetrators  are  between  30-59 
years of age, and 53 percent are women.103 Family 
members constitute the largest group of abusers, a 
finding	consistent	with	national	studies.104

  According to the NCEA’s Research Brief titled 
Abuse  of  Residents  in  Long Term  Care  Facilities, 
“3.2 million Americans resided in nursing homes in 
2008,” and “more than 900,000 people nationwide 
live in assisted living settings.”105 Two out of three 
residents are female, and six out of seven are 65 
and over. As noted above, a study in which 2,000 
nursing  home  residents  were  interviewed  found 
44  percent  said  they  had  been  abused,  and  95 
percent said they had been neglected or had seen 
another resident neglected.106 In a different study, 
over 50 percent of nursing home staff admitted to 
mistreating (e.g., physical violence, mental abuse, 
neglect) older patients within the prior year.107

What Types of Abuse are Occurring?

physical abuse

sexual abuse

psychological 
abuse

financial 
exploitation

gross neglect

resident to 
resident abuse

22%

29%

14%

7%

25%

14%

15%

7%

24%

7%

21%

15%

Types of Abuse
Complaints in U.S.
Nursing Homes
(2010 NORS Data)

Types of Abuse
Complaints in U.S.
Board & Care Facilities
(2010 NORS Data)

NORS is the National Ombudsman Reporting System
NCEA Research Brief Abuse on Residents  
in Long Term Care Facilities, Page 2

  Most elder abuse statistics in Pennsylvania are 
generated by the Department of Aging. Neither the 
AOPC nor the courts collect data on elder abuse. 
Although	the	AOPC	compiles	filing	and	disposition	
statistics  about  the  number  of  protection  from 
abuse (“PFA”) emergency orders obtained from the 
courts, information about who is being abused, e.g., 
whether the person is an elder, is not collected. 

 
The CEC notes that, because elder abuse may 
be  an  issue  in  criminal,  civil,  family,  or  probate 
cases, jurisdiction for cases involving elder abuse 
lies in a variety of courts; further, elder abuse may 
be  an  underlying  issue  in  cases  in  which  elder 
abuse is not the primary substantive issue before 
the  court.108  CCJ  and  COSCA  adopted  a  joint 
resolution  recognizing  that  “elder  abuse,  neglect, 
and exploitation involve complex civil and criminal 
issues  that  require  a  sustained  and  committed 
response by the courts.”109

  Many	 cases	 identified	 as	 elder	 abuse	 “go	
unrecognized as they are not brought to the court 
with	a	specific	‘elder	abuse’	criminal	charge.”110 In 
some	states,	elder	abuse	is	a	specific	crime	defined	
in  the  criminal  code.111 Types  of  offenses  include: 
physical abuse, sexual abuse, psychological abuse, 
neglect,	 abandonment	 and	 isolation,	 financial	 or	
fiduciary	abuse,	and	self-neglect.112

 
According to Brenda Uekert and Denise Dancy, 
the	 number	 of	 criminal	 cases	 identified	 as	 “elder	
abuse”  is  relatively  small  due  to  the  challenges 
involved	in	prosecution.	The	most	difficult	aspects	of	
prosecuting such cases include: diminished mental 
capacity and/or physical health of the victim, lack of 
cooperation	by	the	victim,	proving	undue	influence,	
and  victim  intimidation.  The  nature  of  the  abuse 
and neglect may be subtle, and without screening 
and training, “the problem remains hidden from the 
view of the courts.”113

  Civil  cases  also  may  involve  elder  abuse, 
including protection from abuse orders, claims for 
damages	or	other	relief	from	identity	theft,	financial	
exploitation,	 undue	 influence,	 fraud,	 deceptive	
to  an  elderly 
practices,  petitions 
person, and petitions for removal of durable power 
of  attorney.114  Cases  within  the  probate  courts 
likewise may involve issues related to elder abuse 
and	 financial	 exploitation,	 including	 amendments	
of wills and trusts, exercise of a power of attorney, 
and guardianship of the person or estate.115 

for  access 

The  CEC  notes  that  most  states  have  a 
 
 
statutory  requirement 
to  report  elder  abuse, 
neglect, or exploitation. The reporting requirements 

19

BACKGROUNDare complex, and vary according to the state.116

 
In Pennsylvania, protective services for elders 
are  mandated  by  statute.  The  OAPSA  authorizes 
protective  services 
resources  and 
support)  for  elders  “to  detect,  prevent,  reduce 
or  eliminate  abuse,  neglect,  exploitation  and 
abandonment.”117  These  acts  and 
relevant 
definitions	are	set	forth	in	the	OAPSA	as	follows:

(activities, 

Abuse - The occurrence of one or more of the 

 
following acts:

1.  The	

infliction	

unreasonable	
confinement,	 intimidation	 or	 punishment	 with	
resulting physical harm, pain or mental anguish.

injury,	

of	

2.  The willful deprivation by a caretaker of goods 
or  services  which  are  necessary  to  maintain 
physical or mental health.

3.  Sexual	harassment,	rape	or	abuse,	as	defined	
in the act of October 7, 1976 (P.L.1090, No.218), 
known as the Protection From Abuse Act.118

	 Neglect	 is	 defined	 as	 “[t]he	 failure	 to	 provide	
for oneself or the failure of a caretaker to provide 
goods  or  services  essential  to  avoid  a  clear  and 
serious threat to physical or mental health.”119 

	
Exploitation	is	defined	as	“[a]n	act	or	course	of	
conduct by a caretaker or other person against an 
older adult or an older adult’s resources, without the 
informed consent of the older adult or with consent 
obtained  through  misrepresentation,  coercion  or 
threats of force, that results in monetary, personal 
or	other	benefit,	gain	or	profit	for	the	perpetrator	or	
monetary or personal loss to the older adult.”120 

Abandonment	is	defined	as	“[t]he	desertion	of	

	
an older adult by a caretaker.”121

  Under  the  OAPSA,  an  “[o]lder  adult  in  need 
of  protective  services”  is  “[a]n  incapacitated  older 
adult  who  is  unable  to  perform  or  obtain  services 
that are necessary to maintain physical or mental 
health, for whom there is no responsible caretaker 
and who is at imminent risk of danger to his person 
or  property.”122  Incapacity  in  this  context  has  no 
direct reference to the term “incapacitated person” 
as	defined	in	the	Incapacitated	Persons	Act	(Act	of	
June  30,  1972,  P.L.  508,  No.  164,  20  Pa.C.S.  §§ 
5501-5555, as amended).123 

 
The  OAPSA  safeguards  the  rights  of  elders 
and  “[p]rovide[s]  access  to  services  necessary 
to  protect  the  health,  safety  and  welfare  of  older 
adults  (age  60+)  who  lack  the  capacity  to  protect 

themselves and who are at imminent risk of abuse, 
neglect, exploitation or abandonment.”124

The Department of Aging, which is responsible 
 
for the oversight and implementation of the OAPSA, 
works  closely  with  county  AAAs  to  implement 
protective services at the local level.125 The AAAs 
are the Department of Aging’s “local” providers of 
services,  and  operate  in  52  planning  and  service 
areas  that  encompass  the  67  counties  in  the 
Commonwealth.126

Elder Abuse Case Process  
and the Role of Courts

If 

the  suspected  abuse 

the  OAPSA,  administrators  and 
  Under 
employees  of  certain  facilities,  including  assisted 
living  residences  and  long-term  care  nursing 
facilities, are mandated to report suspected abuse 
of a recipient of care to the local AAA and licensing 
agencies.127 
involves 
sexual  abuse,  serious  physical  injury,  serious 
bodily  injury  or  a  suspicious  death,  additional 
mandatory  reporting  is  required,  which  includes 
contacting  licensing  agencies,  law  enforcement, 
the Department of Aging, and the local AAA. Using 
information  in  the  report  about  the  allegation 
of  abuse,  the  AAA  determines  if  the  alleged 
victim  meets  the  criteria  for  a  protective  services 
investigation	as	specified	by	law.	If	the	criteria	are	
not  met,  the  case  is  referred  to  a  local  resource 
(e.g., licensing agency or community resource) for 
investigation and/or assistance to ensure the elder 
receives the necessary care and services.128

 
An  AAA  may  seek  court  orders  to  assist  in 
its  investigations  or  to  provide  for  services  (e.g., 
nursing home care) for elders in need of protective 
services. Depending on the circumstances, access 
to  records  and  PFA  orders  may  be  sought.  In  an 
emergency  situation,  the  AAA  may  petition  the 
court for guardianship or seek to relocate an elder 
who is at risk of death or serious physical harm.129 If 
a	perpetrator	and	sufficient	evidence	of	abuse	are	
uncovered  during  an  investigation,  the  protective 
services  investigator  refers  the  matter  to  law 
enforcement. 

	 Under	Pennsylvania	law,	the	Office	of	Attorney	
General  (“OAG”)  may  investigate  cases  involving 
elder abuse, including unfair or deceptive practices, 
and  may,  in  certain  circumstances,  prosecute 
individuals  for  criminal  violations.130  “Statistically, 
senior  citizens  are  favored  targets  for  many 
kinds  of  consumer  fraud  including  identity  theft, 
charities, telemarketing and sweepstakes fraud.”131 

20

BACKGROUNDmulti-agency,  and  multi-system  response.”137	 Yet,	
collaboration between the courts and elder justice 
agencies varies from county to county.

 
The CEC asserts that, because of the multiplicity 
of issues in an elder abuse case, a court’s response 
is  most  effective  when  it  works  with  community 
stakeholders engaged with elder abuse issues and 
taps into their expertise and resources. Stakeholders 
suggested  by  the  CEC  include:  law  enforcement, 
state	and	local	prosecutors’	offices,	social	services,	
adult  protective  services  (“APS”),  long-term  care 
ombudsman  programs,  mental  health  agencies, 
the  medical  community,  and  other  agencies  and 
organizations 
that  provide 
services for older people.138 Moreover, “elder abuse 
and exploitation is not a short-term problem. These 
cases will take up an increasing share of judicial, 
law enforcement, and social services caseloads for 
many years. The courts are in the best position to 
call  attention  to  the  problem.”139  The  CEC  further 
offers  that  the  courts  “can  play  a  pivotal  role  in 
bringing  together  the  key  stakeholders  to  build  a 
coordinated  community  response  to  elder  abuse, 
neglect, and exploitation.”140 

the  community 

in 

Complaints  are  received  through  the  OAG’s  toll-
free Elder Abuse Hotline.

	 During	FY	2012-2013,	262	petitions	were	filed	
by AAAs with the courts, an increase of 11 percent 
over the previous year, and 231 of those petitions 
were  granted.  “Guardianship  petitions  were  the 
most  common  with  76%  granted.  Involuntary 
emergency interventions accounted for the second 
highest number (21%). Access to records (2.3%), 
access to persons (0.4%), and injunctions against 
interference  (0.4%)  account  for  the  remaining 
petitions granted.”132 

impaired	 by	

 
Pennsylvania  courts’  ability  to  identify  and 
respond  to  elder  abuse  and  neglect  cases  may 
be	
judicial	 education	
insufficient	
and  training,  and  a  lack  of  collaboration  with 
executive  agencies.  While  occasional  educational 
presentations  have  been offered to judges  by the 
AOPC  Judicial  Education  Department,  annual 
education focusing on issues of aging, the special 
concerns and challenges involving elders engaged 
in the legal system, guardianships, and elder abuse 
and neglect cases, has not been provided.

training 

Judicial 

 
important  concern 
is  an 
because “very few older persons will demonstrate 
obvious	signs	of	physical,	financial,	and	emotional	
abuse.”133  In  addition,  elder  abuse  and  neglect 
cases  may  involve  elders  who  “have  physical, 
emotional or cognitive impairments or other issues 
that could have implications for the court’s actions 
and  outcomes  for  the  person.”134  According  to 
the ABA,  when  a  judge  is  confronted  with  a  case 
involving  an  elder  with  a  cognitive  impairment, 
“understanding  the  source  of  a  victim’s  dementia 
and  degree  of  cognitive  impairment  is  critical” 
because, “[w]hile Alzheimer’s and cerebral vascular 
incidents are the most common causes of dementia 
in the elderly, there are over 200 possible causes of 
dementia, including alcoholism, diabetes, and drug 
interactions.”135 “[T]here are solutions that can help 
courts	 improve	 the	 identification	 of	 and	 response	
to elder abuse. Judicial and court staff awareness 
is	the	first	step	toward	 recognizing	 ways	in	 which	
elder abuse may be impacting cases in front of the 
court.”136

  HHS observes that elder abuse “is a complex 
cluster of distinct but related phenomena involving 
health,	
legal,	 social	 service,	 financial,	 public	
safety,  aging,  disability,  protective  services, 
and  victim  services,  aging  services,  policy, 
research,  education,  and  human  rights  issues.  It 
therefore  requires  a  coordinated  multidisciplinary, 

21

BACKGROUNDAccess to Justice

“Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will 
be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit.”

 

BACKGROUND

James Madison
The Federalist Papers No. 51141

their 

physical 

 
Elders  may  face  physical  obstacles  in  the 
courthouse.  They  may  encounter  courtrooms 
that	 have	 not	 been	 modified	 or	 retrofitted	 to	
limitations.144 
accommodate 
Devices  that  may  help  an  elder  follow  courtroom 
proceedings,	 such	 as	 a	 hearing	 amplification	
system,  may  not  be  available.  Elders  who  are 
no  longer  able  to  drive  or  who  live  in  remote  or 
rural  areas  not  served  by  public  transportation 
may	 have	 difficulty	 getting	 to	 the	 courthouse.145  
“[O]lder persons who are homebound or bedbound 
may  be  incapable  of  traveling  to  the  courthouse 
even  though  they  are  capable  of  testifying.”146  In 
Pennsylvania’s  rural  communities,  44  percent  of 
all  single  households  are  comprised  of  persons 
65 and over,147 and many suffer from one or more 
chronic health conditions.148 

 
Elders’ attitudes about pursuing legal remedies, 
shame and fear about having an abusive situation 
aired  publicly  —  particularly  when  the  abuser  is 
a  family  member  —  or  a  lack  of  understanding 
regarding  the  court  system  and  their  individual 
rights,  may  pose  additional  barriers  to  obtaining 
justice.  A  judge’s  lack  of  knowledge  and/or  lack 
of  sensitivity  to  elder  abuse  can  be  viewed  as 
“inhibiting  prosecutors,  civil  lawyers,  and  abused 
persons from bringing cases into the courts.”149

  Court  practices  and  procedures  may  also 
create  obstacles  for  elders.  Most  courts,  both 
nationally  and  in  Pennsylvania,  do  not  make 
special  provisions  for  elders  through  their  case 
management  practices.  For  example,  “cases  can 
be sped up to ensure that justice is served during 
an older person’s lifetime. Similarly, cases involving 
older  victims  can  be  scheduled  around  physical 
impairments  or  limitations  that  impact  cognitive 
ability during certain hours of the day.”150

 
The  Supreme  Court  of  Pennsylvania  and  the 
Task Force are committed to ensuring full access 
to justice for our Commonwealth’s elders. 

that  a 

In  2008,  recognizing 

fundamental 
requirement  of  access  to  justice  is  access  to  the 
courts,  CCJ  and  COSCA  passed  a  resolution 
encouraging  their  members  “to  continue  to  take 
steps  to  ensure  that  no  citizen  is  denied  access 
to the justice system,” and urging them to “take a 
leadership  role  in  their  respective  jurisdictions  to 
prevent denials of access to justice.”142 

 
Access to justice for elders is an issue affecting 
all  courts  and  types  of  cases.  “Although  the 
demographics on aging in America will impel judicial 
systems to accommodate larger numbers of older 
adults  in  the  courthouse,  it  is  the  special  needs 
of  many  elders  that  present  the  administrative 
challenge for court administrators or judges.”143 

 
Addressing the needs of Pennsylvania’s elders 
so  they  have  complete  access  to  justice  and  an 
ability to fully participate in legal proceedings is one 
of the major challenges facing the Commonwealth’s 
courts. Obstacles to an elder’s full access to justice 
include barriers, both physical and attitudinal, and 
court practices.

22

BACKGROUND

23

•	

•	

•	

•	

the  lack  of  a  uniform,  statewide  process  of 
collecting guardianship data; 

the	 failure	 of	 guardians	 to	 file	 annual	 reports	
regarding  the  person/estate  as  required  by 
statute; 

the lack of training for most court staff, lawyers, 
and guardians regarding guardianships; and

the	lack	of	mandated	qualifications	to	serve	as	
a guardian.152

In	 response	 to	 those	 findings,	 in	 2007,	 the	
	
AOPC  conducted  an  internal  study  to  determine 
the total number of guardianships in Pennsylvania 
and  whether  statutorily  mandated  reports  were 
being	 filed	 by	 guardians.	 The	 study	 showed	 that	
the	failure	to	file	guardianship	reports	was	a	serious	
problem in many counties — 54.8 percent of active 
guardianships	did	not	have	any	reports	filed.	

 
In May 2008, Philadelphia served as a host to 
a national conference, “The Role of Court Leaders 
in  Supporting  Public  Policy,”  co-sponsored  by  the 
NCSC and the Pew Center on the States. More than 
60  chief  justices  and  state  court  administrators, 
including  Chief  Justice  Castille  and  Mr.  Pines, 
discussed the role courts should play in supporting 
and  reforming public  policy  affecting elders  in  the 
administration of justice. Adult guardianships were 
identified	as	one	of	the	important	emerging	issues	
facing society and the courts, and an area in which 
court leadership could be the catalyst for reform.

 
Shortly after the conference, CCJ and COSCA 
passed	two	resolutions.	The	first	supported	a	policy	
paper that urged the creation of a national resource 
for  courts  on  aging  issues,  elder  abuse,  and 
guardianships, and the development of national and 
statewide model practices.153 The second resolution 
supported  the  Uniform  Adult  Guardianship  and 
Protective  Proceedings  Jurisdiction  Act,  which 
outlined 
jurisdiction  of  guardianship 
cases.154 CCJ and COSCA also established a task 
force  to  address  elder  issues  and  guardianships. 
“These  actions  signal  an  oncoming  wave  of 
court  awareness  of  the  problem  and  suggest  the 
potential	 for	 real	 solutions	 that	 can	 filter	 down	 to	
courts nationwide.”155

interstate 

The Task Force is the product of the collective 
 
wisdom  of  Chief  Justice  Ronald  D.  Castille 
and  Zygmont  A.  Pines,  Court  Administrator  of 
Pennsylvania.  Mr.  Pines,  as  both  the  state  court 
administrator and co-chair of CCJ/COSCA’s Elders 
and the Courts Committee, has observed the many 
efforts  courts,  particularly  those  in  Pennsylvania, 
have  made  to  protect  abused  and  neglected 
children. He noticed, however, that other state court 
systems are beginning to pay closer attention to “the 
other side of life’s spectrum, the so-called ‘twilight 
years,’	when	infirmities	and	isolation	increase	one’s	
helplessness in dealing with the evils of abuse and 
neglect…the other side of dependency.” 

  Recognizing the realities behind Pennsylvania’s 
rank as the fourth “oldest” state in the nation, with 
21.4  percent  of  the  population  60  and  over,  the 
Pennsylvania  judicial  system,  through  the AOPC, 
began to examine the myriad issues relating to the 
aging population and the courts.

 
In  2006,  the  AOPC  was  invited  to  participate 
in  the  JSGC’s  Working  Group  on  Guardianships. 
The  Working  Group  was  requested  “to  review 
current  guardianship  statutes  and  programs  and 
make	 findings	 and	 recommendations	 on	 their	
effectiveness  in  meeting  the  needs  of  vulnerable 
incapacitated  persons.”151  The  resulting  report 
revealed 
in  Pennsylvania, 
issues 
specifically:

serious 

•	 an  inability  to  determine  the  total  number  of 

active guardianships in any given year;

Need for the Elder Law Task Force

 
In March 2009, Mr. Pines and AOPC staff met 
with district court administrators from the counties 
of  Philadelphia,  Chester,  Dauphin,  Montgomery, 
Allegheny,	Erie,	and	Schuylkill	to	discuss	the	findings	
of the AOPC’s study to determine the total number 
of current guardianships and learn about problems 
courts face in guardianship cases. Many problems 
were	identified,	including:	a	lack	of	education	and	
training  for  judges  and  court  personnel;  the  need 
for  case  management  best  practices;  a  lack  of 
resources to review, monitor, and address required 
guardianship  reports;  the  growing  problem  of 
power  of  attorney  abuse;  non-compliance  with 
court  orders;  the  need  for  training  and  resources 
for guardians; and improved collaboration between 
the  courts  and  agencies  that  provide  services  to 
elders; public access to and control of guardianship 
records given concerns about identity theft; and the 
vital  need  for  better  standardized  data  collection 
statewide.

  During 
the  June  2009  President  Judge/
Pennsylvania  Association  for  Court  Management 
Conference, AOPC staff and representatives from 
the  Allegheny  County  Orphans’  Court  presented 
information  about  the AOPC’s  2007  guardianship 
in  guardianship  cases, 
study,  best  practices 
and  issues  involved  in  guardianships.  These 
presentations  elicited  great  interest  and  requests 
for  more  information,  training,  and  presentations 
related to guardianships at future conferences.

 
In 2010, AOPC staff contributed information to 
the formulation of CCJ/COSCA’s 2010 policy paper, 
which focused on the increasing number of persons 
with  diminished  capacity  and  the  potential  impact 
on the responsibilities and limited resources of the 
courts.  The  policy  paper  encouraged  each  state 
to convene a statewide guardianship task force to 
review  its  guardianship  process,  court  rules,  and 
statutes; make and prioritize recommendations for 
improvement; and implement best practices.156

 
As  COSCA  noted,  “[p]rotecting  the  rapidly 
growing  number  of  persons  with  diminished 
decision-making  capacity  is  an  important  societal 
responsibility that the courts and state governments 
cannot  address  alone.”157  COSCA  contended 
that,  in  order  to  ensure  that  elders,  persons  with 
intellectual  or  cognitive  impairments  or  mental 
illnesses, and veterans with disabilities receive the 
decision-making  assistance  needed  to  continue 
living life to the fullest extent, a coordinated national 
response is required.158

  COSCA’s policy paper articulated a prescription 
“National  guardianship  experts 
for  action: 

consistently have recommended that states use a 
multidisciplinary approach to address guardianship 
issues.  Experience  has  shown  that  involving  key 
stakeholders  in  a  collaborative  decision-making 
process  to  resolve  guardianship  issues  increases 
the  likelihood  of  successful  program  outcomes. 
Accordingly,  the  chief  justice  and  state  court 
administrator  of  each  state,  working  with  other 
judiciary  leaders,  should  convene  a  task  force  to 
review the guardianship process, court rules, and 
statutes; to make and prioritize recommendations for 
improvement; and to implement best practices.”159 

 
In  2011,  Mr.  Pines  participated  as  a  voting 
member  of  the  National  Guardianship  Summit. 
The National Guardianship Summit represented an 
extraordinary  effort  to  “produce  recommendations 
on  widely  recognized  and  understood  standards 
to  guide  guardians  in  their  duties.”160  Mr.  Pines 
provided  insight  on  the  growing  problem  of  the 
financial	exploitation	of	elders	in	the	Commonwealth,	
particularly  power  of  attorney  abuse,  and  he 
assisted	 in	 formulating	 specific	 recommendations	
on the topic of guardianship fees. 

 
Based  on  the  involvement  of  Chief  Justice 
Castille, Mr. Pines, and the AOPC with aging issues 
affecting courts in Pennsylvania and nationally, the 
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (“Supreme Court”) 
concluded that it was necessary to effect change in 
the  way  the  Commonwealth’s  courts  address  the 
needs of elders, but that courts cannot do so alone. 
Thus,  the  Supreme  Court  decided  to  convene  a 
multi-disciplinary task force focused on how courts 
can  address  the  particular  concerns  regarding 
elders  and  also  be  proactive  about  addressing 
the  impact  of  the  growing  population  of  elders  in 
the  Commonwealth’s  court  system.  Regarding 
the  formation  of  a  task  force,  Chief  Justice 
Castille noted: “The increased population of older 
Pennsylvanians has strained the resources of our 
courts and their ability to provide services to these 
individuals.  The  needs  of  this  growing  population 
will continue for years to come, especially in regards 
to guardianship, elder abuse and access to justice. 
Now is the time to put into place solutions that will 
allow older Pennsylvanians to age without worries 
that they will be abused or that their money will be 
taken.” 

At 

the  request  of  Chief  Justice  Castille, 
 
Madame  Justice  Debra  Todd  agreed  to  assume 
the  responsibility  of  forming  a  task  force  on  elder 
law  issues  and  directing  its  efforts.  Upon  her 
appointment, Madame Justice Todd remarked that, 
“[a]s  a  society  we  have  increased  concentration 
on  child  abuse,  but  the  issue  of  elder  abuse  has 

BACKGROUND

24

BACKGROUND

25

Elder Law Task Force meeting in Harrisburg, September 2014

not  kept  pace.  This  Task  Force  is  the  judiciary’s 
attempt to study the issues and make adjustments 
now.”  Madame  Justice  Todd  serves  as  the  Task 
Force’s  Chair,  and  Mr.  Pines  serves  as  the  Task 
for 
Force’s  Administrative  Chair.  The 

timing 

the  Task  Force’s  work  is  opportune,  given  the 
increased  national  focus  on  guardianships,  elder 
abuse, and access to justice issues, as well as the 
Department  of  Aging’s  statewide  examination  of 
current guardianship practices.161

Mission of the Elder Law Task Force

 
The Task Force was charged by Chief Justice 
Castille to review current practices and problems, 
examine  promising  practices  in  other  states,  and 
deliver a blueprint of recommendations to address 
the needs and challenges of the Commonwealth’s 
aging  population.  To  accomplish  such  a  solemn 
and important mission, Madame Justice Todd, Mr. 
Pines,  and  the  members  of  the  Task  Force  have 
been steadfast in the pursuit of practical solutions 

that  will  improve  and  protect  access  to  justice  for 
our elders. It is the Task Force’s collective hope that 
the recommendations offered herein will serve as 
model practices and inspire leaders in government 
and  our  communities  to  be  both  advocates  and 
instruments  of  reform  in  service  to  those  who 
increasingly  need  and  deserve  assistance  –  our 
elders. 

Structure and Focus of the Elder Law Task Force

Guardians and Counsel Committee

Judge	Joseph	D.	O’Keefe,	Chair
Senior Judge Penny L. Blackwell, Vice Chair
Keelin	S.	Barry,	Esquire
Drew Grivna
Neil E. Hendershot, Esquire
Jeffrey R. Hoffman, Esquire
Stephen P. Paschall, Esquire
Raymond Pepe, Esquire
Paul Stefano, Esquire

 
The  Guardians  and  Counsel  Committee,  with 
the	assistance	of	AOPC	staff	members	Owen	Kelly,	
Esquire,  and  Patricia  Ranieri,  Esquire,  examined 
the following issues:

1.  Sources of Guardians

2.  Powers,  Duties,  and  Responsibilities  of 

Guardians

3.  Guardian’s Scope of Liability

4.  Qualifications	and	Screening	of	Guardians

5.  Bonding of Guardians

6.  Retention of Guardians

7.  Right to Appointed Counsel

8.  Role of Counsel

9.  Guardian and Counsel Fees

10. Guardianship  Education  and  Training 

for 
Judges, Court Staff, Attorneys, Guardians and 
Others

Guardianship Monitoring Committee

Judge Paula Francisco Ott, Chair
Risè P. Newman, Esquire, Vice Chair
Carol Ruckert Fiorucci
Judge Jay J. Hoberg
Judge Todd A. Hoover
Crystal Lowe
Diane A. Menio
Joseph M. Olimpi, Esquire
John B. Payne, Esquire
Wendy	M.	Welfley
Harriet Withstandley, Esquire

It  was  the  Supreme  Court’s  belief  that  for  the 
Task Force to be effective, its membership should 
be  comprised  of  representatives  from  various 
groups with an interest in elders and their interaction 
with the courts. The selection of members resulted 
from a lengthy deliberative process. That process 
was undertaken to ensure the issues assigned to 
the  Task  Force  would  be  studied  by  a  broad  and 
diverse group of professionals with subject matter 
expertise in the areas of guardianship, elder abuse, 
and access to justice. The experts came from urban 
and rural counties across the Commonwealth, and 
represented  many  different  perspectives  on  how 
elder  Pennsylvanians  engage  with  the  judicial 
system.  As  a  result,  the  Task  Force  was  well 
equipped  to  employ  a  multi-disciplinary  approach 
to achieve its mission.

	 One	 of	 the	 great	 benefits	 of	 the	 Task	 Force’s	
work  has  been  the  forging  of  new  collaborations 
between 
justice-
the  courts  and  other  elder 
related  entities.  Since  the  Task  Force’s  initiatives 
depend  on  multi-agency  efforts,  the  collaborative 
relationships  developed  through  its  deliberations 
have been vitally important.

 
In order to address the wide range of issues it 
was assigned, the Task Force was divided into the 
following	committees	to	examine	specific	issues.	

METHODOLOGY

26

27

METHODOLOGY

 
The  Guardianship  Monitoring  Committee, 
with	 the	 assistance	 of	 AOPC	 staff	 members	 Kim	
Cataldo,	Dr.	Kim	Nieves	and	Amy	Ceraso,	Esquire,	
examined the following issues:

1.  Preliminary Assessment Process – Determining 

Subcommittee on Funding

Karen	C.	Buck,	Esquire
Ronald W. Costen, PhD, Esquire
D.A. Eugene Vittone

Capacity

Abuse

of Forms

2.  Preliminary Assessment  Process  –  Identifying 

3.  Reporting  Requirements  and  Standardization 

 
the 
The  Subcommittee  on  Funding,  with 
assistance  of  AOPC  staff  members  Cherstin  M. 
Hamel  and  Darren  Breslin,  Esquire,  explored 
potential funding sources and opportunities for the 
proposed  initiatives  and  recommendations  of  the 
Task Force. 

4.  Effective  Monitoring  and  Enforcement  of 

Subcommittee on Slayer Statute

Reporting Requirements

5.  Data Collection

6.  Removal,  Replacement  and  Discharge  of 

Guardians

Elder Abuse and Neglect Committee

D.A. Stephen A. Zappala, Jr., Chair
Wilmarie González, Vice Chair
Ronald Barth
Karen	C.	Buck,	Esquire
Ronald W. Costen, PhD, Esquire
Kathleen	Gustine,	Esquire
Judge Lois E. Murphy
A.D.A. Deborah Cooper Nixon 
Judge Lawrence J. O’Toole
Katherine	C.	Pearson,	Esquire
Robert N. Peirce, Esquire
Louise A. Rynd, Esquire
Carol Sikov Gross, Esquire
Catharine E. Thurston, Esquire 
D.A. Eugene Vittone 
President Judge George Zanic

 
The  Elder  Abuse  and  Neglect  Committee, 
with the assistance of AOPC staff Darren Breslin, 
Esquire, examined the following issues:

1.  Financial Abuse and Exploitation of the Elderly

2.  Training, Information and Collaborations

3.  Effective Court Practices to Address Elder Abuse 
and Promote Access to Justice for Pennsylvania’s 
Elders

4.  Funding Elder Abuse Initiatives

Neil E. Hendershot, Esquire
John B. Payne, Esquire
Katherine	C.	Pearson,	Esquire

The  Subcommittee  on  Slayer  Statute,  with 
 
the  assistance  of  AOPC  staff  member  Darren 
Breslin, Esquire, studied the possible expansion of 
Pennsylvania’s Slayer Statute.

 
Integral to the cohesiveness and effectiveness 
of the Task Force was the administrative oversight 
and  guidance  provided  by  Cherstin  M.  Hamel, 
Assistant Director of the AOPC Judicial Programs 
Department.

Elder Law Task 
Force and Committee 
Meetings

The  inaugural  meeting  of  the Task  Force  was 
 
held  on  April  16-17,  2013.  Subsequent  meetings 
were  held  on  October  29-30,  2013;  June  17-18, 
2014; and September 23, 2014. All meetings were 
chaired  by  Madame  Justice  Todd  and  Mr.  Pines, 
and were held at the Pennsylvania Judicial Center 
in Harrisburg.

Between April  2013  and  October  2014,  when 
 
the Task Force concluded its work, the Committees 
met  numerous  times.  Meetings  were  held  in 
person,  by  videoconference,  and  by  telephone 
conference  calls.  Each  Committee  also  broke 
into  smaller  subcommittees  to  address  discrete 
tasks. Committee chairs and AOPC staff also held 
monthly conference calls.

 
Legislative  staff  from  the  General  Assembly 
was invited to attend the October 29, 2013 meeting. 

The Task Force believed it was important for these 
staff  members  to  better  understand  the  scope  of 
guardianship,  elder  abuse,  and  access  to  justice 
issues  facing  the  judicial  system,  and  to  have  an 
opportunity to pose questions to the Task Force’s 
experts.

Presentations Made 
to the Elder Law Task 
Force 

Two  nationally  renowned  experts  were  invited 
 
to address the Task Force at its inaugural meeting. 
The Task Force was fortunate to hear the national 
perspective	on	the	issues	it	studied	from	Brenda	K.	
Uekert, Principal Court Research Consultant at the 
NCSC in Virginia, and Sally Balch Hurme, Project 
Advisor  for  Education  and  Outreach  at  AARP  in 
Washington, DC.

The following presentations were made to the Task 
Force during the course of its work:

Overview of Proposed Guardianship and 
Power of Attorney Legislation
Presented by Neil E. Hendershot, Esquire 

Legislation of Interest to the Elder Law Task 
Force
Presented	 by	 James	 J.	 Koval,	 Communications	
Manager,	 Administrative	 Office	 of	 Pennsylvania	
Courts

Damian  Wachter,  Esquire,  Assistant 
for 
Intergovernmental  Relations,  Legislative  Affairs 
Unit,	Administrative	Office	of	Pennsylvania	Courts

Dr.	 Brenda	 K.	 Uekert,	 Principal	 Court	 Research	
Consultant, National Center for State Courts

Funding for Task Force Initiatives
Presented	by	Dr.	Brenda	K.	Uekert,	Principal	Court	
Research  Consultant,  National  Center  for  State 
Courts

Social Security Administration Representation 
Pay Process
Presented  by  Robert  Raughley,  Social  Insurance 
Specialist, 
Security  Administration, 
Social 
Philadelphia Region

National Overview of Aging,  
Guardianships and Elder Abuse
Presented	by	Dr.	Brenda	K.	Uekert,	Principal	Court	
Research  Consultant,  National  Center  for  State 
Courts

Overview of Financial Exploitation  
Issues
Presented  by  Ronald  W.  Costen,  PhD,  Esquire, 
Director,  Institute  on  Protective  Services,  Temple 
University 

Demographics of Aging, Guardianships, and 
Elder Abuse in Pennsylvania
Presented by Wilmarie González, Director, Bureau 
for Advocacy, Protection & Education, Pennsylvania 
Department of Aging

Ronald W. Costen, PhD, Esquire, Director, Institute 
on Protective Services, Temple University 

Pennsylvania Guardianship and Elder Abuse 
Court Data
Presented	 by	 Dr.	 Kim	 Nieves,	 Director,	 Research	
&	Statistics,	Administrative	Office	of	Pennsylvania	
Courts

Kim	 Cataldo,	 Research	 Analyst,	 Research	 &	
Statistics,	 Administrative	 Office	 of	 Pennsylvania	
Courts

Carol Ruckert Fiorucci, Register of Wills & Orphans’ 
Court Clerk, Beaver County 

Guardianships
Presented  by  Sally  Balch  Hurme,  Project Advisor 
for Education and Outreach, AARP

Linda  Mill,  CFE,  Investigations  Manager,  Institute 
on Protective Services, Temple University 

Prosecution of Elder Abuse Cases
Presented by District Attorney Stephen A. Zappala, 
Jr., Allegheny County

Deborah  Cooper  Nixon,  Esquire,  Elder  Justice 
Project	 Coordinator,	 District	 Attorney’s	 Office	 of	
Philadelphia

Orphans’ Court Rules Update
Presented  by  Daniel  A.  Durst,  Esquire,  Chief 
Counsel, Supreme Court Rules Committees

Collaboration and Networking for Task Force 
Initiatives
Presented  by  Angela  Sager,  Judicial  Analyst, 
Office	 of	 Children	 and	 Families	 in	 the	 Courts,	
Administrative	Office	of	Pennsylvania	Courts

Dr.	 Brenda	 K.	 Uekert,	 Principal	 Court	 Research	
Consultant, National Center for State Courts

METHODOLOGY

28

METHODOLOGY

29

Third World Congress on Adult  
Guardianships
Presented by Judge Paula Francisco Ott, Superior 
Court of Pennsylvania

Funding for Task Force Initiatives
Presented	 by	 Karen	 C.	 Buck,	 Esquire,	 Executive	
Director, SeniorLAW Center

Ronald W. Costen, PhD, Esquire, Director, Institute 
on Protective Services, Temple University 

Elder Law Task Force 
Research and Analysis 

 
The issues selected for study by the Task Force 
were  the  result  of  careful  consideration  by  the 
Supreme Court and the AOPC. The issues required 
significant	research,	analysis	and	discussion.

The  Task  Force  decided  it  was  necessary  to 
 
quantify and measure the practices and operations 
of the courts that hear guardianship cases. Surveys 
were created and distributed to the Orphans’ Court 
Judges and Orphans’ Court Clerks in each county. 
The	survey	findings	provided	context	for	the	issues	
addressed by the Task Force, and have shaped the 
recommendations in this Report. Data collected by 
the  AOPC,  the  Orphans’  Courts,  the  Department 
of  Aging  and  other  agencies  that  work  with  the 
Commonwealth’s elders were also examined.

The Task Force reviewed the national literature 
 
on guardianships, elder abuse and access to justice 
issues  in  order  to  identify  problems,  innovations 
and  best  practices.  Materials  from  the  NCSA  and 
its  CEC,  the  National  Guardianship  Summit,  the 
National  Guardianship  Association  (“NGA”),  the 
NCEA,  the  ABA,  and  many  other  organizations 
were studied. The reports and activities of the state 
task  forces  that  dealt  with  elder  issues  affecting 
the  courts  in Arizona,  California,  Florida,  Indiana, 
Michigan, Nebraska, Oregon, South Carolina, and 
Utah were examined. To assist in the Task Force’s 
research,  the  AOPC  created  a  website  library 
containing more than 100 resource materials.

 
Additionally,  in  May  2014,  three  Task  Force 
members  and 
two  committee  staff  members 
the  3rd  World  Congress  on  Adult 
attended 
in  Washington,  D.C.  Seventeen 
Guardianship 
countries  participated  in  the  Congress,  which 
focused  on  addressing  common 
issues  and 
problems related to guardianships. 

A  helpful 

 
information  was 
contained in the following reports from the JSGC’s 
Advisory Committee on Decedents’ Estates Laws: 

repository  of 

The  Proposed  Pennsylvania  Uniform  Trust  Act 
and  Amendments  to  the  Probate,  Estates  and 
Fiduciaries Code (April 2005);162 

The  Probate,  Estates  and  Fiduciaries  Code: 
Proposed  Amendments 
the 
Pennsylvania  Consolidated  Statutes 
(October 
2007);163 

to  Title  20  of 

Powers of Attorney: Proposed Amendments to the 
Probate,  Estates  and  Fiduciaries  Code  (March 
2010);164 

The  Probate,  Estates,  and  Fiduciaries  Code: 
Proposed  Amendments 
the 
Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes (June 2010);165 

to  Title  20  of 

Powers  of  Attorney  and  Health  Care  Decision-
Making,  Proposed  Amendments  to  the  Probate, 
Estates and Fiduciaries Code (June 2011);166 

Guardianship  Law:  Proposed Amendments  to  the 
Probate,  Estates  and  Fiduciaries  Code  (October 
2012);167 and 

Guardianship  Law  in  Pennsylvania,  Report  of  the 
Working Group on Guardianships (May 2007).168

The Task Force also considered the transcripts 
 
of  the  Pennsylvania  House  of  Representatives’ 
Aging and Older Adult Services Committee’s public 
hearings  on  elder  abuse  held  November  19-20, 
2013 and December 9-11, 2013.

 
The  Task  Force  reviewed  pending  legislation 
addressing  elders  and  their  interaction  with  the 
courts, including, but not limited to:

House Bills

 
The  Task  Force  reviewed  studies  and  reports 
regarding  elder  issues,  including  those  from  the 
Department of Aging and the Center for Advocacy 
of the Rights and Interests of the Elderly. Further, a 
review of statutes and case law in Pennsylvania, as 
well as national law, was undertaken. 

31 of 2013, Pr. No 10
651 of 2013, Pr. No. 728 
1429 (enacted into law as Act 95 of 2014)
2007 of 2014, Pr. No. 3441 
2014 of 2014, Pr. No. 3326
2057 of 2014, Pr. No. 3054

Senate Bills

117 of 2013, Pr. No. 73
620 of 2013, Pr. No. 627
621 of 2013, Pr. Nos. 2111 and 2322

All of the proposed bills reviewed and discussed 
 
by  the Task  Force  remain  under  consideration  by 
Pennsylvania’s Legislature and have not yet been 
enacted  into  law  with  the  exception  of  House  Bill 
1429. The Task Force recognizes that amendments 
may occur to the legislation by the time this Report 
is distributed. 

METHODOLOGY

30

PART II   

REPORTS OF THE ELDER LAW TASK FORCE COMMITTEES

31

Reports of the 
Elder Law Task Force Committees

COMMITTEE REPORT
Guardians and Counsel

Judge	Joseph	D.	O’Keefe,	Chair

Senior Judge Penny L. Blackwell, Vice Chair

Keelin	S.	Barry,	Esquire

Drew Grivna

Neil E. Hendershot, Esquire

Jeffrey R. Hoffman, Esquire

Stephen P. Paschall, Esquire

Raymond Pepe, Esquire

Paul Stefano, Esquire

AOPC Staff:  

Owen	Kelly,	Esquire 

Patricia Ranieri, Esquire

GUARDIANS AND COUNSEL COMMITTEE REPORT

32

GUARDIANS AND COUNSEL COMMITTEE REPORT

33

Guardians and Counsel Committee 
Findings and Recommendations

Introduction

The concepts of guardians and guardianships are quite broad and encompass minors, the mentally 

 
incapacitated, and elders. The Guardians and Counsel Committee recognized that each of these 
populations has their own distinct issues; however, for the purposes of these recommendations, the 
Committee focused solely on issues that affect elders.

I.  Sources of Guardians

A.  Issue Statement

The Committee was asked to address the issue of available sources of guardians of the person 

 
and guardians of the estate, and to make recommendations for creating a uniform approach to 
providing the courts in each county with a ready pool of candidates to serve as guardian of an 
incapacitated person (“IP”). Based on the Committee’s research and discussions, it appeared that 
there	was	no	unified	approach	among	the	counties	on	this	issue,	and	counties	created	their	own	
approaches, which, in many instances, have been hampered by funding problems.

B.  Committee Findings

1.  The courts of each county routinely favor the appointment of a family member to serve 
as guardian of the person. In all instances, however, the courts do not routinely favor the 
appointment of a family member as guardian of the estate when the estate consists of 
substantial assets, unless the proposed guardian of the estate posts a bond. 

2.  With regard to the appointment of a family member, courts have been willing to consider 
appointing both immediate family members and non-immediate family members who 
demonstrate that they are willing to take on such a responsibility.

3.  If a guardian of the person and/or estate is needed for an alleged incapacitated person 
(“AIP”)	and	there	is	no	family	member	available	or	qualified	to	serve	as	such,	the	various	
counties look to other county organizations, if available. If there is no such organization 
available, the courts have been left to their own creativity to create sources of guardians.

4.	 It	is	even	more	difficult	for	an	institution	such	as	a	nursing	home	or	hospital	filing	a	petition	
to have one of its residents declared incapacitated when there is no established list of available 
and approved persons or entities to serve as guardian of the person from which to select.

C.  Committee Recommendations

1.  Practices and Procedures

a.  Guardian of the Person

The	Committee,	pursuant	to	its	findings	in	(I)(B),	recommends	as	follows:

i.  When a guardian of the person is required, the courts should favor the appointment 
of a family member whenever possible. The Committee recommends, however, that 
the term “family member” not be limited to immediate family, but rather, attempts to 
contact other relatives and friends of the IP should be encouraged. In determining who 
should act as guardian, the Committee recommends that the courts be encouraged to 
consult 20 Pa.C.S. § 5461(d)(1) for guidance.1	Specifically,	courts	should	generally	favor	

an individual designated by the IP as a health care representative who is reasonably 
available	unless	it	determines	that	the	individual	should	be	disqualified	or	the	IP’s	
selection should not otherwise be followed for “cause shown” pursuant to § 5461(e). In 
this event, the court should consult the following hierarchy set forth in § 5461(d)(1) for 
further guidance: 

(i)  The spouse, unless an action for divorce is pending, and the adult 
children of the principal who are not the children of the spouse.

(ii)  An adult child.

(iii) A parent.

(iv) An adult brother or sister.

(v)  An adult grandchild.

(vi) An adult who has knowledge of the principal’s preferences and 
values, including, but not limited to, religious and moral beliefs, to 
assess how the principal would make health care decisions.2 

ii.  When family and friends are not a viable option, the Committee recommends that 
each	county	have	a	list	of	individuals	and	agencies	qualified	to	act	as	guardian	of	the	
person, and that their contact information be made available. The list should be created, 
maintained, and expanded as described in (I)(C)(2) below and may include local 
attorneys,	individuals,	private	agencies	(both	for-profit	and	as	non-profit),	and	public	
agencies. 

b.  Guardian of the Estate

i.  The Committee recommends that when a guardian of the estate is required for an 
individual, the courts should favor the appointment of a family member when the estate 
consists of minimal assets, or when the proposed guardian has the skills and experience 
necessary to manage the estate and is able to obtain a bond or provide other assurance 
of	financial	responsibility.

In	all	other	instances,	the	Committee	recommends	that	a	qualified	attorney,	

ii.	
accountant,	financial	advisor,	institutional	trustee,	individual,	or	agency	be	proposed	as	
the guardian of the estate. Each county should have in place a list of individuals and 
agencies	qualified	to	act	as	guardians	of	the	estate,	and	their	contact	information	should	
be made available. This list should be created, maintained, and expanded as described 
in	(I)(C)(2)	and	may	include	local	attorneys,	individuals,	private	agencies	(both	for-profit	
and	non-profit),	and	public	agencies.	

2.  Implementation of Recommendations

a.  Recommendations (I)(C)(1)(a)(i) and (b)(i) should be implemented by rule of court.

b.	 The	recommendation	that	lists	of	qualified	guardians	of	the	person	or	estate	be	created	
should be implemented through court rule. Creation of the lists in each county should be as 
follows:

i.  Creation	of	the	lists	in	each	county	should	be	coordinated	by	the	Office	of	Elder	
Justice in the Courts (“OEJC”) in conjunction with the local guardianship support agency 
(“GSA”), if one exists and is able to do so. If a GSA is not available or is unwilling 
or unable to assist, the OEJC should work with the local interdisciplinary teams 
recommended in (II)(C)(1)(d). If a local interdisciplinary team has not been created, the 
OEJC and the President Judge of the judicial district (or his/her designee) should create 
the list in conjunction with a work group composed of persons and entities active in 
guardianship matters in the county.

GUARDIANS AND COUNSEL COMMITTEE REPORT

34

GUARDIANS AND COUNSEL COMMITTEE REPORT

35

ii.   Once the list has been created, its maintenance and expansion should be overseen 
by	a	local	non-profit	agency	such	as	a	GSA.	If	such	a	non-profit	agency	is	not	available,	
the list should be overseen by the local interdisciplinary team or, if there is no local 
interdisciplinary team, by the President Judge (or designee) with the assistance of the 
work group described above.

Model Program:

In Lehigh County, the local guardianship support agency, GSA, Inc. (“GSAI”) was created in 2004. 
GSAI  accepts  court  appointments  to  serve  as  guardian,  provides  “guardianship-like”  services 
for	decision-impaired	individuals	(e.g.,	serving	as	representative	payee	for	benefits,	helping	with	
housing,	medical,	and	financial	assistance),	supports	and	trains	professional	and	volunteer	staff	
required  to  perform  its  functions,  provides  support  to  other  individuals  acting  as  guardians,  and 
accepts	appointments	to	serve	as	other	types	of	fiduciaries	such	as	personal	representatives	and	
special needs trustees. GSAI is funded by a combination of public funds, private donations, and 
fees for some services for clients who can afford to pay.3 

c.  The education and training of individuals	and	agencies	qualified	to	act	as	guardian	
should be as recommended in Section (X)(C)(2). 

D.  Timing and Impact

The	recommendation	to	create	lists	of	qualified	guardians	can	be	enacted	fairly	quickly	and	
	
should	have	significant	impact	on	improving	the	supply	of	guardians.	The	expansion	of	the	lists,	
as	well	as	the	ongoing	training	and	education	needed	for	these	persons,	will	require	a	significant	
amount	of	time	to	implement,	and	guidelines	should	be	set	forth	by	the	OEJC	that	provide	flexibility	
in both implementation and maintenance.

E.  Fiscal Impact

The	most	significant	fiscal	impact	of	the	creation	of	guardian	lists	will	be	in	establishing	the	

	
program	that	will	provide	the	necessary	training	and	education	to	qualify	guardians,	the	fiscal	impact	
of which is discussed in (X)(E)(1). Flexibility in implementing the recommendations set forth in this 
section	may	allow	for	the	utilization	of	existing	resources,	which	could	reduce	the	overall	fiscal	
impact. 

F.  Additional Comments

Ideally,	each	county	would	have	a	GSA	create	a	list	of	qualified	guardians,	establish	a	volunteer	

	
guardianship program, and provide training, education, and oversight to augment the list. If, 
this is not feasible in the near future, the OEJC should work with the local interdisciplinary team 
recommended in (II)(C)(1)(d). If there is no local interdisciplinary team, the OEJC and President 
Judge (or his/her designee) should convene a work group consisting of a partnership with the local 
bar association and attorneys routinely coming before the court on guardianship matters, as well 
as existing agencies and/or businesses who currently provide guardianship services, to create an 
available	list	of	qualified	individuals.	Such	a	list	can	be	maintained	and	expanded	over	time.	

II.  Powers, Duties and Responsibilities of Guardians

A.  Issue Statement

The Committee was asked to examine whether the lack of clarity, consistency, and 
 
understanding of the powers, duties, and responsibilities of a guardian affect the quality of 
guardianship services and, if so, to determine what could be done to remedy the situation. 

B.  Committee Findings

1.  Once an individual is placed under guardianship, there is little guidance beyond basic 
reporting	requirements	as	to	how	a	guardian	should	fulfill	his	or	her	duties	and	responsibilities.	

2.  The guardianship statutes are largely silent on some of the most important duties of the 
guardian.

3.  Different Pennsylvania jurisdictions, and even judges within the same judicial district, have 
varying expectations of a guardian’s duties and responsibilities. 

4.  Guardian monitoring is weak, if it occurs at all. 

5.  Training is not mandated for professional or non-professional guardians. 

6.  Non-professional guardians are not adequately advised as to the duties and responsibilities 
of managing the affairs of an IP.

7.  There are currently no programs for certifying professional guardians in Pennsylvania as 
there are in some other states.4	A	state	certification	program	would	give	courts	assurance	that	
a	professional	guardian	possesses	sufficient	knowledge	of	Pennsylvania	guardianship	law	and	
procedure.

8.	 The	duties	of	a	guardian	are	interdisciplinary,	requiring	financial	management,	health	care	
coordination,	communication,	conflict	resolution,	medical	decision-making,	and	other	skills.

9.  The quality of guardianship services varies widely, placing our most vulnerable citizens at 
great risk. 

10. The Committee recognized and endorsed the preference for limited guardianships 
expressed by the General Assembly in 20 Pa.C.S. § 5512.1(a)(6), which states that the court 
“shall prefer limited guardianship.”5 The Committee found, however, that in reality many limited 
guardianships are impractical and create controversy and confusion. Moreover, there is little, 
if any, education and training for judges or attorneys to allow them to ascertain when a limited 
guardianship would be appropriate under the circumstances and how a limited guardianship 
could be made effective in circumstances where it is appropriate. Lack of judicial education and 
training may be related to greater use of plenary guardianships in situations where a limited 
guardianship would be more appropriate.6 The Committee, therefore, found that education and 
training would advance the General Assembly’s preference for limited guardianships by making 
their use more effective.

11. The Committee found that the National Guardianship Association’s Standards of Practice 
(“NGA Standards”) contain much useful information to guide guardians in their powers 
and duties.7 (See Appendix	A).	Due	to	significant	differences	between	the	NGA	Standards	
and Pennsylvania law and practice, the Committee could not recommend their adoption in 
Pennsylvania	beyond	the	specific	recommendation	in	II(C)(1)(a).	The	Committee,	however,	
found that provisions of the NGA Standards could be incorporated into future education and 
training for guardians to the extent they are consistent with Pennsylvania law and practice.

12. The Committee found that the National Guardianship Association’s Model Code of Ethics for 
Guardians (“Model Code”) contains much useful information to guide guardians in their powers, 
duties, and ethical responsibilities.8 (See Appendix	B).	Due	to	significant	differences	between	
the Model Code and Pennsylvania law and practice, the Committee could not recommend its 
wholesale adoption in Pennsylvania. The Committee, however, found that provisions of the 
Model Code could be incorporated into future education and training for guardians to the extent 
they are consistent with Pennsylvania law and practice.

C.  Committee Recommendations

1.  Practices and Procedures

a.	 The	Committee,	pursuant	to	its	findings	in	(II)(B)(1)	-	(6)	and	(11),	recommends	the	
following NGA Standards be adopted in Pennsylvania by statute or by court rule as Supreme 
Court recommended best practices.

GUARDIANS AND COUNSEL COMMITTEE REPORT

36

GUARDIANS AND COUNSEL COMMITTEE REPORT

37

NGA Standard 12 – Duties of the Guardian of the Person

I.  The guardian shall have the following duties and obligations to the person under 
guardianship unless the order of appointment provides otherwise:

A.  To see that the person is living in the most appropriate environment that 
addresses the person’s goals, needs, and preferences.

1.   The guardian shall have a strong priority for home or other community based 
settings, when not inconsistent with the person’s goals and preferences.

2.  The guardian shall authorize moving a person to a more restrictive 
environment only after evaluating other medical and health care options and 
making an independent determination that the move is the least restrictive 
alternative at the time, fulfills the current needs of the person and serves the 
overall best interest of the person.

3.   The guardian shall consider the proximity of the setting to those people and 
activities that are important to the person when choosing a residential setting.

4.   At a minimum the guardian shall report to a court before a move to a more 
restrictive residential setting, and the justification for the move.

5.   When the guardian considers involuntary or long-term placement of the 
person in an institutional setting, the bases of the decision shall be to minimize 
the risk of substantial harm to the person, to obtain the most appropriate 
placement possible, and to secure the best treatment for the person.

B.   To ensure that provision is made for the support, care, comfort, health, and 
maintenance of the person.

C.  To make reasonable efforts to secure for the person medical, psychological, 
therapeutic, and social services, training, education, and social and vocational 
opportunities that are appropriate and that will maximize the person’s potential for 
self-reliance and independence.

D.  To keep the affairs of the person confidential, except when it is necessary to 
disclose such affairs for the best interests of the person.

E.   To seek specific judicial authority when a civil commitment, the dissolution of a 
marriage, or another extraordinary circumstance is being addressed.

F.   To file with the court, on a timely basis but not less often than annually, all reports 
required by state statute, regulations, court rule, or the particular court pursuant to 
whose authority the guardian was appointed.

G.  To adhere to the requirements of Standard 17 - Duties of the Guardian of the 
Estate . . . to the extent that the guardian of the person has been authorized by the 
court to manage the person’s property.

H.  To petition the court for limitation or termination of the guardianship when the 
person no longer meets the standard pursuant to which the guardianship was 
imposed, or when there is an effective alternative available.

I.  To promptly report to the appropriate authorities abuse, neglect and/or 
exploitation as defined by state statutes.9

NGA Standard 17 – Duties of the Guardian of the Estate

I.  The guardian, as a fiduciary, shall manage the financial affairs of the person under 

guardianship in a way that maximizes the dignity, autonomy, and self-determination of 
the person.

II.  When making decisions the guardian shall:

A.   Give priority to the goals, needs and preferences of the person, and

B.   Weigh the costs and benefits to the estate.

III.  The guardian shall consider the current wishes, past practices, and reliable evidence 
of likely choices. If substantial harm would result or there is no reliable evidence of likely 
choices, the guardian shall consider the best interests of the person.

IV.  The guardian shall assist and encourage the person to act on his or her own behalf 
and to participate in decisions.

V.  The guardian shall use reasonable efforts to provide oversight to any income and 
assets under the control of the person.

VI.  The guardian shall, consistent with court order and state statutes, exercise authority 
only as necessitated by the limitations of the person.

The guardian shall act in a manner above reproach, and his or her actions will be 

VII.  
open to scrutiny at all times.

VIII.  The guardian shall provide competent management of the person’s property and, 
shall supervise all income and disbursements of the estate.

IX.  The guardian shall manage the estate only for the benefit of the person.

X.   The guardian shall keep estate assets safe by keeping accurate records of all 
transactions and be able to fully account for all the assets in the estate.

XI.  The guardian shall keep estate money separate from the guardian’s personal money; 
the guardian shall keep the money of individual estates separate unless accurate 
separate accounting exists within the combined accounts.

XII. The guardian shall make claims against others on behalf of the estate as deemed 
in the best interest of the person and shall defend against actions that would result in a 
loss of estate assets.

XIII.   The guardian shall apply state law regarding prudent investment practices, 
including seeking responsible consultation with and delegation to people with 
appropriate expertise when managing the estate.

XIV.  The guardian shall employ prudent accounting procedures when managing the 
estate.

The guardian shall determine if a will exists and obtain a copy to determine how 

XV.  
to manage estate assets and property.

XVI.  The guardian shall obtain and maintain a current understanding of what is 
required and expected of the guardian, statutory and local court rule requirements, and 
necessary filings and reports.

XVII.  The guardian shall promptly report to the appropriate authorities abuse, neglect 
and/or exploitation as defined by state statute.10

b.  The Committee took no position regarding any of the NGA Standards, other than 12 and 
17, or regarding the Model Code of Ethics. As discussed in (II)(B)(11)&(12), the Standards 
and Model Code contain much useful information to guide guardians in their powers and 

GUARDIANS AND COUNSEL COMMITTEE REPORT

38

GUARDIANS AND COUNSEL COMMITTEE REPORT

39

duties. Although the Committee recommends adoption of only NGA Standards 12 and 17, 
it was not opposed to the use of other provisions of the NGA Standards or the Model Code 
by the OEJC for purposes of education and training of guardians to the extent they are 
consistent with Pennsylvania law and practice.

c.	 The	Committee,	pursuant	to	its	findings	in	(II)(B)(1)	-	(6),	(8)	-	(12),	recommends	that 
training be required for guardians and that training be developed for and made available 
to judges who hear guardianship cases, court administrative staff, attorneys, and others 
involved in guardianship matters. In addition, training for judges and attorneys should be 
developed to allow them to ascertain when a limited guardianship would be appropriate 
under the circumstances and how to make them effective in circumstances where they are 
appropriate.

d.	 The	Committee,	pursuant	to	its	finding	in	(II)(B)(8), recommends that local courts be 
encouraged	to	develop	interdisciplinary	teams	modeled	after	the	Office	of	Children	and	
Families in the Courts’ (“OCFC”) Pennsylvania Children’s Roundtable Initiative pioneered 
by Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice Max Baer to advise and support guardians and the 
court, based on the following rationale:

i.  Several states report that interdisciplinary teams have been critical to implementation 
of successful guardianship reform.

ii. 
In Pennsylvania, there is precedent in the Children’s Roundtable Initiative system, 
which has successfully implemented dependency court reform. See textbox below for a 
description of the Children’s Roundtable Initiative.

iii.  Guardianship and dependency are both interdisciplinary.

iv.  Local community-based interdisciplinary advisory groups can link guardians to local 
resources and help the courts to implement guardianship reform recommendations.

Model Program:

The Children’s Roundtable Initiative was pioneered by Justice Max Baer of the Supreme Court of 
Pennsylvania in 2006. The goal of the Children’s Roundtable Initiative is to gather, disseminate, 
and implement best practices by way of a three-tiered statewide communication infrastructure. 

The	first	tier	is	comprised	of	the	local	Children’s	Roundtables	in	each	of	Pennsylvania’s	60	judicial	
districts.  The  Children’s  Roundtables  are  convened  by  a  judge  and  consist  of  supervisory  and 
dependency judges, children and youth professionals, county solicitors, child and parent advocates, 
academic experts, and anyone interested in making a positive contribution to the functioning of the 
dependency system at the local level.

The second tier is comprised of eight Leadership Roundtables divided into groups based on size. 
Each Leadership Roundtable is comprised of three members from the Children’s Roundtables within 
its	area.	The	three	members	include	a	dependency	judge,	the	Children	and	Youth	administrator,	
and one additional Children’s Roundtable member. The Leadership Roundtable provides a forum 
for its members to identify, discuss, and share concerns and solutions.

The	 final	 tier	 is	 the	 State	 Roundtable	 comprised	 of	 at	 least	 two	 members	 of	 each	 Leadership	
Roundtable	and	others	with	specific	expertise	in	child	dependency	matters.	The	State	Roundtable	
addresses	issues	identified	at	Leadership	Roundtable	meetings,	facilitates	intrastate	communication,	
and  sets  priorities  for  dependency  court  improvement  efforts.  The  State  Roundtable  also  stays 
involved in the national dependency reform movement to keep Pennsylvania informed of evolving 
trends  and  best  practices. The  State  Roundtable  also  has  a  number  of  Workgroups  to  address 
issues	identified	by	it	as	priorities.11 

e.	 The	Committee,	pursuant	to	its	findings	in	(II)(B)(1)	-	(6),	recommends	that	the	creation	
of local GSAs be encouraged by the OEJC, and that the GSAs be relied upon to take an 
active role in supporting local guardianship improvement and in implementing education and 
training. Pennsylvania statutes encourage the creation of GSAs.12 

f.	 The	Committee,	pursuant	to	its	finding	in	(II)(B)(7),	recommends	that	the	OEJC,	with	
input	from	experienced	guardians,	develop	a	program	for	the	certification	of	professional	
guardians appropriate to Pennsylvania guardianship law and practice.

2.  Implementation of Recommendations

a.  Adoption of the NGA Standards recommended in (II)(C)(1)(a) should be implemented as 
follows:

i.  To the extent that the recommended NGA standards are consistent with existing 
Pennsylvania statutes, these standards should be adopted as soon as is practicable as 
Supreme Court recommended best practices and disseminated to all judicial districts 
in the Commonwealth. The Committee believes that many of these practices may be 
implemented by court rule.13

ii.  Best practices should be adopted through legislation or court rule, as the Advisory 
Council on Elder Justice in the Courts (“Advisory Council”) deems appropriate, to ensure 
statewide continuity among the counties.

iii.  To the extent that the NGA Standards recommended in (II)(C)(1)(a) are inconsistent 
with existing Pennsylvania statutes, and to the extent that the Advisory Council deems 
appropriate, Pennsylvania statutes should be made consistent with the recommended 
NGA Standards through proposed legislation as in (II)(C)(2)(a)(iv) immediately below.

iv.  The Advisory Council and the OEJC should approach the General Assembly to 
recommend review and adoption of these standards where legislative changes are 
appropriate.

v.  These best practices should be presented through training sessions for judges, court 
staff, guardians, attorneys, and others involved in guardianship matters.

b.  The recommendation that education and training be required for guardians should be 
implemented by rule of court. The education and training should be implemented as stated 
in (X)(C)(2). 

c.  The Supreme Court, through the OEJC, should encourage local courts to develop local 
interdisciplinary teams to advise and support guardians and the court.

d.  The Supreme Court, through the OEJC, should encourage local courts to support 
creation of GSAs in their communities. 

e.  Training for judges should be implemented as stated in (X)(C)(2)(d).

f.  The OEJC, with input from experienced guardians, should develop criteria for the 
certification	of	professional	guardians	appropriate	to	guardianship	law	and	practice	in	the	
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 

D.  Timing and Impact

1.  Incorporation of the NGA Standards recommended in (II)(C)(1)(a) should be initiated 
as soon as is practicable with the understanding that complete adoption of these standards 
will be a multi-phase, multi-year project. Incorporation of these standards promises to raise 
the standard of guardianship services in Pennsylvania, in part, because the courts and the 
guardians will have the same understanding of a guardian’s duties and responsibilities. Such 
standard language will provide consistency and more meaningful consideration.

GUARDIANS AND COUNSEL COMMITTEE REPORT

40

GUARDIANS AND COUNSEL COMMITTEE REPORT

41

2.  The timing and impact of the education and training recommendations in (II)(C)(1) should be 
as stated in (X)(D).

3.  As soon as is practicable, the OEJC should assemble a working group of experienced 
guardians	to	develop	the	program	for	certification	of	professional	guardians.	The	creation	of	
such a program will have a substantial impact by providing courts with reassurance that all 
professional	guardians	possess	sufficient	knowledge	of	Pennsylvania	guardianship	knowledge	
and practices.

4.  Formation of the interdisciplinary teams at the local and state level will help to incorporate 
Task Force recommendations and allow for local input into statewide changes. The OEJC, 
with the participation of local courts, should initiate the formation of the local teams. The OEJC 
should facilitate formation of a state level interdisciplinary team. 

5.  Local GSAs should be encouraged and relied upon to assist with the implementation of 
standards and training as soon as is practicable.

a.  GSAs can provide another strong tool for implementation of reform.

b.  With support from the court and interdisciplinary team members, local GSAs can be 
expected to have a strong impact in implementing proposed reforms given the anticipated 
high volume of guardianships.

c.  The Supreme Court through the OEJC should encourage local courts to support the 
formation of such agencies.

E.  Fiscal Impact

1.  Adoption of the NGA Standards recommended in (II)(C)(1)(a) will require minimal 
financial	commitment,	such	as	disseminating	the	NGA	Standards	to	local	courts	as	best	
practices. Similarly, encouraging passage of the recommended NGA Standards as part of the 
guardianship	statute,	or	as	a	court	rule,	will	have	minimal	fiscal	impact.

2.	 The	fiscal	impact	of	education	and	training	programs	will	be	as	stated	in	(X)(E)(1).

3.	 Development	of	local	interdisciplinary	teams	will	have	limited	fiscal	impact	as	team	members	
will be volunteers. Members attending periodic statewide meetings would incur expenses for 
travel, lodging, and food. There would also have to be some funds available to pay for materials 
and speakers at the local and state levels.

4.  Local GSAs should be funded outside the court, for example, by the potential sources of 
funding	identified	in	the	Overarching	Findings	and	Recommendations	of	the	Elder	Law	Task	
Force Concerning Court Administration, Judicial Education, Funding, and Public Awareness. 
Local	courts	should	work	with	interested	non-profits	or	other	interested	parties	to	support	
creation of these agencies. 

	 Regarding	fees	to	finance	these	agencies,	the	Committee	generally	does	not	favor	the	
imposition	of	filing	fees	because	of	their	potential	negative	impact	on	litigants’	right	of	access	to	
the courts, and believes they should only be a last resort. If other funding sources have been 
thoroughly explored, however, and are found to be unavailable, the Committee believes that 
a	graduated	fee	structure,	similar	to	the	approach	used	by	Register	of	Wills’	offices	around	
the	state,	could	impose	a	“filing	fee	surcharge	for	elder	protection”	in	guardianship	cases	
on petitions for adjudication of incapacity and/or inventories based on the amount of assets 
under	guardianship.	In	cases	with	significant	assets,	a	graduated	fee	could	be	imposed.	The	
Committee believes that such an approach would balance the need for funding with litigants’ 
right of access to the courts. The OEJC should be responsible for considering and developing 
the graduated fee structure.

5.	 Development	of	a	program	for	certification	of	professional	guardians	could	have	significant	
costs. In determining the structure such a program should have, the OEJC and Advisory Council 
should	consider	the	potential	costs	and	develop	a	program	that	is	fiscally	sustainable.

III. Guardian’s Scope of Liability

A.  Issue Statement

The Committee was asked to address the scope of a guardian’s liability. The Committee noted 

 
that currently there is no mandatory training for guardians regarding their ethical obligations and 
potential liabilities, and, as a consequence, many guardians may be unclear about these issues. 
In addition, there is pending legislation that may alter the liability of a guardian of the person in a 
problematic manner.

B.  Committee Findings

1.  There is presently no mandatory training for individual guardians on matters of liability and 
ethics. 

2.  There is a pending legislative change to 20 Pa.C.S. § 5521(g), Senate Bill 117 of 2013, Pr. 
No. 73 (“Senate Bill 117”),14 that would reduce a non-agency guardian of the person’s liability by 
requiring proof of gross negligence before the guardian can be held liable for his/her actions as 
guardian.

3.  To the extent that Senate Bill 117 would lower the standard for liability of a non-agency 
guardian of the person, the Committee found the proposed change to § 5521(g) to be 
problematic for the following reasons:

a.  The IP would immediately have less protection.

b.  Because the standard of liability would be lowered, the guardian of the person would no 
longer have to act in the best interests of his/her charge; rather, the guardian of the person 
must simply refrain from committing gross negligence.

c.	 The	current	fiduciary	duty	standard	is	not	an	onerous	standard	of	liability	given	the	broad	
powers a guardian of the person is granted.

d.  Attracting people who will only serve if they have less responsibility is not in the best 
interests of the IP.

e.  Social science experiments with our most vulnerable elders may be ill-advised and be 
accompanied by unintended consequences.

f. 
If the standard of liability is presumably being lowered to attract potential guardians of 
the person, there is no evidence to support the conclusion that more individuals would serve 
as	guardians	of	the	person	if	only	they	were	not	exposed	to	fiduciary	liability.	

g.	 No	change	would	be	required	and	no	potential	financial	impact	felt	if	the	General	
Assembly would remove this change while the new legislation is still pending. If the pending 
legislation	goes	into	effect,	however,	there	could	be	significant	costs	associated	with	
increased harm done to IPs, who would then be less likely to recover from their guardian of 
the person.

h.  In “A Call for Standards: An Overview of the Current Status and Need for Guardianship 
Standards	of	Conduct	and	Code	of	Ethics,”	Karen	E.	Boxx	and	Terry	W.	Hammond	
underscore	the	application	of	fiduciary	law	to	reduce	the	risks	of	delegation.15 There is 
no reason that the standard imposed on a guardian of the person acting under court 
appointment for someone incapable of monitoring their performance should be lower than 
that of agents acting under a power of attorney who are serving voluntarily for persons who 
are often capable of monitoring their performance.

GUARDIANS AND COUNSEL COMMITTEE REPORT

42

GUARDIANS AND COUNSEL COMMITTEE REPORT

43

NOTE:	There	was	a	strong	and	substantial	minority	view	regarding	the	finding	in	(III)(B)(3).	A	significant	
number	of	Task	Force	members	believed	that	where	a	guardian	of	the	person	is	making	difficult	health	
care decisions as an agent of the court, he or she should enjoy the limited immunities in the proposed 
legislation;	otherwise	family	members	might	be	unwilling	to	take	on	such	difficult	responsibilities.	In	
addition,	the	minority	believed	that	the	proposed	legislation	merely	levels	the	playing	field	by	giving	
individual, non-agency guardians of the person the same immunity enjoyed by local government units, 
nonprofit	corporations,	and	GSAs	under	the	current	version	of	§	5521(g).	Finally,	these	members	
concluded that giving limited immunities to individual guardians of the person was analogous to 
statutory immunities currently offered in other contexts.16	Consequently,	a	significant	minority	of	Task	
Force	members	did	not	agree	with	finding	(III)(B)(3)	or	recommendation	(III)(C)(1)(b).	

C.  Committee Recommendations

1.  Practices and Procedures

a.	 The	Committee,	pursuant	to	its	finding	in	(III)(B)(1),	recommends	some	form	of	
mandatory education and training for individual guardians on matters of liability and ethics.

b.	 The	Committee,	pursuant	to	its	findings	in	(III)(B)(2)	-	(3),	recommends	that	the	proposed	
change to 20 Pa.C.S. § 5521(g) be removed from Senate Bill 117.

2.  Implementation of Recommendations

a.  Implementation of the requirement that guardians have education and training on 
matters of liability and ethics should be by rule of court. The education and training programs 
themselves should be implemented as stated in (X)(C)(2).

b.  The recommendation in (III)(C)(1)(b) above should be communicated by the OEJC to the 
General Assembly as soon as is practicable after the Task Force Report is released.

D.  Timing and Impact

1.  Development of education and training for guardians on ethics and liability should begin as 
soon as is practicable. The requirement that the training be mandatory can be implemented by 
rule of court once the education and training programs are ready.

2.  A copy of the Task Force Report should be delivered to the General Assembly as soon as is 
practicable following its release, to communicate the Committee’s recommendation regarding 
the amendment to 20 Pa.C.S. § 5521(g).

E.  Fiscal Impact

1.	 The	fiscal	impact	of	the	education	and	training	recommended	in	(III)(C)(1)(a)	will	be	as	
stated in (X)(E)(1).

2.  Recommendation (III)(C)(1)(b) regarding the amendment to 20 Pa.C.S. § 5521(g) will have 
no	fiscal	impact.

IV. Qualifications and Screening of Guardians

A.  Issue Statement

The	Committee	addressed	the	statutory	qualifications,	if	any,	for	guardians	in	Pennsylvania,	as	

	
well as whether screening or training of a guardian is required.

B.  Committee Findings

1.	 Pursuant	to	20	Pa.C.S.	§	5511(f),	“[t]he	court	may	appoint	as	guardian	any	qualified	
individual,	a	corporate	fiduciary,	a	nonprofit	corporation,	a	guardianship	support	agency	under	
Subchapter F (relating to guardianship support) or a county agency.” Section 5511 (f) further 
states that: “The court shall not appoint a person or entity providing residential services for a 

fee	to	the	incapacitated	person	or	any	other	person	whose	interests	conflict	with	those	of	the	
incapacitated person.” 17 

2.	 Section	5511(f)	does	not,	however,	define	what	constitutes	a	“qualified”	individual.	In	
addition, while § 5511(e)	requires	that	the	“qualifications”	of	the	proposed	guardian	be	set	forth	
in	the	guardianship	petition,	there	are	no	mandated	qualifications	in	the	statute,	and	presumably	
any individual over age 18 would qualify, provided there is no interest adverse to the IP.18 The 
statute does not require that a guardian have a minimum education level or prior experience. 
Moreover,	the	statute	does	not	require	that	proposed	guardians	be	certified	by	the	state	or	a	
national guardianship organization or that the guardian be licensed or required to attend any 
training before being appointed. The statute also does not require a proposed guardian to 
undergo	any	specified	screening	process	before	being	appointed.

3.	 No	uniform	practice	is	followed	in	the	counties	with	respect	to	minimum	qualifications	of	
guardians or the screening mechanism employed by the courts. In most counties, it is left to the 
sole	discretion	of	the	presiding	judge	to	determine	on	a	case-by-case	basis	the	qualifications	
of the proposed guardian. The screening, if any, typically takes place on the day of the hearing 
when the judge has the opportunity to question the proposed guardian. The Committee found, 
however, that in several counties, administrative or judicial staff conducts criminal and/or civil 
background checks on proposed guardians, but this procedure was not mandated by any 
local court rules governing guardianship practice and may not be consistently followed in each 
guardianship case.

4.  The National Probate Court Standards recommend that courts consider a variety of factors 
in	assessing	a	prospective	guardian’s	qualifications	to	serve,	including	familiarity	with	health	
care	decision-making,	residential	placements,	and	social	services	benefits,	as	well	as	the	
guardian’s	access	to	qualified	legal,	financial,	and	health	care	experts	to	assist	the	guardian	in	
his or her decision making.19 

5.  As discussed in Section V below, the decision whether to require a bond is at the discretion 
of the presiding judge. The Committee believes that this approach should be maintained but 
finds	that	in	situations	where	a	bond	is	not	required,	the	proposed	guardian	should	submit	a	
credit report as stated in (IV)(C)(1)(b).

6.	 The	Committee	finds	that	there	is	not	currently	a	requirement	that	a	court	determine	whether	
a prospective guardian has 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.

C.  Committee Recommendations

1.  Practices and Procedures

a.	 The	Committee,	pursuant	to	its	findings	in	(IV)(B)(2)	-	(3),	recommends	that all individual 
guardians, family and professional, be required to undergo criminal background checks 
similar to those used in foster care and adoption cases, i.e., a Pennsylvania State Police 
criminal record check and a Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) clearance check. 

b.	 The	Committee,	pursuant	to	its	findings	in	(IV)(B)(5), recommends that in all 
guardianship matters where the court does not require a bond, the proposed guardian 
should be required to submit a current credit report. This requirement should be an ongoing 
one 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	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	(V)(C)(1)
(d). 

c.	 The	Committee,	pursuant	to	its	findings	in	(IV)(B),	recommends	that, in addition to not 
having any interest adverse to the AIP, the proposed guardian should have the willingness 

GUARDIANS AND COUNSEL COMMITTEE REPORT

44

GUARDIANS AND COUNSEL COMMITTEE REPORT

45

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. Ideally, the proposed guardian 
should have some education and/or experience in guardianship or in providing services 
to	elders	or	the	disabled.	In	lieu	of	adopting	specific	requirements	concerning	minimum	
education and/or experience for all guardians, the Committee 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. 

2.  Implementation of Recommendations

In order to ensure statewide uniformity, these recommendations should be implemented 

 
by appropriate changes to the Supreme Court Orphans’ Court Procedural Rules.20 All local 
courts	would	therefore	be	required	to	follow	the	same	procedures	regarding	qualifications	and	
screening of proposed guardians (i.e., criminal and civil background searches and mandatory 
training). Implementation of the education and training should be as stated in (X)(C)(2). 

D.  Timing and Impact

  While the Committee believes that the above recommendations could theoretically be 
implemented immediately, since it is recommended that the changes be implemented via rule 
changes,	sufficient	time	will	be	required	to	allow	the	Orphans’	Court	Procedural	Rules	Committee	
to meet, adopt pertinent rules, and comply with all relevant rule-making requirements. The 
recommendation	should	significantly	increase	protection	of	IPs.	The	timing	and	impact	of	the	
education and training component in (IV)(C)(1)(c) will be as stated in (X)(D).

E.  Fiscal Impact

Additional costs would be incurred for criminal background searches and/or credit reports. The 

 
cost of credit reports should be negligible as consumers are entitled to a certain number of free 
credit	reports	per	year.	The	fiscal	impact	of	the	education	and	training	programs	is	as	stated	in	(X)
(E)(1). 

V.  Bonding of Guardians

A.  Issue Statement

The Committee addressed the question of whether current law concerning bonding of guardians 

 
is adequate or needs to be changed. Current law gives the presiding judge discretion to decide 
whether to require that a bond be posted. There is pending legislation, Senate Bill 117, that would 
affect bonding requirements.21 The Committee addressed the question of whether the proposed 
legislation is advisable and whether, in the absence of requiring a bond, the presiding judge should 
require	some	other	form	of	financial	assurance.	

B.  Committee Findings

1.  A proposed statute, 20 Pa.C.S. § 5515.3 in Senate Bill 117 would require a bond be set for 
every guardian of an estate.22	Specifically,	the	proposed	legislation	would	initially	remove	the	
court’s discretion to set a bond but reserve discretion to waive the bond requirement if there is 
“cause shown.”23

2.  The Committee cannot recommend proposed new § 5515.3 without	additional	clarification	
as described in (V)(C)(1).

3.  The Committee does not believe that a bond should be mandated for guardians of the estate 
in all cases but rather that the decision as to whether or not to require a bond should remain at 
the court’s discretion, except that no bond should be required if the prospective guardian is a 
bank or trust company. 

4.  The Committee found, however, that the court should require in all cases an assurance of 
financial	responsibility.	

5.  The Committee found that online bonding services may help alleviate access to bond 
issues.

C.  Recommendations

1.  Practices and Procedures

a.	 The	Committee,	pursuant	to	its	findings	in	(V)(B)(1)	-	(2)	above,	recommends	that	the	
General Assembly provide guidance as to what factors the courts should consider regarding 
“cause shown” and whether such determinations of “cause shown” are appealable.

b.	 The	Committee,	pursuant	to	its	finding	(V)(B)(3),	further	recommends	that the General 
Assembly should set a minimum total value for an estate before making a bond mandatory 
in every situation for the following reasons:

i.  While bonding may be the best way to prevent a guardian from misappropriating 
the funds of an IP, it must be recognized that most bonding companies have minimum 
amounts below which they will not provide bonding services.

ii.  Bonding companies require credit checks, and mandatory bonds may eliminate a 
large percentage of potential guardians, which could also lead to a problem in recruiting 
new guardians and retaining current guardians.

iii.  Bonding companies may not want to provide bonding services if the standard of 
liability of guardians is lowered by the proposed changes to 20 Pa.C.S. § 5521(g), which 
are also proposed in Senate Bill 117. (See III. Guardians Scope of Liability).

c.	 The	Committee,	pursuant	to	its	finding	(V)(B)(3),	recommends	that	the	decision	whether	
to require a bond when a guardian of the estate is appointed should remain at the discretion 
of the court.

d.	 The	Committee,	pursuant	to	its	finding	(V)(B)(4),	further	recommends	that	in	all	cases	
where a guardian of the estate is appointed, the court should require an assurance of 
financial	responsibility.	To	that	end,	legislative	authorization	is	necessary	to	allow	for	the	
acceptance	of	forms	of	financial	security	for	guardians	other	than	bonds.	The	submission	
of	an	assurance	of	financial	responsibility	does	not	eliminate	the	need	for	the	proposed	
guardian to provide a credit report as recommended in (IV)(C)(1)(b) unless the court waives 
that requirement. 

e.	 The	Committee,	pursuant	to	its	finding	(V)(B)(5),	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.

2.  Implementation of Recommendations

The recommendations in (V)(C)(1)(a) – (d) should be communicated to the General 
 
Assembly by the OEJC as soon as is practicable after the Task Force Report is released. In 
addition, the OEJC should work with the General Assembly to draft legislation which would grant 
the authorization in recommendation (V)(C)(1)(d). The recommendation that courts consider 
online bonding should be communicated by the OEJC to the courts. 

D.  Timing and Impact

The recommendations can be implemented as soon as is practicable after the release of 
 
the Task Force Report. The OEJC can begin working with the General Assembly as soon as is 
practicable following its creation. The impact of keeping bonding at the discretion of the court should 
be	minimal	as	it	retains	the	existing	status	quo.	The	impact	of	allowing	assurances	of	financial	
responsibility	in	lieu	of	a	bond	presumably	could	be	significant	as	it	may	allow	individuals	who	could	
not otherwise serve as guardians because they could not obtain a bond to do so while at the same 
time offering protection to IPs.

GUARDIANS AND COUNSEL COMMITTEE REPORT

46

GUARDIANS AND COUNSEL COMMITTEE REPORT

47

	

The	recommendations	in	this	section	should	have	little	or	no	fiscal	impact.

E.  Fiscal Impact

VI. Retention of Guardians

A.  Issue Statement

B.  Committee Findings

The Committee explored the question of how best to retain guardians and what sort of 

 
incentives	or	benefits	could	be	offered	to	induce	guardians	to	continue	to	serve.

1.  Retention of guardians is one of the primary concerns of guardianship policy around the 
country. A survey of Area Agencies on Aging (“AAAs”) conducted by the Working Group on 
Guardianships of the Joint State Government Commission (“JSGC”) found that 84.1 percent 
of responding AAAs stated that current guardianship programs and services will not be able to 
meet future need.24 As is often the case, funding will be the main problem in this area.

2.  The Committee found that providing	financial	and/or	other	types	of	benefits	or	incentives	to	
guardians could result in higher retention rates.

C.  Recommendations

1.  Practices and Procedures

In	order	to	retain	existing	guardians,	the	Committee,	pursuant	to	its	findings	in	(VI)(B)	above,	

	
recommends consideration of the following: 

a.  Identifying funding sources, such as the state lottery, to develop guardianship support 
services; 

b.  Providing continuing legal education (“CLE”) credit for pro bono service to attorneys who 
provide guardianship services; 

c.  Providing small tax deductions to guardians for certain guardianship expenses;

d.  Equipping and assisting local agencies to develop methods to retain guardians; 

e.  Assisting agencies handle a greater number of guardianships rather than relying on ill-
equipped family members;

f.  Encouraging and expanding the use of GSAs which are already favored under 
Pennsylvania law;

g.  Providing free training for non-attorney guardians to show them how, what, and when to 
file	required	guardianship	documents;

h.  Limiting appointment to a guardianship of the person for some to avoid potential intra-
familial	disagreements	as	well	as	any	financial	responsibility	of	a	potential	guardian;

i.  Placing “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

j.  Strongly encouraging a dialogue with representatives of federal agencies that administer 
representative-payment	and	fiduciary	programs	such	as,	but	not	limited	to,	Social	Security	
Administration (“SSA”), Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”), the Railroad Retirement 
Board	(“RRB”),	and	the	Office	of	Personnel	Management	(“OPM”)	to	develop	training	for	
guardians	regarding	the	management	of	an	IP’s	benefits.

2.  Implementation of Recommendations

a.  The recommendations in (VI)(C)(1)(g),(i) and (j) should be implemented as stated in (X)
(C)(2).

b.  The recommendations in (VI)(C)(1)(a) and (c) should be studied by the Advisory Council 
and the OEJC which should determine how best to implement them.

c.  The recommendations in (VI)(C)(1)(d)–(f) should be implemented by the OEJC.

d.  The recommendations in (VI)(C)(1)(b) and (h) should be implemented by rule of court.

  Most of the recommended changes will have to be implemented over time but will likely have a 
significant	impact,	since	retention	is	one	of	the	most	important	aspects	of	guardianship	policy.

D.  Timing and Impact

E.  Fiscal Impact

Some	of	the	recommended	changes	will	require	significant	fiscal	resources,	e.g.,	funding	local	

	
agencies,	and	providing	training	and	CLEs,	etc.	The	fiscal	impact	of	funding	local	agencies	is	as	
stated	in	(II)(E)(4).	The	fiscal	impact	of	education	and	training	programs	is	as	stated	in	(X)(E)(1).	

VII.  Right to Appointed Counsel

A.  Issue Statement

The Committee addressed the question of whether all AIPs should have appointed counsel or, 

 
if	the	current	statutory	case-by-case	“appropriateness”	standard	continues,	whether	specific	criteria	
should be adopted to determine when appointment of counsel is appropriate. If counsel is appointed 
in all cases, how will they be paid? 

B.  Committee Findings

1.  Current Pennsylvania law invokes a case-by-case “appropriateness” standard, but there 
is no statutory requirement for counsel on behalf of an AIP in all cases and no guidance as to 
circumstances making appointment of counsel appropriate: 

Petitioner shall be required to notify the court at least seven days prior to 
the hearing if counsel has not been retained by or on behalf of the alleged 
incapacitated person. In appropriate cases, counsel shall be appointed 
to represent the alleged incapacitated person in any matter for which 
counsel has not been retained by or on behalf of that individual.25

2.  The petitioner’s attorney typically bears the responsibility of determining whether to 
recommend appointment of counsel for a Pennsylvania guardianship respondent. 

3.  In Pennsylvania, appointed counsel for the AIP is paid for by the AIP or where the AIP has 
insufficient	assets,	by	the	Commonwealth:	

If the alleged incapacitated person is unable to pay for counsel or for the 
evaluation, the court shall order the county to pay these costs. These 
costs	shall	be	reimbursed	by	the	Commonwealth	in	the	following	fiscal	
year.26

4.  The National Probate Court Standards recommend a case-by-case appropriateness 
standard, but assume that an independent court visitor will meet with the respondent and 
evaluate whether appointment is appropriate.27 

5.  The Uniform Guardianship and Protective Proceedings Act of 199728 proposes two separate 
options for counsel: (1) independent court visitor, similar to that recommended in the National 
Probate Court Standards; or (2) appointment of counsel in every case. 

GUARDIANS AND COUNSEL COMMITTEE REPORT

48

GUARDIANS AND COUNSEL COMMITTEE REPORT

49

6.  Some jurisdictions appoint counsel for a guardianship respondent in every case where the 
respondent has not retained private counsel.

7.  Pennsylvania is a leader in the national movement to address the “civil justice gap,” which 
includes discussion of a potential civil right to counsel in areas of basic human need. Chief 
Justice Ronald D. Castille, Honorary Chair of the Pennsylvania Civil Legal Justice Coalition, 
remarked at a May 23, 2013 hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee: “The unfortunate and 
often tragic fact is that many Pennsylvanians face formidable legal situations in our civil courts 
where those citizens may face dire consequences as the result of a civil legal matter that can 
greatly impact their lives or their futures. The vast majority of those citizens are left to fend for 
themselves in an unfamiliar courtroom without legal representation.”29 The Chief Justice further 
remarked that the Commonwealth should treat civil legal services for indigent individuals, 
families, and elders as an important government service.30

8.  Requiring an AIP to have counsel in all proceedings involving a determination of capacity 
is consistent with the Chief Justice’s remarks above. If the AIP does not have his or her own 
counsel, then counsel should be appointed.

C.  Committee Recommendations

1.  Practices and Procedures

a.	 The	Committee,	pursuant	to	its	findings	in	(VII)(B)(7)	-	(8),	recommends	that	in	all	cases	
where the AIP does not have private counsel, counsel should be appointed.

b.	 The	Committee,	pursuant	to	its	findings	in	(VII)(B)(1)	-	(2),	also	recommends	that	the	
Orphans’ Court Procedural Rules be amended to require counsel for an AIP to enter his 
or her appearance as soon as possible to allow the court to quickly identify when counsel 
needs to be appointed.

c.	 The	Committee,	pursuant	to	its	findings	in	(VII)(B)(3),	(7)	-	(8),	recommends	that counsel 
fees	be	paid	by	the	AIP	whenever	possible	and,	if	resources	are	insufficient,	then	by	the	
Commonwealth as under the existing approach. 

2.  Implementation of Recommendations

a.  The Orphans’ Court Procedural Rules should be amended to require counsel in all 
petitions for appointment of a guardian as recommended in (VII)(C)(1) above.

b.  The Orphans’ Court Procedural Rules should be amended to require private counsel 
to enter their appearance so that the court may quickly ascertain whether court appointed 
counsel is necessary. 

D.  Timing and Impact

E.  Fiscal Impact

1.  The Orphans’ Court Procedural Rules should be amended as soon as is practicable 
following release of this Report.

2.  The impact of the proposed recommendations should be immediate in protecting the rights 
of AIPs.

1.  Funding for counsel for AIPs whose estates cannot cover the cost of counsel will be 
required. 

2.  It is unclear if the existing funding system of 20 Pa.C.S. § 5511(c) (see (VII)(B)(3)) will be 
sufficient	to	cover	this	cost.

3.	 If	the	existing	funding	system	proves	to	be	insufficient,	the	OEJC	should	explore	funding	
sources for the recommendations in this section.

VIII.  Role of Counsel

A.  Issue Statement

The Committee was asked to address the role of counsel in guardianship matters. The role of 
 
counsel, both during hearings on capacity and after a guardian is appointed, is confusing. Should 
counsel for a respondent be a zealous advocate for the respondent’s stated position, or should 
counsel exercise his or her own judgment in pursuit of the respondent’s best interests? Does 
petitioner’s counsel have a heightened responsibility because the respondent allegedly lacks 
capacity? Given the potential risk to vulnerable persons, is training and guidance on the role of 
counsel necessary? 

B.  Committee Findings

1.  Roles of counsel: There are at least six different roles that attorneys assume with regard to 
proceedings	involving	determinations	of	capacity,	some	of	which	need	clarification,	including:	

a.  Representation of diminished capacity client 

The Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct provide excellent and adequate 
guidance.31 To the extent reasonably possible, the attorney should maintain a normal client-
attorney relationship, but if the attorney reasonably believes that the client has diminished 
capacity,	is	at	risk	of	substantial	physical,	financial,	or	other	harm	unless	action	is	taken	
and cannot adequately act in the client’s own interest, the attorney may take reasonably 
necessary protective action. This rule is a national standard for conduct of attorneys, based 
on the American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct.32

b.  Representation of respondent during proceedings to adjudicate incapacity 

The attorney must balance both best interests and zealous advocacy. Pa.R. Prof’l Conduct 
1.14, including comments, provides an excellent roadmap for the appropriate application of 
each standard.33

c.  Representation of guardianship respondent after adjudication

Following adjudication of incapacity, the role of the attorney retained or appointed to 
represent a respondent during guardianship proceedings is unclear. Generally, no 
withdrawal	as	counsel	is	filed.	It	is	not	clear	whether	appointed	or	retained	counsel	should	
continue to represent the respondent after appointment of a guardian.

d.  Representation of petitioner in incapacity proceedings

Petitioner’s counsel has a heightened responsibility, different from when the respondent is 
presumed to have capacity. Pennsylvania’s current guardianship statute directs petitioner’s 
counsel to request that the court appoint counsel for the person with diminished capacity, if 
appropriate, and provide notice in a manner most likely to be understood given the nature 
and extent of the guardianship respondent’s diminished capacity.34 In proceedings involving 
a determination of capacity, even the petitioner’s attorney has a duty to protect the best 
interests of the respondent. 

e.  Representation of the guardian 

There	is	little	guidance	in	Pennsylvania	statutes,	court	rules,	or	case	law	to	define	the	role	of	
counsel for a guardian. 

f.  Attorney serving as guardian

Guardianship services vary substantially according to the needs of the individual IP. While 
some courts prefer to appoint attorneys as guardians, the work of a guardian is different 
from the typical work of an attorney. Attorneys who serve as guardians must ensure that 
non-legal needs of the guardianship client are addressed. 

GUARDIANS AND COUNSEL COMMITTEE REPORT

50

GUARDIANS AND COUNSEL COMMITTEE REPORT

51

C.  Committee Recommendations

1.  Practices and Procedures

	

The	Committee,	pursuant	to	its	findings	in	(VIII)(B),	recommends:

a.	 Discussions	among	attorneys	and	judges	to	better	define	the	roles	of	counsel	should	be	
encouraged. The Pennsylvania Bar Association (“PBA”) and local bar associations should be 
invited to participate in these discussions at the state and local levels. 

b.  Attorneys serving as guardians should complete the same training and other 
requirements	as	professional	guardians,	unless	the	court	specifically	waives	that	obligation.	
CLE credit, including ethics credit, should be available to attorneys for this training. 

c.  Support, advice, and ethical counsel for attorneys wanting to assume any of the above 
roles should be available through either the PBA, local bar association, the local AAA, or 
GSA. 

d.	 Attorneys	serving	in	any	of	the	roles	above	should	have	an	affirmative	responsibility	
to clarify to the client, the court, and all other interested parties the role or roles counsel is 
assuming.	Specifically,	counsel	should	be	required	to	have	a	letter	of	engagement	stating	
who is being represented and describing counsel’s role, and counsel should restate this role 
to the court when entering an appearance with the court. 

e.  Where the court appoints counsel to represent an AIP, the court should 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. 

f.  Model language, pertaining to the retention or discharge of counsel, should be developed 
and	inserted	into	a	final	decree	of	incapacity	and	appointment	of	a	guardian.	

g.  Guardians and IPs should have access to legal counsel for consultation following 
adjudication. 

2.  Implementation of Recommendations

The foregoing recommendations should be implemented as follows. 

a.	 The	OEJC	should	encourage	discussions	among	attorneys	and	judges	to	better	define	
the roles of counsel. The PBA and local bar associations should be invited to participate in 
these discussions at the state and local levels. 

b.  The requirement of attorney training should be implemented by rule of court and/or 
disciplinary rules, as appropriate. The training sessions themselves should be developed as 
stated in (X)(C)(2).

c.  The OEJC should work with the PBA, local bar associations, local AAAs, and GSAs 
to ensure that at least one of these entities is available in each county to provide support, 
advice,	and	ethical	guidance	for	attorneys	wanting	to	assume	any	of	the	roles	identified	in	
(VIII)(B). 

d.	 The	requirement	that	attorneys	serving	in	any	of	the	roles	above	have	an	affirmative	
responsibility to clarify his/her role should be implemented by rule of court and/or disciplinary 
rule, as appropriate. 

e.  The requirement that a court appointing counsel 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, 
should be implemented by rule of court. 

f.  The Orphans’ Court Procedural Rules Committee should develop model language, 
pertaining	to	the	retention	or	discharge	of	counsel,	which	can	be	inserted	into	a	final	decree	
or adjudication of incapacity and appointment of a guardian. 

g.  The recommendation that guardians and IPs have access to legal counsel for 
consultation following adjudication should be implemented by rule of court.

D.  Timing and Impact

1.  The OEJC should commence implementation of recommendations (VIII)(C)(1)(a) and (c) as 
soon as is practicable after the release of this Report. 

2.  The OEJC should consult with the PBA and local bar associations as soon as is practicable 
after the release of this Report.

3.  The OEJC should communicate with the Supreme Court regarding requested directions 
to the appropriate rules committees regarding proposed rules changes in (VIII)(C)(2)(d)-(g) as 
soon as is practicable after the release of this Report.

E.  Fiscal Impact

	
The	fiscal	burden	of	implementing	these	recommendations	is	limited	to	the	administrative	
costs	of	developing	the	recommended	education	and	training.	The	fiscal	impact	of	developing	the	
education and training will be as stated in (X)(E)(1).

IX. Guardian and Counsel Fees

A.  Issue Statement

The Committee was asked to address the issue of guardian and counsel fees and to determine 

 
what improvements could be made. Reasonable compensation — or lack thereof — is tied to 
retention of good guardians, the quality of guardianship services, and premature placement of 
persons under guardianship in nursing homes. The Committee also addressed what can be done 
regarding Pennsylvania’s current fee standard to strengthen the quality of guardianship services, to 
allow for more effective monitoring of guardians, and to reduce fee disputes. 

B.  Committee Findings

1.  Although the guardianship statutes are silent on the matter of guardian fees, a review of 
case law shows that Pennsylvania, like most other states, compensates guardians based on 
each trial judge’s assessment of what constitutes “reasonable” compensation.35 

2.  Some jurisdictions have established fees based on either a percentage of the estate assets 
or an hourly rate for services performed.36 

3.  Setting fees based on a percentage of assets is easier to evaluate and calculate. This 
approach, however, has been criticized as unfair where there is a large estate and the services 
provided are routine and few.37 Moreover, basing fees on assets also could be unnecessarily 
unfair to those with small estates having a need for intensive services and an asset, such as a 
house that could be sold to retroactively pay for those intensive guardianship services. Basing 
fees on the gross estate could have a chilling effect by encouraging a guardian to move the 
person living in a community into a nursing home. 

4.  Some jurisdictions periodically set an hourly rate for guardianship services. The hourly rate 
is based on a local survey or on the recommendation of a work group. Additional guidance as 
to whether certain items are billable, i.e., travel, faxes, etc., is also included. The rates reward 
additional years of experience.38 

5.  The Third National Guardianship Summit Standards and Recommendations § 3.1 - 3.839 
state that guardians are entitled to reasonable compensation for their services and support 
a fee determined by a weighing of factors. Pennsylvania’s approach is similar, but the 

GUARDIANS AND COUNSEL COMMITTEE REPORT

52

GUARDIANS AND COUNSEL COMMITTEE REPORT

53

factors generally relied upon in Pennsylvania pertain to all estates and are not restricted to 
guardianship matters. 

6.  Some jurisdictions include time expectations or time caps in the fee schedule. For example, 
in Florida’s Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, the court anticipates that each guardian will visit each IP 
monthly, the guardian will accompany the IP to non-routine doctor’s appointments, will spend up 
to two hours a month on bill paying, will spend up to two and one half hours per month shopping 
for an IP who lives in the community or up to one hour per month shopping for a nursing home 
resident, and provide up to one hour a month of clerical work.40 

7.  Arizona’s Supreme Court Committee on Improving Judicial Oversight and Processing of 
Probate Matters encourages each guardian to disclose fees soon after appointment to reduce 
“sticker shock” when fees are requested later.41

8.  A recent survey found that guardian fees charged in Pennsylvania vary from $0 per hour to 
$160 per hour.42 Individual courts’ determinations of what is reasonable vary as widely as the 
type of fees charged.

9.	 Family	members	who	serve	as	guardians	do	so	at	considerable	personal	financial	and	
emotional cost, and compensation for this time and effort should be awarded where possible 
and appropriate. 

10. Professionalization of guardians in Pennsylvania will improve the quality of services, set 
clear standards and expectations, and better facilitate monitoring. 

11. Reasonable, predictable and documented fees are a prerequisite to professionalizing the 
field	of	guardianship	and	are	likely	to	reduce	the	number	of	fee	disputes.	

12. A public funding mechanism (e.g., public guardianship program) could help to ensure 
reasonable fees. 

13. GSAs, allowed under current Pennsylvania law, could provide a mechanism for securing 
charitable support to pay reasonable fees for guardianship services and other guardianship 
support services such as training, managing volunteers, and community outreach regarding 
guardianship prevention. 

C.  Committee Recommendations

1.  Practices and Procedures

a.	 The	Committee,	pursuant	to	its	findings	in	(IX)(B),	recommends	that	a	fee	schedule	
be developed and offered to local courts as a model uniform court rule by the OEJC 
with the help of a working group composed of guardianship stakeholders, preferably the 
guardianship advisory system.43 

b.	 The	Committee,	pursuant	to	its	findings	in	(IX)(B), recommends that the fee schedule 
establish	reasonable	amounts	of	time	which	may	be	spent	on	specific	guardianship	tasks.	

c.	 The	Committee,	pursuant	to	its	findings	in	(IX)(B),	recommends	that	the	fee	schedule	
should be presumed “reasonable,” although the court should be permitted to adjust fees 
upward or downward based upon special circumstances. 

d.	 The	Committee,	pursuant	to	its	findings	in	(IX)(B)(5),	recommends	that	where	a	judge	
deviates from the fee schedule, an explanation should be provided, as advocated in the 
Third National Guardianship Summit Recommendations § 3.6.44 

e.	 The	Committee,	pursuant	to	its	findings	in	(IX)(B),	recommends	that	assets	of	the	IP	be	
used for the purpose of maintaining the best possible quality of life for the IP. 

f.	 The	Committee,	pursuant	to	its	finding	in	(IX)(B)(5),	recommends	that	the	Third	National	
Guardianship Summit Standards and Recommendations §§ 3.1 - 3.8, pertaining to fees, 
should be adopted in the State of Pennsylvania, to the extent appropriate.45 

g.	 The	Committee,	pursuant	to	its	finding	in	(IX)(B)(12),	recommends	that	a	fund	be	
established to pay for guardianship services for those with limited resources.

h.	 The	Committee,	pursuant	to	its	finding	in	(IX)(B)(11),	recommends	that	fee	disputes	be	
resolved	in	a	timely,	efficient	manner.

2.  Implementation of Recommendations

a.  The OEJC should supervise the implementation of the recommendations in this section. 

b.  A fee schedule should be developed by the OEJC with the help of a working group 
composed of guardianship stakeholders. 

c.  Annual reports of guardians of the estate should include guardian fees, and their method 
of computation. This information should be forwarded to and compiled by the Administrative 
Office	of	Pennsylvania	Courts	(“AOPC”)	for	analysis	and	use	in	clarifying	what	constitutes	
reasonable guardian fees in a manner to be determined by the OEJC. 

d.  The OEJC should work with local courts and other stakeholders to develop GSAs as 
permitted by current law. 

e.  The Advisory Council and the OEJC should explore the feasibility of asking the General 
Assembly to establish a fund to pay for guardianship services for those with limited available 
resources.

f.  The recommendations in (IX)(C)(1)(a)-(e) and (h) should be implemented by rule of 
court.

g.  The Advisory Council and the OEJC should study the Third National Guardianship 
Summit Standards and Recommendations §§ 3.1 – 3.8 and determine to what extent — 
and, if so, in what manner — these should be adopted in Pennsylvania.46

D.  Timing and Impact

1.  The fee schedule should be developed and provided to local courts as soon as is practicable 
following the release of this Report. The fee schedule should be reviewed and updated by the 
OEJC in alternate years.

2.	 The	impact	of	the	creation	of	the	fee	schedule	should	be	significant	by	strengthening	the	
quality of guardianship services, helping to retain guardians, allowing better monitoring of 
guardians and reducing fee disputes. Ensuring reasonable fees will also improve the quality of 
guardianship services, including allowing IPs to age in place.

E.  Fiscal Impact

1.	 The	fiscal	impact	of	developing	a	fee	schedule	will	be	limited	to	the	costs	of	convening	a	
working group to develop the fee schedule, to distribution of the fee schedule, and to advocating 
for implementation of the schedule. 

2.  Ensuring reasonable fees will improve the quality of guardianship services, including 
allowing	IPs	to	age	in	place.	Aging	in	place	will	save	taxpayers	significant	amounts	of	money	
because community-based services are less costly to the Commonwealth than skilled nursing 
home services. 

GUARDIANS AND COUNSEL COMMITTEE REPORT

54

GUARDIANS AND COUNSEL COMMITTEE REPORT

55

X.  Guardianship Education and Training for Judges, Court Staff,  
Guardians, Attorneys, and Others

The Committee was asked to consider whether current education and training for judges, court 

 
staff, guardians, attorneys, and others interested in guardianship matters is adequate and, if not, 
how it can be improved.

A.  Issue Statement

B.  Committee Findings

1.  As described in (II)(B), there is little guidance for guardians, judges, court staff, attorneys, 
and others on the powers, duties, and responsibilities of guardians.

2.  Moreover, as found in (IV)(B)(2), 20 Pa.C.S. § 5511(f)47	does	not	define	what	constitutes	
a	“qualified”	individual.	The	statute	also	does	not	require	a	proposed	guardian	to	undergo	any	
specific	screening	process	before	being	appointed.	

3.  As found in (II)(B)(10), the lack of training for judges and attorneys on limited guardianships 
may result in such guardianships being under-utilized and thus less effective. 

4.  The appointment of an emergency guardian pursuant to 20 Pa.C.S. § 5513 is useful, 
particularly	in	situations	of	suspected	financial	exploitation.48 There is, however, little or no 
training for judges on the proper use of emergency guardianships, especially the need to 
appoint an emergency guardian of the estate, as well as review and supervise any outstanding 
powers	of	attorney	in	situations	of	suspected	financial	exploitation.	In	addition,	there	is	currently	
no	training	for	financial	institutions	on	how	to	deal	with	an	emergency	guardianship.	Education	
and	training	for	judges	and	financial	institutions	on	emergency	guardianships	would	rectify	this	
situation. 

5.  The Committee found that there is little or no coordination between Pennsylvania’s courts 
and	agencies	that	administer	representative-payment	or	fiduciary	programs	such	as	the	SSA,	
VA, RRB, and OPM. Although these agencies may give consideration to an applicant’s status 
as a guardian, they are not obligated to select that person as representative payee.49 Moreover, 
there	may	be	situations	where	the	applicant	for	representative	payee	benefits	is	not	the	
guardian and the federal agency is unaware that a guardian has been appointed.

The Committee further found that there is little or no training for guardians on their 

 
responsibilities	for	management	of	an	IP’s	benefits	when	they	are	appointed	as	representative	
payees.

  Consequently, the Committee agreed with Resolution 4 of the Conference of Chief Justices/
Conference of State Court Administrators (“CCJ/COSCA”) which urges improved coordination 
between state courts and state and federal agencies that administer representative-payment 
and	fiduciary	programs	in	order	to	protect	vulnerable	adults	placed	under	a	guardianship.50 
The Committee found that a collaborative approach to education and training by the courts 
and federal agencies that administer these programs would be helpful to further the goal of 
Resolution 4. 

C.  Committee Recommendations

1.  Practices and Procedures

a.	 The	Committee,	pursuant	to	its	findings	in	(X)(B)(1)	-	(4),	recommends	that	training	be	
required for guardians and also that training be developed for, and made available to, judges 
who hear guardianship cases, court administrative staff, attorneys, and others involved in 
guardianship	matters	(e.g.	financial	institutions,	health	care	providers,	etc.).

b.	 The	Committee,	pursuant	to	its	finding	in	(II)(B)(7),	recommends	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	recommended	in	(II)(C)(1)(f)	
as a means of ensuring their adequate education and training.

c.	 The	Committee,	pursuant	to	its	findings	in	(X)(B)(1)	-	(2),	recommends	that	the	required	
training for guardians be divided into pre-service training and some form of continuing 
education that would cover the powers, duties, and responsibilities of the guardian, including 
reporting requirements. In addition, training for guardians on matters of ethics and liability 
should be part of the required curriculum. 

d.	 The	Committee,	pursuant	to	its	findings	in	(II)(B)(1)	-	(6), recommends that creation of 
local GSAs be encouraged, and that the GSAs be relied upon to implement standards and 
training.

e.	 The	Committee,	pursuant	to	its	findings	in	(VI)(B),	recommends	that	free	training	be	
provided	for	non-attorney	guardians	to	show	them	how,	what,	and	when	to	file	required	
guardianship documents.

f.	 The	Committee,	pursuant	to	its	findings	in	(VI)(B),	recommends	that	“how	to”	videos	be	
placed online to answer questions and provide more detailed instructions for the completion 
of	guardianship	tasks	such	as	filing	reports	and	inventories.

g.	 The	Committee,	pursuant	to	its	findings	in	(VI)(B)	and	(X)(B)(5)	respectively,	
recommends that the OEJC collaborate and coordinate with SSA, VA, RRB, and OPM 
representatives to develop training to address questions guardians may have regarding the 
management	of	an	IP’s	benefits.	

h.	 The	Committee,	pursuant	to	its	findings	in	(VIII)(B)	and	(X)(B)(1)	respectively,	
recommends that attorneys serving as guardians complete the same training and other 
requirements	as	professional	guardians,	unless	the	court	specifically	waives	that	obligation.	
CLE credit, including ethics credit, should be available to attorneys for this training. 

i.	 The	Committee,	pursuant	to	its	finding	in	(II)(B)(10),	recommends	that	education	and	
training for judges and attorneys include information on how to ascertain when a limited 
guardianship is appropriate and on how to make one effective when they are appropriate.

j.	 The	Committee,	pursuant	to	its	findings	in	(II)(B)	and	(X)(B)(1)	respectively,	recommends	
that a guardianship bench book be developed to assist judges handling guardianship 
matters.

k.	 The	Committee,	pursuant	to	its	finding	in	(X)(B)(4),	recommends	that	training	be	
developed	for	judges	and	financial	institutions	on	emergency	guardianships.	

2.  Implementation of Recommendations

a.  The best practices based on the NGA Standards referred to in (II)(C)(1)(a) should be 
presented through training sessions for judges, court staff, guardians, and attorneys involved 
in guardianship matters. 

b.  The education and training programs for guardians should be developed as follows: 

i.	 The	York	County	Guardianship	Education/Training	Advisory	Board	training	module,	
which will cover basic reporting and other responsibilities, should be required of all 
new guardians and guardians not complying with reporting requirements across the 
Commonwealth.

GUARDIANS AND COUNSEL COMMITTEE REPORT

56

GUARDIANS AND COUNSEL COMMITTEE REPORT

57

Model Program:

York	 County,	 through	 the	 assistance	 of	 the	 State	 Justice	 Institute,	 the	 Supreme	 Court	 of	
Pennsylvania,	and	the	York	County	Courts,	has	developed	an	educational	program	for	individuals	
and/or professional guardians. Training will be provided to these entities to assure compliance with 
the statute governing guardianships. The intent is to assure that all guardians fully understand the 
role of being designated a limited or plenary guardian of the person and/or of the estate of an IP. 
Training will be through seminars which are open to the public. Curriculum for physicians, bankers, 
attorneys, and others is being developed for presentation.

ii.  The OEJC should support the completion of this basic module and make it available 
to all guardians across the state. This module may be made available by live training, 
webinar	or	videoconference,	as	recommended	by	the	York	County	Guardianship	
Education/Training Advisory Board.

iii.  The OEJC should monitor and support the development of additional training 
modules which focus on the NGA Standards recommended in (II)(C)(1)(a) and the 
application of these standards.

iv.  Training development should involve interdisciplinary teams, including, but not limited 
to, elder advocacy groups (e.g., GSAs, AAAs, American Association of Retired Persons 
(“AARP”), Center for Advocacy for the Rights and Interests of the Elderly (“CARIE”), 
SeniorLAW Center (“SLC”), etc.), disability rights advocates (e.g., National Association 
for	Retarded	Citizens	(“ARC”),	etc.),	medical	professionals,	financial	abuse	specialists,	
and others.

v.  Attorneys representing parties in guardianship matters should be trained through 
the Pennsylvania Bar Institute (“PBI”) and other CLE providers and should receive CLE 
credit. The OEJC should assist in the development of such training programs.

vi.  Court administrative staff should be trained through the OEJC. 

vii.  The OEJC should collaborate with the appropriate federal agencies that administer 
representative	payee	and	fiduciary	programs	on	developing	training	for	guardians	on	
their duties as a representative payee.

c.  Local GSAs should be encouraged and relied upon to help implement standards and 
training.

i.  Pennsylvania statutes encourage the creation of GSAs.51 

ii.  The Supreme Court through the OEJC should encourage local courts to support 
creation of GSAs in local communities to the extent possible given current budgetary 
constraints.

iii.  GSAs should take an active role in supporting local guardianship improvement.

iv.  Ideally, a GSA should oversee the training and education of guardians at the local 
level. If a GSA is not available, education and training should be overseen by the local 
interdisciplinary team or, if there is no local interdisciplinary team, by the President Judge 
(or designee) with the assistance of the work group described in (I)(C)(2)(b)(i).

d.  Training for judges who hear guardianship cases recommended in (X)(C)(1) should 
be developed by the AOPC Judicial Education Department in consultation with the 
interdisciplinary teams or, if interdisciplinary teams are not available, practicing guardians. In 
addition, the OEJC and the AOPC Judicial Education Department, in consultation with either 
the interdisciplinary teams or practicing professional and non-professional guardians, should 
develop a Guardianship Bench Book. The training should be provided as follows:

i.  New judges’ training should include introductory information about the unique 
challenges of guardianship cases and the NGA Standards recommended in (II)(C)(1)(a).

ii.  At least once a year, perhaps at the semi-annual judicial conferences, training should 
be available to all judges working with guardianship matters.

e.  The	OEJC	should	approach	financial	industry	groups	such	as	the	Pennsylvania	Bankers	
Association or similar entities to encourage them to collaborate on developing education and 
training	programs	for	financial	institutions	on	guardianship	matters.

f.  The training for non-professional guardians should be conducted at the following time 
intervals:

i.  Proposed guardians should be provided with written information about the duties 
and	responsibilities	of	a	guardian	either	prior	to	filing	of	the	petition	for	adjudication	of	
incapacity	or	when	the	petition	is	filed.	These	written	materials	should	be	sent	to	the	
proposed guardian.

ii.  Within six weeks of appointment as a guardian, the non-professional guardian should 
be trained in the NGA Standards recommended in (II)(C)(1)(a) on how to prepare and 
file	the	inventory,	the	duty	to	produce	the	will,	bank	account	management,	real	property	
management, the budget, the care plan, the mail, substituted judgment versus best 
interest decision-making, record keeping, limits of authority, and other topics critical 
during this transition to guardianship.

iii.  Between six months and eleven months after appointment, the guardian should 
receive	training	and	support	in	filing	the	first	annual	reports.

iv.  During and after the initial training cycle, guardians should have access to ongoing 
training, peer support or discussion groups as facilitated by local courts or GSAs.

D.  Timing and Impact

1.  Education and training for judges, court administrative staff, attorneys, and others involved 
in guardianship matters will have the strongest impact in incorporating the NGA Standards 
recommended in (II)(C)(1)(a) and in otherwise improving and making consistent guardianships 
in Pennsylvania.

2.  The training for non-professional guardians by the OEJC should be developed as soon as is 
practicable.

3.	 The	timing	and	impact	of	the	creation	of	a	certification	program	for	professional	guardians	
will be as stated in (II)(D)(3). 

4.  Training for judges who hear guardianship cases should be developed by the OEJC and 
the AOPC Judicial Education Department as soon as is practicable, in consultation with the 
interdisciplinary teams or, if interdisciplinary teams are not yet available, practicing guardians. 
Training for judges will have a substantial impact on improving guardianships (plenary and 
limited) and protecting IPs. 

5.  Training for administrative court staff should be developed as soon as is practicable by the 
OEJC.

6.  The timing and impact of GSA involvement in implementing standards and training will be as 
stated in (II)(D)(5).

7.  Collaboration by the OEJC with the federal agencies that administer representative-payment 
and	fiduciary	programs	can	begin	immediately	once	contact	persons	at	these	agencies	are	
identified.	This	collaboration	will	enhance	coordination	between	the	courts	and	these	agencies	
on educating and training guardians on their responsibilities when appointed as representative 
payees.

GUARDIANS AND COUNSEL COMMITTEE REPORT

58

GUARDIANS AND COUNSEL COMMITTEE REPORT

59

8.  Limited guardianship training can be instituted as part of the judicial education and attorney 
education	programs.	The	impact	of	such	training	should	be	significant	in	increasing	the	use	of	
limited guardianships and making them more effective.

9.  Education and training of judges on emergency guardianships can be instituted as part of 
judicial education programs as mentioned above. Emergency guardianship training will improve 
the effectiveness of emergency guardianships.

10.	Education	and	training	for	financial	institutions	could	be	developed	as	soon	as	is	practicable.	
Collaboration	between	the	OEJC	and	financial	institutions	on	education	and	training	regarding	
guardianships	and	financial	abuse	of	elders	could	begin	as	soon	as	contact	persons	at	these	
entities	are	identified.

E.  Fiscal Impact

1.		 As	a	result	of	the	recommendations	for	education	and	training,	significant	funding	will	be	
needed	for	the	development	of	such	training.	Potential	sources	of	funding	are	identified	in	
the Report and Overarching Findings and Recommendations of the Elder Law Task Force 
Concerning Court Administration, Judicial Education, Funding and Public Awareness. Once 
training modules are developed, the cost of providing training will depend upon whether the 
training is online, live, or in another format. The training programs could also be funded by a 
surcharge	added	on	the	guardianship	filing	fee	(similar	to	the	technology	fee)	on	petitions	for	
adjudication of incapacity and/or inventories, or could be borne by the OEJC, local courts or an 
agency,	depending	upon	the	specific	training	program.	Regarding	the	imposition	of	filing	fees	or	
surcharges, the Committee generally does not favor them because of their potential negative 
impact on litigants’ right of access to the courts, and believes they should be used only as a last 
resort. If other funding sources have been thoroughly explored, however, and are found to be 
unavailable, the Committee believes that a graduated fee structure referred to in (II)(E)(4) can 
balance the need for funding with litigants’ right of access to the courts. 

2.	 Development	of	local	interdisciplinary	teams	will	have	a	limited	fiscal	burden.	Team	
members will be volunteers. Local team representatives attending periodic statewide meetings 
will incur expenses for travel, lodging, and food. Ideally, there will be funds available to pay for 
materials and speakers at the local and state levels.

3.	 The	fiscal	impact	of	local	GSAs	will	be	as	stated	in	(II)(E)(4).	

4.	 The	fiscal	burden	of	implementing	the	recommendations	related	to	the	proposed	
Guardianship Bench Book is limited to the administrative costs of developing same. 

5.	 The	fiscal	impact	of	outreach	to	federal	agencies	pursuant	to	recommendation	(X)(C)(1)(g)	
should be minimal.

6.  The	fiscal	impact	of	collaborating	with	financial	industry	groups	to	develop	education	and	
training	programs	for	financial	institutions	on	guardianship	matters	will	vary	depending	upon	the	
type of program developed and whether volunteer presenters can be obtained.

ENDNOTES AND REFERENCES

 20 Pa.C.S. § 5461(d)(1) (West Supp. 2014).

16   See, e.g., 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 8331, 8332 & 8332.4 
(West Supp. 2014); 35 P.S. §§ 449.47 and 7704 (West 
Supp. 2012).

1 

2 

 Id.

3 
 Agency – Guardianship Support Agency Inc., 
Volunteer Ctr. of the Lehigh Valley (Apr. 3, 2014), http://
volunteer.truist.com/lehigh/org/10298948938.html; 
Debbi Garlicki, Guardian Angels: Agency Aids Those 
Who Have No One Else to Turn to for Assistance, 
The Morning Call (Oct. 29, 2006), http://articles.mcall.
com/2006-10-29/news/3703059_1_guardianship-
guardian-angels-agency-aids.

 See, e.g., Certified Professional Guardian 

4 
Program, Washington Courts (2014), http://www.courts.
wa.gov/programs_orgs/guardian/.

22   Id.

23   Id.

17   20 Pa.C.S. § 5511(f).

18   Id. at § 5511(e).

19   Nat’l College of Probate Court Judges, National 
Probate Court Standards, 60-62 (2013), http://ncsc.
contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/spcts/id/240.

20   Pa. O.C. R. 14.1 - 14.5.

21   S.B. 117, Session of 2013 (Pa. 2013).

5 

 20 Pa.C.A. § 5512.1(a)(6).

6	
	Brenda	K.	Uekert,	Center	for	Elders	and	the	
Courts, Adult Guardianship Court Data and Issues, 
Results from an Online Survey, 7 (Mar. 2, 2010), http://
www.guardianship.org/reports/Guardianship_Survey_
Report.pdf.

 Nat’l Guardianship Ass’n, Standards of Practice 

7 
(2013), http://www.guardianship.org/documents/
Standards_of_Practice.pdf. (See Appendix A).

 Michael D. Casasanto, Mitchell Simon, and Judith 

8 
Roman, National Guardianship Association, Model 
Code of Ethics for Guardians (1988), http://www.
guardianship.org/documents/Code_of_Ethics.pdf. (See 
Appendix B).

 Nat’l Guardianship Ass’n, Standards of Practice, 
9 
9-10 (2013), http://www.guardianship.org/documents/
Standards_of_Practice.pdf. (See Appendix A).

10   Id. at 17-18.

11	 	Supreme	Court	of	Pennsylvania:	Office	of	Children	
and Families in the Courts, Mission and Guiding 
Principles for Pennsylvania’s Child Dependency 
System (May 2009).

12   20 Pa.C.S. §§ 5551-5555.

13   States that have adopted the NGA Standards, to 
one degree or another, have done so through various 
means -- statute, rule, administrative regulation, 
and court order. See Karen	E.	Boxx	and	Terry	W.	
Hammond, A Call for Standards: An Overview of the 
Current Status and Need for Guardianship Standards 
of Conduct and Code of Ethics, 2012 Utah L. Rev. 
1207, 1221-26 (2012).

14   S.B. 117, Session of 2013 (Pa. 2013).

15	 	Karen	E.	Boxx	and	Terry	W.	Hammond,	A Call 
for Standards: An Overview of the Current Status and 
Need for Guardianship Standards of Conduct and Code 
of Ethics, 2012 Utah L. Rev. 1207, 1239-41 (2012).

24   Joint State Government Commission, 
Guardianship Law in Pennsylvania, Report of the 
Working Group on Guardians, 68 (May 2007), http://
jsg.legis.state.pa.us/resources/documents/ftp/
publications/2007-30-Guardianship%20Law%20in%20
PA.pdf.

25   20 Pa.C.S. § 5511(a).

26   Id. § 5511(c).

27   National College of Probate Court Judges, 
National Probate Court Standards, 50-51 (2013), http://
ncsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/spcts/
id/240.

28   National Conference of Commissioners on 
Uniform State Laws, Uniform Guardianship and 
Protective Procedures Act, § 305 (1997), http://www.
uniformlaws.org/shared/docs/guardianship%20and%20
protective%20proceedings/UGPPA_2011_Final%20
Act_2014sep9.pdf.

29   Quoted in Toward Justice For All: Report of the 
Civil Legal Justice Coalition to the Pennsylvania 
State Judiciary Committee, 20 (April 2014), http://
www.philadelphiabar.org/WebObjects/PBA.woa/
Contents/WebServerResources/CMSResources/
ReportoftheCivilLegalJusticeCoalition.pdf.

30   Id. at 53.

31   Pa. R. Prof’l Conduct 1.14 - Client with Diminished 
Capacity, http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/204/
chapter81/s1.14.html.

32   Model Rules of Professional Conduct 1.14 
(2013), http://www.americanbar.org/groups/
professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_
of_professional_conduct/rule_1_14_client_with_
diminished_capacity.html.

33   Pa. R. Prof’l Conduct R. 1.14 - Client with 
Diminished Capacity, http://www.pacode.com/secure/
data/204/chapter81/s1.14.html.

34   20 Pa.C.S. § 5511(a). 

GUARDIANS AND COUNSEL COMMITTEE REPORT - ENDNOTES AND REFERENCES

60

GUARDIANS AND COUNSEL COMMITTEE REPORT - ENDNOTES AND REFERENCES

61

or with strong concern ahead of legal guardian) & (E) 
(stating procedure to follow when selecting a payee 
who is not highest on the preference list), https://
secure.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/subchapterlist!openv
iew&restricttocategory=02005; id. § GN 00502.139(B) 
(reminding SSA employees they are not required to 
appoint the guardian as payee).

50   Conference of Chief Justices and Conference of 
State Court Administrators, Encouraging Collaboration 
Between State Courts and Federal and State 
Representative Payee Programs, Resolution 4 (2014), 
http://ccj.ncsc.org/~/media/Microsites/Files/CCJ/
Resolutions/01292014-Encouraging-Collaboration-
State-Courts-Federal-State-Representative-Payee-
Programs.ashx.

51   20 Pa.C.S. §§ 5551-5555.

35   Estate of Kornberg, 2005 WL 425172 (Pa. 
Common	Pleas	filed	Feb.	17,	2005) (offering an 
excellent discussion of Pennsylvania case law 
regarding guardian fees).

36   See, e.g., Thirteenth Judicial Circuit (Florida), 
Guardian Fee Workgroup, Final Report, 2-3 (2009), 
http://www.fljud13.org/Portals/0/Forms/pdfs/ejc/fee%20
packet-guidelines.pdf; Superior Court of California, 
County of San Francisco, Uniform Local Rules 14.89-
14.90 (2014), http://www.sfsuperiorcourt.org/sites/
default/files/images/SF%20Local%20Rules%207-1-
2014%20FINAL.pdf.

37   Center for Elders and the Courts, http://
eldersandcourts.org/.

38   See, e.g. Thirteenth Judicial Circuit (Florida), 
Guardian Fee Workgroup, Final Report, 2-3 (2009), 
http://www.fljud13.org/Portals/0/Forms/pdfs/ejc/fee%20
packet-guidelines.pdf.

39   Third National Guardianship Summit Standards 
and Recommendations, 2012 Utah L. Rev. 1191, 1201-
03 (2012).

40   Thirteenth Judicial Circuit (Florida), Guardian 
Fee Workgroup, Final Report, 2-3 (2009), http://www.
fljud13.org/Portals/0/Forms/pdfs/ejc/fee%20packet-
guidelines.pdf.

41   Arizona Supreme Court, Committee on Improving 
Judicial Oversight and Processing of Probate Court 
Matters, Final Report to the Arizona Judicial Council, 
85 (2011), http://www.eldersandcourts.org/~/media/
Microsites/Files/cec/FinalReport.ashx.

42   Center for Advocacy for the Rights and Interests of 
the Elderly, The State of Guardianship in Pennsylvania: 
Results from the 2012 CARIE Study of Guardianships 
in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 26 (Nov. 
2013), http://www.aging.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/
community/pennsylvania%27s_aging_initiatives/17891.

43   One Committee member did not support a fee 
schedule, but would support continued use of the 
existing reasonableness criteria tempered by court 
approval of guardian fees upon appointment.

44   Third National Guardianship Summit Standards 
and Recommendations, 2012 Utah L. Rev. 1191, 1202 
(2012), http://www.epubs.utah.edu/index.php/ulr/article/
view/833/642.

45   Id. at 1201-03.

46   Id.

47   20 Pa.C.S. § 5511(f).

48   20 Pa.C.S. § 5513.

49   See 20 C.F.R. § 404.2021 (preference list for 
selecting	representative	payee	of	SSA	benefits	is	
flexible,	primary	concern	is	to	select	the	payee	who	
will	best	serve	the	beneficiary’s	interest);	SSA	Program	
Operations Manual System, §§ GN 00502.105(C) 
(placing spouse, parent or other relative with custody 

GUARDIANS AND COUNSEL COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX A

62

GUARDIANS AND COUNSEL COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX A

63

GUARDIANS AND COUNSEL COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX A

64

GUARDIANS AND COUNSEL COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX A

65

GUARDIANS AND COUNSEL COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX A

66

GUARDIANS AND COUNSEL COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX A

67

GUARDIANS AND COUNSEL COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX A

68

GUARDIANS AND COUNSEL COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX A

69

GUARDIANS AND COUNSEL COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX A

70

GUARDIANS AND COUNSEL COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX A

71

GUARDIANS AND COUNSEL COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX A

72

GUARDIANS AND COUNSEL COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX A

73

GUARDIANS AND COUNSEL COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX A

74

GUARDIANS AND COUNSEL COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX A

75

GUARDIANS AND COUNSEL COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX A

76

GUARDIANS AND COUNSEL COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX A

77

GUARDIANS AND COUNSEL COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX A

78

GUARDIANS AND COUNSEL COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX A

79

GUARDIANS AND COUNSEL COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX A

80

GUARDIANS AND COUNSEL COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX A

81

GUARDIANS AND COUNSEL COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX A

82

GUARDIANS AND COUNSEL COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX A

83

GUARDIANS AND COUNSEL COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX A

84

GUARDIANS AND COUNSEL COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX A

85

GUARDIANS AND COUNSEL COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX A

86

GUARDIANS AND COUNSEL COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX A

87

GUARDIANS AND COUNSEL COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX A

88

GUARDIANS AND COUNSEL COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX A

89

GUARDIANS AND COUNSEL COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX A

90

GUARDIANS AND COUNSEL COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX A

91

GUARDIANS AND COUNSEL COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX A

92

GUARDIANS AND COUNSEL COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX A

93

GUARDIANS AND COUNSEL COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX A

94

GUARDIANS AND COUNSEL COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX B

95

GUARDIANS AND COUNSEL COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX B

96

GUARDIANS AND COUNSEL COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX B

97

GUARDIANS AND COUNSEL COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX B

98

GUARDIANS AND COUNSEL COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX B

99

GUARDIANS AND COUNSEL COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX B

100

GUARDIANS AND COUNSEL COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX B

101

GUARDIANS AND COUNSEL COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX B

102

GUARDIANS AND COUNSEL COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX B

103

GUARDIANS AND COUNSEL COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX B

104

GUARDIANS AND COUNSEL COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX B

105

GUARDIANS AND COUNSEL COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX B

106

GUARDIANS AND COUNSEL COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX B

107

GUARDIANS AND COUNSEL COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX B

108

GUARDIANS AND COUNSEL COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX B

109

GUARDIANS AND COUNSEL COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX B

110

GUARDIANS AND COUNSEL COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX B

111

COMMITTEE REPORT
Guardianship Monitoring

Judge Paula Francisco Ott, Chair

Risé P. Newman, Esquire, Vice Chair

Carol Ruckert Fiorucci

Judge Jay J. Hoberg

Judge Todd A. Hoover

Crystal Lowe

Diane A. Menio

Joseph M. Olimpi, Esquire

John B. Payne, Esquire

Wendy	M.	Welfley

Harriet Withstandley, Esquire

AOPC Staff:

Kim	Cataldo

Dr.	Kim	Nieves	

Amy Ceraso, Esquire

GUARDIANSHIP MONITORING COMMITTEE REPORT

112

GUARDIANSHIP MONITORING COMMITTEE REPORT

113

Guardianship Monitoring Committee 
Findings and Recommendations
Introduction

The	findings	and	recommendations	of	the	Guardianship	Monitoring	Committee	seek	to	improve	

 
guardianship monitoring practices and establish protections for the incapacitated person (“IP”).

I.  Preliminary Assessment Processes - Determining Capacity

A.  Issue Statement

 
The Committee was asked to examine issues related to a judge’s determination of capacity 
during guardianship proceedings. Chapter 55 of the Probate, Estates and Fiduciaries Code, 20 
Pa.C.S. §§ 5501 et seq. (the “Guardianship Statute”) provides the procedure and governing law 
for the creation of a guardianship for an IP. The determination is made by an Orphans’ Court judge 
based on a petition and hearing. See	Guardianship	Statute,	§	5511.	The	judge	must	make	findings	
of	fact	after	weighing	the	testimony,	in	person	or	by	deposition,	of	persons	qualified	by	training	and	
experience to evaluate the type of incapacity alleged in the petition and why the appointment of a 
guardian is the least restrictive alternative based on the individual’s incapacities and disabilities. 
See Guardianship Statute, § 5518. An adjudication of incapacity must be based on clear and 
convincing evidence. Judges are familiar with the requirements of the Guardianship Statute, but 
currently there is little or no specialized training or materials offered to judges to assist them in 
evaluating the medical testimony required by Section 5518 or understanding the special needs of 
elders.1 Currently, judges rely on their own experiences with family members, educate themselves 
on the topic, and develop a level of expertise based on the volume of guardianship cases and 
protective services cases assigned to them.

B.  Committee Findings

 
1.  A deposition form completed by the evaluator that contains the evaluator’s assessment of 
the capacity of the alleged incapacitated person (“AIP”) may be submitted to the court in the place 
of sworn testimony. Accepting written testimony is a cost-saving measure that relieves the evaluator 
of the burden of testifying in person and is especially applicable in uncontested cases. There are 
no requirements for the types of information to be included in the assessment. In order to assist 
judges	in	their	role	of	determining	capacity,	it	would	be	beneficial	if	information	from	the	physician	
or licensed psychologist evaluating the AIP were submitted to the court on a standardized form. 
Judges need education and training to be fully knowledgeable of the pertinent considerations for 
making a determination of capacity. Although statutory requirements state that the AIP should be 
present at the hearing to determine capacity unless it would be harmful to the AIP, survey results 
found that this practice is not universally followed. 

C.  Committee Recommendations

 
1.  It is recommended 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 Appendix A for proposed deposition form). At a minimum, it is recommended that the 
deposition form include questions that assess the following topic areas: 

the AIP’s limitations and prognoses; 

the AIP’s current condition and level of functioning; 

•	

•	

•	

recommendations regarding the degree of personal care the AIP can 
manage alone or with some degree of assistance; 

•	

•	

the AIP’s current incapacity and how it affects his or her ability to 
provide for personal needs; 

•	 whether current medication affects the AIP’s demeanor or ability to 

participate in proceedings; and 

the evaluator’s recommendation regarding the need for a 
guardianship. 

To ensure uniformity across all counties, it is recommended that this practice be implemented by the 
Supreme Court through statewide procedural rule. 

2.  In cases where the evaluator recommends a limited guardianship, the judge and counsel for 
 
all parties may need additional information to determine the areas a partial IP can handle without a 
guardian. When such additional information is necessary, it is a recommended best practice for the 
judge to request that a deposition take place by telephone, videoconference or in person to allow for 
follow-up questioning and cross-examination.

3.  It is recommended that judges who hear guardianship cases receive education and training 

 
on the components of the assessment process, such as: 

•	 evaluating expert testimony; 

identifying abuse; 

tests for incapacity and their reliability; 

•	 effects of medication on capacity; 

the role of family member testimony; 

•	

•	

•	

•	 evaluating	potential	conflicts	of	interest	between	the	proposed	guardian,	

AIP’s attorney and AIP; 

•	 cognitive changes that occur during the aging process; and

•	

the use of mediation in contested cases. 

4.  Senate Bill 117 of 2013 (“Senate Bill 117”) would amend Section 5511 of the Guardianship 

 
Statute to clarify that the inability of the AIP to comprehend the proceeding does not, by itself, 
constitute harm. This is an important consideration to include in judicial training because doctors 
often	find	the	AIP’s	inability	to	comprehend	the	proceeding	to	be	a	reason	for	stating	the	AIP	
should not attend the hearing. Other training topics, such as a review of the statutory requirements 
and evaluating report requirements submitted by the guardian (see section IV infra), should also 
be included. It is recommended that information from training materials be summarized into a 
bench card and provided to every Orphans’ Court Judge. It is further recommended that training 
be	coordinated	through	the	Office	of	Elder	Justice	in	the	Courts	(“OEJC”)	and	presented	through	
a variety of formats, such as the State Trial Judges’ Conferences and online webinars. Orphans’ 
Court Judges should be strongly encouraged to participate in the training sessions offered.

D.  Timing and Impact

 
1.  Implementing a standardized deposition form will require revisions to the Orphans’ Court 
Procedural Rules. This approach is recommended to achieve statewide consistency and provide 
comprehensive information to judges. The timing of implementing training for judges will be 
determined by the OEJC.

1.	 The	fiscal	consequences	of	implementing	training	for	judges	will	be	determined	by	the	

GUARDIANSHIP MONITORING COMMITTEE REPORT

E.  Fiscal Impact

	
OEJC.

114

GUARDIANSHIP MONITORING COMMITTEE REPORT

115

F.  Additional Comments

 
1.  Senate Bill 117 would amend Section 5518 by stating that, in contested hearings, the 
options for presenting testimony have been expanded from in-person testimony or deposition to 
include teleconference or videoconference. If the proceeding is not contested, and the person 
or	counsel	is	present,	then	only	a	sworn	statement	from	a	qualified	individual	is	necessary.	This	
proposed legislation aligns with the Committee’s recommendations.

 
2.  Senate Bill 117 would amend Section 5518.1 to clarify that all witnesses are subject to 
cross-examination	except	for	the	sworn	statement	by	a	qualified	individual	in	uncontested	hearings.	
This proposed legislation aligns with the Committee’s recommendations.

3.  Senate Bill 117 would amend Section 5511 to require that notice will be provided to 

 
interested	parties	that	a	guardianship	petition	has	been	filed,	including	to	those	who	reside	out	of	
state. This proposed legislation aligns with the Committee’s recommendations.

II.  Preliminary Assessment Process - Identifying Abuse

A.  Issue Statement

The Committee was asked to examine the issue of identifying abuse during guardianship 
 
proceedings.	Petitions	filed	under	the	Older	Adults	Protective	Services	Act	(“OAPSA”), 35 P.S. §§ 
10225.10110225.5102,	are	usually	based	on	evidence	of	physical	or	financial	abuse.	In	contrast,	
guardianship	petitions	typically	do	not	contain	allegations	of	abuse.	As	a	result,	it	can	be	difficult	for	
a judge to determine if there is evidence of elder abuse contributing to the AIP’s alleged incapacity, 
particularly in uncontested guardianship hearings. There are no statewide mechanisms or tools 
available	to	the	judge	to	assess	whether	financial	or	physical	abuse	is	present.	If	the	judge	is	
suspicious that abuse is occurring, he or she has the ability to appoint a Guardian Ad Litem (“GAL”) 
or an attorney in cases that he or she deems necessary; however, there has been no targeted 
training	on	identifying	red	flags	associated	with	abuse	or	conflicts	of	interest.

B.  Committee Findings

	
1.	 Judges	need	education	and	training	on	the	indicators	of	abuse	and	conflicts	of	interest.	
During	the	guardianship	hearing,	it	would	benefit	the	AIP	if	a	judge	inquires	about	potential	sources	
of	conflicts	of	interest	between	the	proposed	guardian	and	the	alleged	AIP,	consistent	with	the	
preferences stated in 20 Pa.C.S. § 5604(c).

C.  Committee Recommendations

 
1.  If the AIP was previously involved in a case under the OAPSA, it is recommended that the 
judge be informed, and that the guardianship petition be assigned to the same judge who heard the 
protective services case. 

2.  The training requirement for judges mentioned in Section I.C.3. should 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. Judges should also receive education on 
Social Security Administration (“SSA”) representative-payment and the Veterans Administration 
(“VA”)	fiduciary	programs.2

3.	 In	order	to	uncover	potential	conflicts	of	interest,	it	is	recommended	that	the	judge	determine	

	
if there is involvement from any of the following appointees: agent under power of attorney, SSA 
representative	payee,	or	VA	fiduciary.	This	might	not	be	possible	in	every	case	if	the	petitioner	or	
interested parties are unaware of external involvement; however, it is recommended that this type 
of	inquiry	become	part	of	guardianship	hearings.	If	one	of	these	appointees	is	identified,	the	judge	
should determine if there is a less restrictive alternative to guardianship available, such as leaving 
the representative payee in place without a guardianship. If it is necessary to appoint a guardian, 
the judge should determine if it is necessary to void the power of attorney and/or request that the 
guardian become the representative payee (although this request may or may not be approved by 
SSA).

1.  The timing of implementing training for judges will be determined by the OEJC.

1.	 The	fiscal	consequences	of	implementing	training	for	judges	will	be	determined	by	the	OEJC.

D.  Timing and Impact

E.  Fiscal Impact

F.  Additional Comments

	
1.	 Senate	Bill	117	would	amend	Section	5511	to	add	subsections	(h)	and	(i),	which	specifically	
enumerates the preferences for the appointment of a guardian. This proposed legislation aligns with 
the Committee’s recommendations.

III. Reporting Requirements and Standardization of Forms

A.  Issue Statement

The Committee was asked to examine the issue of standardizing and improving the 

 
documentation that guardians are required to submit to the court. Presently, the rules and statute 
state that a guardian is required to submit an initial inventory and an annual report for every year 
that	the	case	is	active.	A	final	report	is	required	at	the	time	the	guardianship	case	is	terminated.	A	
template of the Inventory, Annual Report of the Estate, and Annual Report of the Person forms are 
provided within the Orphans’ Court Procedural Rules (Appendices B1, B2 & B3). The current forms 
are	insufficient	to	monitor	guardians’	activities,	or	to	detect	instances	of	abuse	or	dereliction	of	
duties, and they do not promote long-term planning. Interested parties connected to the IP report a 
lack of knowledge of the information submitted to the court. 

B.  Committee Findings

 
1.  Without standardized forms, the amount and type of information collected from guardians 
may	be	insufficient	for	the	judge	to	make	decisions	or	for	the	court	to	properly	monitor	guardianship	
activity.	It	is	important	that	information	is	collected	within	the	first	90	days	of	appointment	in	order	to	
establish a baseline from which to monitor changes that occur during the guardianship. To facilitate 
court oversight, forms and procedures were created to be understood by a person who is untrained 
in the law, comprehensive without being burdensome, and coherent for court review. Content was 
added to existing forms to simplify accurate reporting by guardians and to curb malfeasance.

 
2.  In many instances, more information collected at the beginning of the guardianship can 
alleviate later problems after the guardian assumes his or her duties. For example, one suggested 
revision to the Inventory (Appendix C) requires information as to how checking/savings accounts 
have been set up. This information is requested to determine if the accounts have been set up 
with the guardian and IP as joint tenants with right of survivorship and, if they have, whether or 
not the account was created prior to the guardian’s appointment. Frequently, guardians, whether 
intentionally	or	unintentionally,	set	up	accounts	and	have	themselves	identified	as	joint	owners.	
The proper designation on a guardian account is to identify the IP as the owner and identify the 
guardian	as	the	individual	who	has	access	to	the	account	for	the	IP’s	benefit.	Other	form	changes	
request detailed information about the surety bond and the professional guardian’s insurance. 
This information can assist the court in determining whether the bond or the insurance coverage 
is appropriate and if it will provide coverage in the event of misappropriation of funds under most 
circumstances.

 
3.  Many newly appointed guardians do not consider investment strategies to maximize the 
longevity of estate funds, given the assets of the estate. Oftentimes, when such planning is not 
done, asset exhaustion occurs while the need for long-term care continues. Conversely, the 
presence	of	outstanding	debts	will	factor	into	the	guardian’s	financial	decision	making.	Accordingly,	
a long-term care plan section has been suggested for the Inventory (Appendix C) to document both 
a	responsible	fiduciary	plan	for	the	estate,	as	well	as	potential	personal	care	decisions	such	as	

GUARDIANSHIP MONITORING COMMITTEE REPORT

116

GUARDIANSHIP MONITORING COMMITTEE REPORT

117

residential care and end-of-life decisions. The added sections to the Inventory (Appendix C) prompt 
the guardian to estimate and plan for the type and duration of potential care issues. 

4.  In addition to the content that has been added to the existing forms, guardians will be 
 
required to complete a supplementary form titled: Firearms Search (Appendix D). The Firearms 
Search form is being implemented as a result of 18 Pa.C.S. § 6105(a) and (c) of the Uniform 
Firearms Act. 

 
5.  There is a need for a monitoring tool to ensure that annual expenditures are appropriate, 
and that court permission is secured prior to spending principal. Revisions to the Annual Report of 
the Guardian of the Estate (Appendix E) request detailed information about what payments have 
been made for guardian’s commission and attorney’s fees, and whether court permission was 
secured before making the expenditures. In addition, the form requires the guardian to indicate if a 
surety bond or professional liability coverage was required by the decree appointing the guardian 
and if it is still in effect. If the appointed guardian is also the SSA representative payee, he/she will 
be required to attach a copy of the SSA report.

6.  Additional information is needed about the type of medical, personal, and social support the 

 
IP is receiving, and is addressed by revisions to the Annual Report of the Guardian of the Person 
(Appendix F).

 
7.  The Committee considered requiring the guardian to send copies of the forms directly to the 
named	interested	parties.	It	ultimately	was	decided	that	a	Certificate	of	Filing	was	more	appropriate.	
The	Certificate	of	Filing	will	include	the	county-specific	process	for	requesting	documentation,	
and	instruct	the	recipient	to	present	a	copy	of	the	certificate	along	with	proper	identification.	
Guardians	will	be	directed	to	send	a	Certificate	of	Filing	(Appendix	G)	to	interested	parties	at	the	
time	a	report	is	filed	with	the	court.	Interested	parties	will	be	identified	by	the	judge	at	the	time	a	
guardian is appointed. The objective is to facilitate information sharing among interested parties, 
while protecting the privacy and best interests of the IP. In cases where the guardian of the person 
is different than the guardian of the estate, it is advisable that each guardian send a copy of their 
annual report to the other guardian.

8.	 Dissemination	of	these	forms	is	most	efficiently	achieved	by	making	them	made	available	on	

	
the	Unified	Judicial	System’s	(“UJS”)	website	in	a	fillable	PDF	format.	

C.  Committee Recommendations

 
1.  It is recommended that guardians be required to complete the Inventory, as revised per 
Appendix C, within 90 days after appointment. A statewide procedural rule change will be required 
to implement the revised form.

 
2.  It is recommended that guardians be required to complete the Annual Report of the Person, 
as revised per Appendix F, and/or Annual Report of the Estate as revised per Appendix E, one year 
after appointment. A statewide procedural rule change will be required to implement the revised 
forms.

 
3.  Within 90 days of appointment, it is recommended that guardians be required to complete 
a Firearms Search Form (Appendix D), which is necessitated by 18 Pa. C.S. § 6105(a) and (c) of 
the Uniform Firearms Act. A statewide procedural rule change will be required to implement this 
requirement. 

	
4.	 It	is	recommended	that	guardians	be	required	to	send	a	Certificate	of	Filing	(Appendix	
G),	to	the	persons	identified	at	the	time	of	adjudication,	within	10	days	of	filing	each	form	with	the	
Clerk of the Orphans’ Court. A statewide procedural rule change will be required to implement this 
requirement.

5.  As a result of the personal information included in the revised forms, it is recommended 
 
that	guardianship	files	be	sealed.	Interested	parties	that	are	named	in	the	case	will	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, a request form has been created 
(Appendix H).

D.  Timing and Impact

 
1.  The changes will need to be implemented over time in order to follow the process of 
amending court rules. The impact of the proposed recommendations will be felt by the guardians 
responsible for completing the required documentation. The Committee was sensitive to the issue 
of overburdening and deterring individuals from serving as guardians. However, providing guardians 
with additional training and standardized forms that are designed to simplify completion and 
compliance will alleviate the increased requirements. 

2.  The Committee suggests that the recommendations in this section be tested in four pilot 

 
counties	to	ascertain	information	on	the	difficulties	and	challenges	of	implementation.

	

1.	 The	fiscal	impact	of	the	recommendations	on	the	courts	is	minimal.	

2.  It is acknowledged that the guardian’s fees may increase as a result of time spent 

 
completing additional, required documentation. 

E.  Fiscal Impact

F.  References

 
1.  The Committee reviewed probate procedure and forms from the State of Alaska; Maricopa 
County, Arizona; Broward County, Florida; Wayne County, Michigan; Ramsey County, Minnesota; 
and Tarrant County, Texas.

IV. Effective Monitoring and Enforcement of Reporting Requirements

A.  Issue Statement

The Committee was asked to examine the issue of the court’s responsibility to monitor active 

 
guardianships. Current rules and statutes provide little guidance to court administration and the 
Clerks of the Orphans’ Court as to the extent of responsibility in monitoring active guardianships. 
The Guardianship Monitoring Committee conducted a statewide survey to determine the prevalence 
and types of monitoring practices. The results of the survey illustrated the lack of consistent, 
statewide practices and provided the impetus for the recommendations listed below. From the 
guardians’ point of view, current hearing practices do not make clear the guardians’ responsibilities 
before they leave the court. There are no standards or training for reviewing the annual reports and 
other required documentation to be submitted by guardians. In addition, each county’s Orphans’ 
Court	has	the	ability	to	impose	fees	on	guardians	for	filing	required	reports.

B.  Committee Findings

1.  The results from the Orphans’ Court Clerks and Judges’ Survey indicate that monitoring 
 
practices are limited in nature and isolated to a few counties across the state (see Appendix I).3 The 
majority of the Clerks of the Orphans’ Court reported that they do not monitor whether the inventory 
(75%) and annual reports (69%) are submitted by the guardian. In addition, 58% of the Clerks of 
the Orphans’ Court reported that the guardian is charged a fee when the annual report is submitted 
ranging from $10 to $75. It is necessary to implement monitoring practices that enforce guardian 
compliance and increase the information that judges review. Only 47% of judges stated that all 
annual reports received by the court are reviewed. There are no consistent practices for reviewing 
the inventory, which according to the survey results, have been afforded less monitoring attention 
than	the	annual	reports.	Survey	findings	indicate	a	lack	of	information	exchanged	between	the	
judges	and	the	Clerks’	offices.	The	recommendations	below	aim	to	clearly	delineate	responsibilities	
of all parties to ensure proper monitoring is taking place.

GUARDIANSHIP MONITORING COMMITTEE REPORT

118

GUARDIANSHIP MONITORING COMMITTEE REPORT

119

C.  Committee Recommendations

	
1.	 It	is	recommended	that	filing	fees	for	the	Annual	Report	of	the	Person,	the	Annual	Report	
of the Estate and the Inventory be prohibited. Although it is desirable to create additional funding 
sources, it is not reasonable to do so at the expense of adding barriers for guardians. The 
recommendations in this Report aim to increase compliance with reporting requirements, whereas 
filing	fees	counteract	this	goal.	In	order	to	ensure	uniformity	across	all	counties,	it	is	recommended	
that	the	imposition	of	such	filing	fees	by	local	court	rule	or	administrative	order	be	prohibited	by	the	
Supreme Court through a statewide procedural rule.

2.  It is recommended that guardians be given written and oral instructions at the time of 

 
appointment. Such instruction will increase the quality of information submitted and compliance with 
reporting due dates. It is recommended that, at the time a guardian is appointed, he/she receive a 
packet of instructions from the judge or administrative staff and provide a written acknowledgment 
of receipt. The packet will include plain language instructions for completing the required forms, 
a copy of blank forms, and a timeline of due dates and trainings. A completed instruction packet, 
based on the newly revised reporting requirements, will be provided to each county. Counties will 
have the opportunity to incorporate local resource materials and information in their packets as 
needed. It is a recommended best practice that all counties utilize the provided instruction packet 
and ensure all guardians receive a copy upon appointment.

 
3.  It is recommended 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. To ensure uniformity across all counties, it is recommended that this practice be 
implemented by the Supreme Court through statewide procedural rule.

4.  It is recommended that Clerks of the Orphans’ Court be responsible for providing 

 
delinquency notices to guardians when required reports become past due. The judge and counsel 
for the IP will also receive copies of delinquency notices. To ensure uniformity across all counties, 
it is recommended that this practice be implemented by the Supreme Court through statewide 
procedural rule. If a guardian does not respond to the delinquency notice within the stated time 
frame, it is a recommended best practice for the judge to conduct a review hearing with the 
guardian present. The review hearing will serve as an additional monitoring tool and will remind the 
guardian of reporting requirements.

5.  It is recommended that Clerks of the Orphans’ Court or court administration staff be 

 
responsible	for	determining	the	reasons	for	failure	to	file.	If	the	report	is	not	filed	due	to	the	death	of	
the	IP,	the	guardian	will	be	instructed	to	file	a	final	report.	If	the	guardian	does	not	understand	his	or	
her responsibilities, the guardian will be directed to contact a designated person within the court’s 
administrative	office	or	advocacy	group,	and	will	be	instructed	again	about	the	forms.	If	the	guardian	
becomes	derelict	in	his	or	her	obligations,	the	judge	should	be	notified,	and	can	impose	varying	
levels of sanctions, such as issuing a contempt of court order. In extreme circumstances, a guardian 
may be removed if requirements are not met, consistent with the language included in proposed 
Senate Bill 117.

6.  It is recommended that the judge or judge’s staff review the content of all inventories and 

 
annual reports received by the court. The judge may identify an individual trained in this area 
to act as the reviewer in the judge’s place. In order to ensure uniformity across all counties, it 
is recommended that this practice be implemented by the Supreme Court through a statewide 
procedural rule change. The training provided to judges (mentioned in Section I: Determining 
Capacity) will include resources on evaluating the reports to identify areas requiring further scrutiny, 
additional documentation, or a review hearing. It is a recommended best practice for all annual 
reports to be compared to the inventory and previous annual reports.

7.  It is a recommended best practice that judges hold periodic review hearings, either on a 

 
regular basis or at random, to monitor the status of the guardianship.

 
8.  It is recommended that judicial staff or court administrative staff be available to answer a 
guardian’s question(s) or assist a guardian with completing forms. It is recognized that staff are not 
permitted	to	give	legal	advice.	However,	making	staff	available	for	this	defined	purpose	should	be	
encouraged. It is recommended that resources for guardians be centrally located on a statewide 
website which includes training materials, forms, and instructions on completion of forms.

 
9.  It is a recommended best practice for counties to adopt a volunteer monitoring program 
leveraging local/regional resources to assist the courts’ monitoring responsibilities. The Orphans’ 
Court Guardianship Program in Chester County and the Pro Bono Guardianship Monitoring 
Program in Dauphin County are considered model volunteer programs. Volunteers from these 
counties visit the IP, review submitted reports and seek court involvement when intervention is 
necessary.

Model Program:

Dauphin County’s Pro Bono Guardianship Monitoring Program was started as a cooperative effort 
between  the  court  and  the  Dauphin  County  Bar Association.  In  Dauphin  County,  attorneys  are 
required	to	handle	two	pro	bono	cases	a	year	and	can	fulfill	this	requirement	by	being	a	monitor	in	
two guardianship cases.

The program is administered by the Court Administrator, who assigns the cases to the volunteer 
attorneys.	Documents	from	the	Orphans’	Court	file	are	reviewed	by	the	monitor	at	the	courthouse.	
The	monitor	notifies	the	IP,	the	guardian(s)	and	the	attorney	that	a	monitor	has	been	appointed	and	
a visit is scheduled. A formal appointment order is entered by the court.

On an annual basis, the monitor makes an appointment with the guardian and visits with the IP 
at	their	residence	or	facility.	The	monitors	review	the	inventory,	financial	records,	and	the	annual	
reports.	 After	 meeting	 with	 everyone,	 the	 monitor	 submits	 a	 report	 on	 his/her	 findings	 to	 court	
administration. If issues are raised, a hearing or conference is scheduled by the court.

10. It is recommended that adequate funding be provided to support the Clerks and Judges of 

 
the	Orphans’	Court	in	their	ability	to	fulfill	their	monitoring	responsibilities.

D.  Timing and Impact

 
1.  The recommendations in this section (unless the recommendation is noted as a best 
practice) will require revisions by the Supreme Court to the statewide Orphans’ Court Procedural 
Rules. This method is recommended to achieve statewide consistency and to clearly delineate the 
expectations and responsibilities of the Clerks and Judges of the Orphans’ Court. The Committee 
suggests that the recommendations in this section be tested in four pilot counties to receive 
feedback on the challenges and cost of implementation. As a result of the length of time that is 
required to implement a rule change, it is recommended that a county administrative order be 
utilized in the pilot counties to implement the proposed recommendations in advance of a statewide 
rule. 

E.  Fiscal Impact

1.	 The	fiscal	impact	of	the	recommendations	in	this	section	include	lost	revenue	to	counties	

	
that	currently	charge	the	guardian	filing	fees	for	submitting	required	documentation.	There	will	
be	counties	that	experience	a	financial	impact	associated	with	software	upgrades	needed	to	
include the functionality required to comply with the stated recommendations. In addition, the 
recommendations will increase the responsibilities of the Clerks of the Orphans’ Court, which may 
require	additional	staff	in	these	offices	until	the	proposed	statewide	automated	case	management	
system can generate notices automatically (see Section V). The Orphans’ Court Clerks’ survey 
results indicated that not having enough staff, especially in smaller counties, was a common reason 
for not adopting monitoring practices. 

GUARDIANSHIP MONITORING COMMITTEE REPORT

120

GUARDIANSHIP MONITORING COMMITTEE REPORT

121

Model Program:

The Chester County Orphans’ Court Guardianship Volunteer Program has been monitoring adult 
guardianships  for  over  20  years.  The  volunteers  serve  as  the  “eyes  and  ears”  of  the  Court  by 
visiting individuals under guardianship and reviewing court documents.

The Program is composed of three volunteer positions:

Researchers – after the hearing takes place appointing the guardian, the researcher comes into the 
volunteer	office	in	the	Justice	Center	and	has	access	to	the	court	file.	He	or	she	creates	a	file	review	
form	by	gathering	pertinent	information	from	the	court	files	to	assist	the	visitors.	

Visitors – make the actual physical visits and act as gentle observers. They submit a report back 
to the court with their assessment of IP’s physical, emotional, and intellectual health, functioning 
capabilities, living situation, and relationship with guardian.

Auditors – review and address reports of the estate that require attention, such as discrepancies 
from the previous year, or assets being used for inappropriate purposes.

Volunteer visitors meet annually with each IP and his/her legally appointed guardian to ensure that 
the guardianship continues to serve the best interests of the IP. Chester County has over 500 legal 
guardianships in place, and, currently there are approximately 45 trained volunteers who evaluate 
them at least once per year.

Below	 is	 a	 statement	 by	 the	 Honorable	 Katherine	 B.	 L.	 Platt,	Administrative	 Judge	 of	 Orphans’	
Court:

“As	 the	 Administrative	 Judge	 of	 Orphans’	 Court,	 I	 have	 seen	 first-hand	 how	 our	 dedicated	
volunteers can positively impact the lives and resources of some of our most vulnerable population-
incapacitated adults. The causes of their incapacity can be congenital, as the result of profound 
injury, or as we see most often, age-related. Once a Guardian of the Person and the Estate of the 
Incapacitated Person is appointed, there is an ongoing obligation for those appointed to report to 
the court annually. However, the volume of open guardianships makes it impossible for the Orphans’ 
Court judges to stay involved in each of the 500 or so cases that are open in the Chester County 
courts. Our trained volunteers are the eyes and ears of the court, and help us to be alert to and 
deal	with	issues	of	personal	and	fiscal	safety	for	those	whom	we	have	adjudicated	incapacitated.	
This program is a godsend to the people we serve and to the court. I, for one, sleep better at night 
knowing these committed volunteers are helping me and my fellow judges protect the people we 
serve.”

 

1.  Clerks of Orphans’ Court Survey, Judges of Orphans’ Court Survey (Appendix I).

F.  References

G.  Additional Comments

1.  Senate Bill 117 would amend 20 Pa.C.S. § 751 to provide for the appointment of an 

 
examiner to make periodic or special examination of expenditures, disbursements, and withdrawals 
by	the	guardian	of	the	estate	and	require	the	presentation	of	financial	records	to	the	examiner.	This	
proposed legislation is considered an additional tool for judges and aligns with the Committee’s 
recommendations.

2.  Senate Bill 117 would amend 20 Pa.C.S. § 5512.2 by expanding who can request a review 

 
hearing from “interested party” to a “person interested in the incapacitated person’s welfare.” 
Subsection (c) allows the court to order an independent evaluation for such a hearing. This 
proposed legislation aligns with the Committee’s recommendations.

V.  Data Collection

A.  Issue Statement

The Committee was asked to examine the issues of data collection and the ability to report 
 
accurate statistics on active guardianships. As a result of the dearth of monitoring and tracking 
procedures outlined in Section IV, the judicial computer system is unable to produce key statistics 
relating to guardianship cases. It is necessary for courts to be aware of the number of active 
guardianship cases that require monitoring. In a statewide survey, the Clerks of the Orphans’ Court 
listed the major obstacles to data collection: vendor contract terms in some counties require the 
county	to	pay	for	any	system	changes;	insufficient	staff	to	take	on	additional	duties;	and	the	lack	
of mandates requiring Clerks of the Orphans’ Court to participate in monitoring activities, including 
data	collection	and	notification	of	guardians	of	late	annual	guardianship	reports.

B.  Committee Findings

1.  In order to support the monitoring efforts of the courts, it is necessary for the Clerks of 
 
the Orphans’ Court to collect standardized data items that will produce an active inventory of 
guardianships. In order to prepare for this type of reporting, the Orphans’ Court will need to identify 
which guardianship cases are active, and which are inactive and can be purged. The long-term 
data collection plan includes bringing Orphans’ Courts onto the statewide Common Pleas Case 
Management System, (“CPCMS”).

C.  Committee Recommendations

 
1.  It is recommended that Clerks of the Orphans’ Court have the capability to produce a 
standardized list of data items for each active guardianship (see Appendix J). In order to ensure 
uniformity across all counties, it is recommended that this practice be implemented by the Supreme 
Court through statewide procedural rule. Collecting this data will allow caseload reports to be 
generated and distributed to court administrative staff and Orphans’ Court Judges for monitoring 
purposes. Recording case activity on an ongoing basis and reviewing the information at regular 
intervals is the only reliable means of managing active guardianships and protecting IPs from 
appointed guardians’ errors and abuses. Two types of reports are recommended to be used as 
monitoring tools by judges, court administrative staff and Clerks of the Orphans’ Court (Appendix J).

 
2.  A case management report should be used by court personnel to identify the number of 
petitions for guardianship awaiting adjudication, scheduled events, and missing or outstanding 
filings,	such	as	initial	inventories	or	annual	reports	that	are	overdue.

3.  Caseload reports should be used to aggregate the number of new petitions, petitions 

 
adjudicated by the court, active guardianships, and guardianships terminated by the court.

 
4.  For those counties that utilize an automated docketing system, much of the needed capacity 
may already be in place or, at least, the system may have these capacities but the functions are not 
enabled.	County-level	technical	assistance	from	the	Administrative	Office	of	Pennsylvania	Courts	
(“AOPC”) Research and Statistics Department will need to be made available upon request.

 
5.  In order to establish an accurate inventory of active guardianships, it is recommended 
that each county purge inactive guardianships from its case management systems. The resulting 
adjusted inventory will provide an accurate baseline for ongoing data collection. It is recommended 
that Clerks of the Orphans’ Court perform an administrative purge for those cases that have at 
least one delinquent annual report, by sending notice to the appointed guardian. Notices should 
advise the guardian to inform the court whether the guardianship remains active and, if not, 
the reasons why it is no longer active. If no response is received, Clerks of the Orphans’ Court 
should use caution when evaluating any cases subject to termination because of the likelihood 
that the guardianship is indeed still active. Orphans’ Court Judges will be provided with a list of 
cases subject to termination for review and approval. In order to alleviate some of the burden 
of conducting a purge, it is recommended that the AOPC develop a secure website where the 
Clerks of the Orphans’ Court can perform a search to determine if the IP is still living. Following 

GUARDIANSHIP MONITORING COMMITTEE REPORT

122

GUARDIANSHIP MONITORING COMMITTEE REPORT

123

the completion of the administrative purge, the Clerks of the Orphans’ Court should complete the 
Orphans’	Court	e-form	(Appendix	K),	noting	the	number	of	terminations	which	occurred	during	the	
purge. The data collected on the Orphans’ Court e-form will be published as part of the AOPC’s 
annual caseload statistics report. 

6.  The development of a statewide Orphans’ Court case management system is within the 

 
AOPC’s	five-year	automation	plan,	with	software	requirement	specifications,	joint	application	
development sessions, and system-design planned for 2015; development during 2016; and rollout 
during 2017. The Orphans’ Court case management system will be another module of the CPCMS, 
which currently includes criminal, dependency, and delinquency case processing applications. 
The	ability	to	e-file	Orphans’	Court	documents	will	be	examined	during	the	development	of	the	
CPCMS module. As part of the Orphans’ Court system development, the AOPC plans to develop a 
guardianship	reporting	system	so	that	annual	reports	may	be	filed	online	and	provided	to	the	court	
for review. It is recommended that this monitoring tool include the following functionality: web-based 
application;	monitoring	and	auditing	tools	for	court	staff;	financial	accounting;	automated	reminders	
to both guardians and court staff; and interface with the Orphans’ Court CPCMS application to 
provide guardianship monitoring data to court staff. 

7.	 The	template	in	Appendix	K	contains	the	data	which	will	be	published	as	part	of	the	AOPC’s	

	
annual caseload statistics report. This information is distributed on an annual basis and can be 
accessed by the public on the UJS’ website. 

8.  Any additional requests for data or information should be directed to the AOPC and handled 

 
on a case-by-case basis. The issue of sharing data with federal and state agencies involved 
in	guardianships	(e.g.,	SSA,	VA)	is	a	difficult	and	complex	problem	that	has	been	extensively	
documented.4	A	notification	system	should	be	established	for	when	it	is	found	that	a	representative	
payee is abusing an IP. A collaborative process should be established between the courts and these 
agencies.

9.  It is recommended that adequate funding be provided to support the Clerks of Orphans’ 

 
Court in their ability to implement a local case management system prior to the release of the 
statewide guardianship CPCMS module.

D.  Timing and Impact

 
1.  The recommendations in this section (unless the recommendation is noted as a best 
practice) will require revision by the Supreme Court to the statewide Orphans’ Court Procedural 
Rules. This method is recommended to achieve statewide consistency and to clearly delineate 
the expectations and responsibilities of the Clerks and Judges of the Orphans’ Court. As a result 
of the length of time that is required to implement a rule change, it is recommended that a county 
administrative order be utilized to encourage counties to adopt recommendations in advance of a 
statewide rule. The administrative purge can be executed within each local Clerk of Orphans’ Court 
office.	The	Orphans’	Court	CPCMS	module	will	be	implemented	over	time,	with	final	completion	
expected in 2017.

E.  Fiscal Impact

1.  Counties will experience some level of impact as there may be costs associated with 

 
software upgrades to provide for the recommended functionality.

VI. Removal, Replacement and Discharge of Guardians

A.  Issue Statement

 
The Committee was asked to examine the appropriate criteria for removing or replacing a 
guardian, while ensuring the well-being of the IP. The statute on guardianships provides due 
process and other protections for IPs. 20 Pa.C.S. §§ 5512 and 5512.2. However, there are no 
guidelines that establish measureable performance standards for guardians or enforcement of the 
IP’s rights. The statute does not specify how often a guardian must have contact with an IP or any 

clear delineation of the guardian’s duties. Currently, there is no entity designated to provide support 
to	guardians	in	fulfilling	their	duties.

The grounds and procedure for removing guardians are the same as the statutory grounds 
 
and procedure for removing executors/administrators of an estate. See Section 5515, which cross-
references Sections 3182 and 3183 of the Decedents, Estates and Fiduciaries Code. Given that 
a	person	under	guardianship	has	no	access	to	funds	to	hire	independent	counsel,	it	is	difficult	for	
an IP to access the court and have a guardian replaced or discharged. See In Re: Estate of Sheri 
Rosengarten, 871 A.2d 1249 (Pa. Super. 2005). Additionally, there is no formalized complaint 
process	specific	to	guardianships	that	allows	individuals	to	bring	matters	of	concern	to	the	court’s	
attention.

B.  Committee Findings

1.  Various Pennsylvania advocacy organizations have created a Bill of Rights for adults and 

 
children with disabilities. Such a document does not exist for IPs over age 60. A Bill of Rights 
would	benefit	the	IP	by	reinforcing	his	or	her	statutory	rights	and	articulating	the	expectations	with	
regard to how guardians and the court should operate and make decisions on the IP’s behalf. It 
was determined that a Bill of Rights should be written in plain language, for both AIPs and IPs 
to	understand.	A	separate	document	based	on	the	specifics	of	the	statute	should	be	provided	to	
guardians.5 

2.	 The	difficulties	of	removing	or	replacing	a	guardian	are	not	related	to	the	standards	or	duties	

	
of a guardian, but are associated with the IP’s challenges in accessing the court. An interested 
person or advocacy group can petition the court for a review hearing if the guardian is suspected 
of malfeasance or dereliction of duties. The question becomes: to whom does the IP communicate 
his or her need for court review, if he or she is not able to access advocacy resources or the 
attention of an interested party? One potential option is to have the court-appointed attorney from 
the guardianship proceedings (see (VIII)(B)(1)(d) of the Guardians and Counsel Committee Report), 
make personal contact with the IP on an annual basis to determine if assistance with access to the 
courts	is	needed.	In	addition,	creating	an	easy-to-use	complaint	form,	specific	to	guardianships	and	
widely accessible from appropriate entities, would provide added protection for IPs.

 
3.  Proposed Senate Bill 117 adds Section 5515.1, which states the conditions under which 
the court can remove a guardian: wasting or mismanaging the estate, becoming insolvent, failing 
to perform any duty imposed by law, becoming incapacitated, moving from the state or not being 
locatable, and jeopardizing the interest of the estate or the IP.

C.  Committee Recommendations

1.  It is recommended that the Bill of Rights of an Alleged Incapacitated Person (see insert) 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 be provided to 
the IP and interested family members 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.

2.  It is recommended that judges and guardians receive training on the Bill of Rights to provide 

 
guidelines for making decisions on behalf of the IP. 

3.  It is recommended that a guide for guardians be developed by the OEJC and the Advisory 

 
Council on Elder Justice in the Courts (“Advisory Council”) which includes information about 
the minimum standards of care and the expectations and responsibilities of the guardian. It is 
recommended that the guardian maintain in-person contact with the IP at a minimum of once per 
quarter or more often as appropriate. For the guardian of the estate, it may be acceptable to have 
less	frequent	contact,	particularly	if	the	guardian	is	a	financial	institution.	The	frequency	of	contact	

GUARDIANSHIP MONITORING COMMITTEE REPORT

124

GUARDIANSHIP MONITORING COMMITTEE REPORT

125

between the guardian and the IP should depend on factors such as the living situation, family 
support, medical condition, and the type of guardianship. 

4.  In order to provide the IP with court access, if needed, it is recommended that the court-

 
appointed attorney be required to make contact on an annual basis. This model of continued 
contact	is	a	significant	departure	from	attorneys’	finite	role	of	serving	the	IP	until	the	guardianship	
is adjudicated. Annual contact by the court-appointed attorney serves a dual purpose, to determine 
if a guardianship continues to be necessary and if the guardian is adequately performing their 
duties. The court-appointed attorney can petition the court to discharge or replace a guardian for 
failure to perform their duties. Annual contact with the IP by the court-appointed attorney would 
not be a substitute for a guardianship monitoring program, nor a substitution of the guardian’s 
statutory obligations. An annual contact from the court-appointed attorney should not substitute the 
number of contacts expected of the guardian (see recommendation (VI)(C)(3)). Additional research 
by the OEJC and Advisory Council will be needed to determine how this recommendation affects 
the	current	funding	stream	for	court-appointed	attorneys	and	whether	there	is	sufficient	need	and	
resources for additional contact.

5.  It is recommended that the Advisory Council examine how an effective complaint form and 

 
process,	specific	to	guardianships,	can	be	implemented	by	the	appropriate	stakeholders.

 
6.  It is recommended that the possibility of a pilot program similar to the Court Appointed 
Special Advocates (“CASA”) be researched by the OEJC and the Advisory Council. This program 
would provide a volunteer advocate for the AIP throughout the guardianship process who could alert 
the court of any observed wrongdoing.

7.  It is recommended the proposed language in Senate Bill 117 amending Section 5515.1 to 

 
address the grounds and procedures for removing and replacing guardians be adopted into the 
Guardianship Statute. 

 
The timing of implementation of the Bill of Rights, a guide for guardians, and the continued 
involvement of the court-appointed attorney will be determined by the OEJC and the Advisory 
Council.

D.  Timing and Impact

E.  Fiscal Impact

The	fiscal	consequences	of	implementing	the	Bill	of	Rights,	a	guide	for	guardians,	and	the	

	
continued involvement of the court-appointed attorney will be determined by the OEJC.

The following information should be provided to the Alleged Incapacitated Person,  
as well as any family members or concerned parties, at the time the petition is served.

Bill of Rights
of An Alleged Incapacitated Person

A.  Before a Guardianship Hearing occurs, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO:

1.  Nominate in writing the person or persons you would like to serve as your guardian.1   
2.  Employ less restrictive alternatives to guardianship, where appropriate, including:2 

a.  Creating a Power of Attorney;
b.  Executing a Living Will;
c.	 Designating	a	representative	payee	to	manage	your	benefits	(e.g.,	Social	Security);	and	
d.  Requesting services through Area Agencies on Aging. 

3.  Receive Notice:3 

a.	 You	must	be	notified	that	a	guardianship	petition	has	been	filed	at	least	20	days	prior	to	the	hearing;
b.	 You	must	be	provided	with	the	hearing	date;		
c.  The petition must be given to you and explained to you in person; and
d.	 You	should	be	notified	of	your	rights	that	can	be	lost	if	a	guardian	is	appointed	for	you.

B.  YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO challenge the appointment of a guardian, and:

If you do not have or cannot afford an attorney, you may request that the court appoint an attorney for you;3
1. 
2.	 You	have	a	right	to	be	present	at	all	hearings,	unless	a	physician	or	licensed	psychologist	states	that	such	

attendance would be harmful to you;4 
If you wish to attend the hearing but are not able to attend, you may request a hearing at your residence;3

3. 
4.	 You	may	ask	to	have	an	independent	evaluation	of	your	alleged	incapacities;5   
5.	 You	and/or	your	attorney	may	cross-examine	witnesses;6 
6.	 You	may	request	that	the	hearing	be	closed	to	the	public	and	kept	private;3
7.	 You	may	request	a	trial	by	jury;3 and
8.	 You	may	appeal	the	rulings	of	the	court.7 

C.  If a guardian is appointed, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO:

1.	 Receive	prudent	financial	management	of	your	property	to	the	extent	possible;
2.  Have access to training, education, medical, psychiatric, and social services;
3.  Have access to the courts;
4.  Receive visitors and communicate with others;
5.  Receive notice of all proceedings related to determination of capacity and guardianship; and
YOU ARE ENTITLED TO: 
All of the rights granted by law as a resident in a setting such as a nursing home, personal care home, assisted 
living residence, or hospital.

D.  Unless the appointment is for a “Limited Guardian,” THE FOLLOWING RIGHTS WILL BE RESTRICTED 

BY THE COURT:8 
1.  To enter into a contract;
2.  To sue and defend lawsuits;
3.	 To	apply	for	government	benefits;
4.  To manage property or to make any gift or disposition of property;
5.  To determine your residence;
6.  To consent to medical treatment; and 
7.  To make decisions about your social environment or other social aspects of life.

1. 
2. 
3. 

  20 Pa.C.S. § 5604(c)(2), 5511(f).
  20 Pa.C.S. § 5502, 5511(e), 5518.
  20 Pa.C.S. § 5511(a).

4. 
5. 
6. 

  20 Pa.C.S. § 5511(a)(1)-(2).
  20 Pa.C.S. § 5511(d).
  20 Pa.C.S. § 5518.1.

7. 
8. 

  20 Pa.C.S. § 5512.1(h).
  20 Pa.C.S. § 5512.1(g).

The following information should be provided to the Guardian of the Incapacitated Person at the time of the 
appointment AND to the Incapacitated Person, as well as any family members or concerned parties.

Bill of Rights
of An Incapacitated Person

An Incapacitated Person under Guardianship HAS THE RIGHT TO:1 

1.   Have his or her expressed wishes and preferences respected to the greatest possible extent;2 

2.   Develop or regain, to the maximum extent possible, the capacity to manage his or her personal 

affairs by petitioning the court for a review hearing;3 

3.  Have an annual review of the guardianship by the court via the required annual guardianship report 

filed	by	the	guardian;4 

4.   Appeal the court’s determination of incapacity;5 

5.  Petition the court to modify or terminate the guardianship;5

6.    Have his or her intentions, whether testamentary (relating to a will) or inter vivos (relating to a gift) 

regarding his or her estate planning considered by the court;6  

In Limited Guardianship Matters, A Partially Incapacitated Person Shall:  

1.  Retain all legal rights except those designated to the guardian by court order;7 

2.   Be assured that training, education, medical and psychological services, and social and vocational 

opportunities will be available, as appropriate, to develop or enhance maximum self-reliance and 
independence.8 

1. 
  For purposes of this Report, the 
duties and responsibilities of the court 
and of the appointed guardian which are 
set forth in Pennsylvania statutes are 
construed by the Pennsylvania Elder 
Law Task Force to codify the rights of the 

incapacitated person under guardianship.  
Additional rights may be provided, in 
addition to those listed herein.  
  20 Pa.C.S. § 5511(a).
2. 
  20 Pa.C.S. § 5512.2.
3. 
  20 Pa.C.S. § 5521(c).
4. 

5. 
6. 
7. 
8. 

  20 Pa.C.S. § 5512.1(h).
  20 Pa.C.S. § 5536 (b).
  20 Pa.C.S. § 5512.1(g).
  20 Pa.C.S. § 5512.1(b)(3).

ENDNOTES AND REFERENCES

 Nat’l College of Probate Court Judges, National 

1 
Probate Court Standards (2013), http://ncsc.
contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/spcts/id/240; 
American Bar Association [ABA], Commission on Law 
and Aging & American Psychological Association, 
Judicial Determination of Capacity of Older Adults in 
Guardianship Proceedings (2006), http://www.apa.org/
pi/aging/resources/guides/judges-diminished.pdf.

2 
 American Bar Association, Resolution 100A, (Aug. 
12-13, 2013), http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/
aba/images/mental_physical_disability/2013_100A.pdf.

	Administrative	Office	of	Pennsylvania	Courts	

3	
(AOPC), Department of Research and Statistics, Clerks 
and Judges of the Orphans’ Court Survey, (2014).

 American Bar Association, Resolution 100A, (Aug. 
4 
12-13, 2013), http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/
aba/images/mental_physical_disability/2013_100A.pdf.

 Southwestern Pennsylvania Partnership for Aging, 

5 
A Guide for Guardians (2008).

GUARDIANSHIP MONITORING COMMITTEE REPORT - ENDNOTES AND REFERENCES

128

GUARDIANSHIP MONITORING COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX A

129

GUARDIANSHIP MONITORING COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX A

130

GUARDIANSHIP MONITORING COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX A

131

GUARDIANSHIP MONITORING COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX A

132

GUARDIANSHIP MONITORING COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX A

133

GUARDIANSHIP MONITORING COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX A

134

GUARDIANSHIP MONITORING COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX A

135

GUARDIANSHIP MONITORING COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX A

136

GUARDIANSHIP MONITORING COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX A

137

GUARDIANSHIP MONITORING COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX B1

138

GUARDIANSHIP MONITORING COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX B1

139

GUARDIANSHIP MONITORING COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX B2

140

GUARDIANSHIP MONITORING COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX B2

141

GUARDIANSHIP MONITORING COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX B2

142

GUARDIANSHIP MONITORING COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX B2

143

GUARDIANSHIP MONITORING COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX B3

144

GUARDIANSHIP MONITORING COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX B3

145

GUARDIANSHIP MONITORING COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX B3

146

GUARDIANSHIP MONITORING COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX B3

147

GUARDIANSHIP MONITORING COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX B3

148

GUARDIANSHIP MONITORING COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX C

149

GUARDIANSHIP MONITORING COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX C

150

GUARDIANSHIP MONITORING COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX C

151

GUARDIANSHIP MONITORING COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX C

152

GUARDIANSHIP MONITORING COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX C

153

GUARDIANSHIP MONITORING COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX C

154

GUARDIANSHIP MONITORING COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX C

155

GUARDIANSHIP MONITORING COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX C

156

GUARDIANSHIP MONITORING COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX C

157

GUARDIANSHIP MONITORING COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX C

158

GUARDIANSHIP MONITORING COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX D

159

GUARDIANSHIP MONITORING COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX D

160

GUARDIANSHIP MONITORING COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX D

161

GUARDIANSHIP MONITORING COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX E

162

GUARDIANSHIP MONITORING COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX E

163

GUARDIANSHIP MONITORING COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX E

164

GUARDIANSHIP MONITORING COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX E

165

GUARDIANSHIP MONITORING COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX E

166

GUARDIANSHIP MONITORING COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX E

167

GUARDIANSHIP MONITORING COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX E

168

GUARDIANSHIP MONITORING COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX E

169

GUARDIANSHIP MONITORING COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX E

170

GUARDIANSHIP MONITORING COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX E

171

GUARDIANSHIP MONITORING COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX E

172

GUARDIANSHIP MONITORING COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX F

173

GUARDIANSHIP MONITORING COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX F

174

GUARDIANSHIP MONITORING COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX F

175

GUARDIANSHIP MONITORING COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX F

176

GUARDIANSHIP MONITORING COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX F

177

GUARDIANSHIP MONITORING COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX F

178

GUARDIANSHIP MONITORING COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX F

179

GUARDIANSHIP MONITORING COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX G

180

GUARDIANSHIP MONITORING COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX G

181

GUARDIANSHIP MONITORING COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX H

182

GUARDIANSHIP MONITORING COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX I

183

GUARDIANSHIP MONITORING COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX J

184

GUARDIANSHIP MONITORING COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX K

185

COMMITTEE REPORT
Elder Abuse and Neglect

D.A. Stephen A. Zappala, Jr., Chair

Wilmarie González, Vice Chair

Ronald Barth

Karen	C.	Buck,	Esquire

Ronald W. Costen, PhD, Esquire

Kathleen	Gustine,	Esquire

Judge Lois E. Murphy

A.D.A. Deborah Cooper Nixon 

Judge Lawrence J. O’Toole

Katherine	C.	Pearson,	Esquire

Robert N. Peirce, Esquire

Louise A. Rynd, Esquire

Carol Sikov Gross, Esquire

Catharine E. Thurston, Esquire 

D.A. Eugene Vittone 

President Judge George Zanic

AOPC Staff:

Darren Breslin, Esquire

ELDER ABUSE AND NEGLECT COMMITTEE REPORT

186

ELDER ABUSE AND NEGLECT COMMITTEE REPORT

187

Elder Abuse and Neglect Committee 
Findings and Recommendations
Introduction

The	findings	and	recommendations	of	this	Committee	identify	strategies	to	prevent	the	abuse,	

	
neglect, and exploitation of older adults in Pennsylvania, and focusing on following topics: 

1.	 Reporting	and	preventing	financial	abuse	and	exploitation	of	elders;	

2.  Training, information, and collaboration; 

3.  Developing effective court practices to address elder abuse and promote 
access to justice for Pennsylvania elders.

I.  Financial Abuse and Exploitation of Elders

A.  Issue Statement - Power of Attorney and Financial Abuse 

 
According to the Pennsylvania Department of Aging (“Department of Aging”), aside from 
self-neglect	and	caretaker	abuse,	financial	abuse	is	the	most	frequent	type	of	abuse	against	
Pennsylvania	elders.	In	Fiscal	Year	(“FY”)	2012-2013,	16.1%	of	abuse	cases	investigated	by	Area	
Agencies	on	Aging	(“AAAs”)	in	Pennsylvania	involved	substantiated	complaints	of	financial	abuse	
against elders.1 According to some estimates, 30% of elder abuse cases may involve some type of 
financial	exploitation.2 A recent study published by MetLife Mature Market Institute estimates that 
the	annual	financial	loss	by	victims	of	elder	financial	abuse	in	the	United	States	exceeds	$2.9	billion	
dollars annually.3

Frequently,	financial	abuse	of	elders	involves	the	use	(or	misuse)	of	a	power	of	attorney	

	
(“POA”).4 As seen in countless news reports, abuse through a POA can have devastating 
consequences.5

  With this background in mind, the Committee closely studied the 2006 Uniform Power of 
Attorney Act (“UPAA”), the Pennsylvania Joint State Government Commission’s (“JSGC”) Report 
of the Advisory Committee on Decedents’ Estates Laws (“Advisory Committee”) (March 2010 
and June 2011), Senate Bill 620 of 2013, Pr. No. 627 (“Senate Bill 620”), House Bill 1429 of 2013 
(“House Bill 1429”) (subsequently enacted as Act 95 of 2014), House Bill 2007 of 2014, Pr. No. 
3441 (“House Bill 2007”), House Bill 2014 of 2014, Pr. No. 3326 (“House Bill 2014”), House Bill 
2057 of 2014, Pr. No. 3054 (“House Bill 2057”), as well as news reports, law review articles, and 
other professional publications. 

B.  Committee Findings 

1.  Powers of Attorney

a)  Standing

In	considering	how	best	to	combat	elder	financial	abuse/exploitation	in	connection	with	the	use	

	
of a POA, the Committee began by considering the issue of standing – namely who has the legal 
authority to question POA transactions and whether standing should be expanded to allow more 
interested parties to challenge actions taken on behalf of a principal.6 Pennsylvania law currently 
affords standing to principals, guardians, and government agencies acting under the Older Adults 
Protective Services Act, (“OAPSA”), 35 P.S. §§ 10225.101—10225.5102, and other individuals as 
determined on a case-by-case basis.7

	
The	Committee	considered	both	the	benefits	and	detriments	of	expanding	standing.	Expanding	
standing would make it easier for concerned family members, friends, and other interested parties 
to seek court review and intervention when abuse is suspected. In addition, the Committee 
recognized that often an elder may sign a POA that grants broad powers, without understanding 
what authority it confers. An elder principal may unknowingly grant very broad powers, leaving 
him or herself susceptible to abuse. Expanding standing to challenge an agent’s actions may help 
prevent such abuses.

  Countervailing concerns were also contemplated, including the right of privacy and the 
right of a principal to authorize an agent to act on his or her behalf without interference. The 
Committee recognized that these concerns may outweigh even well-intentioned interference by 
family	members.	Moreover,	the	Committee	recognized	a	key	benefit	of	using	a	POA,	is	that	court	
involvement is usually not required. Expanding standing may increase the possibility of litigation, 
which in turn could impair the utility of a POA. It was argued that if an individual has concerns about 
actions taken by an agent, those concerns should be reported to the local AAA or the Department 
of Aging, which have authority to investigate and, if necessary, have standing to bring an action 
through the OAPSA. If it is determined that the elder may be incapacitated, the AAA may also 
petition for guardianship. 

The Committee considered the position of the JSGC’s Advisory Committee’s March 2010 Report 

 
at pages 39-41, (which reviewed the UPAA), as well as other proposals, and after considerable 
discussion, endorsed enactment of Section 116 of the UPAA.

The authors of the 2006 UPAA included Section 116 to address standing to request judicial 

 
review of an agent’s actions under a POA. This section provides as follows:

Section § 116. Judicial Relief:

(a)  The following persons may petition a court to construe a power of attorney or 
review the agent’s conduct, and grant appropriate relief:

(1)  the principal or the agent;

(2)	 a	guardian,	conservator,	or	other	fiduciary	acting	for	the	principal;

(3)  a person authorized to make health-care decisions for the principal;

(4)  the principal’s spouse, parent, or descendant;

(5)  an individual who would qualify as a presumptive heir of the principal;

(6)	 a	person	named	as	a	beneficiary	to	receive	any	property,	benefit,	or	
contractual	right	on	the	principal’s	death	or	as	a	beneficiary	of	a	trust	
created	by	or	for	the	principal	that	has	a	financial	interest	in	the	principal’s	
estate;

(7)  a governmental agency having regulatory authority to protect the welfare 

of the principal;

(8)	 the	principal’s	caregiver	or	another	person	that	demonstrates	sufficient	

interest in the principal’s welfare; and

(9)  a person asked to accept the power of attorney.

(b)	 Upon	motion	by	the	principal,	the	court	shall	dismiss	a	petition	filed	under	
this	section,	unless	the	court	finds	that	the	principal	lacks	capacity	to	revoke	the	
agent’s authority or the power of attorney.

ELDER ABUSE AND NEGLECT COMMITTEE REPORT

188

ELDER ABUSE AND NEGLECT COMMITTEE REPORT

189

UPAA § 116. The Comment to the proposal provides as follows:

The primary purpose of this section is to protect vulnerable or incapacitated 
principals	against	financial	abuse.	Subsection	(a)	sets	forth	broad	categories	
of persons who have standing to petition the court for construction of the 
power  of  attorney  or  review  of  the  agent’s  conduct,  including  in  the  list 
a	 “person	 that	 demonstrates	 sufficient	 interest	 in	 the	 principal’s	 welfare”	
(subsection	(a)(8)).	Allowing	any	person	with	sufficient	interest	to	petition	
the court is the approach taken by the majority of states that have standing 
provisions.  See  Cal.  Prob.  Code  §  4540  (West  Supp.  2006);  Colo.  Rev. 
Stat.  Ann.  §  15-14-609  (West  2005);  755  Ill.  Comp.  Stat.  Ann.  45/2-10 
(West  1992);  Ind.  Code Ann.  §  30-5-3-5	 (West	 1994);	 Kan.	 Stat.	Ann.§	
58-662  (2005);  Mo.  Ann.  Stat.  §  404.727  (West  2001);  N.H.  Rev.  Stat. 
Ann. § 506:7 (LexisNexis 1997 & Supp. 2005); Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 
11.94.100 (Supp. 2006); Wis. Stat. Ann. § 243.07(6r) (West 2001). But cf. 
20 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 5604 (West 2005) (limiting standing to an agency 
acting  pursuant  to  the  Older  Adults  Protective  Services  Act);  Vt.  Stat. 
Ann. tit.14, § 3510(b) (2002 & 2006-3 Vt. Adv. Legis. Serv. 228) (limiting 
standing to the commissioner of disabilities, aging, and independent living).

In	addition	to	providing	a	means	for	detecting	and	redressing	financial	abuse	
by agents, this section protects the self-determination rights of principals. 
Subsection (b) states that the court must dismiss a petition upon the principal’s 
motion	unless	the	court	finds	that	the	principal	lacks	the	capacity	to	revoke	
the agent’s authority or the power of attorney. Contrasted with the breadth 
of Section 116 is Section 114(h) which narrowly limits the persons who can 
request an agent to account for transactions conducted on the principal’s 
behalf. The rationale for narrowly restricting who may request an agent to 
account	is	the	preservation	of	the	principal’s	financial	privacy.	See	Section	
114 Comment. Section 116 operates as a check-and-balance on the narrow 
scope of Section 114(h) and provides what, in many circumstances, may be 
the only means to detect and stop agent abuse of an incapacitated principal.

  UPAA § 116,	comment.	As	noted	in	the	first	paragraph	in	the	comment,	even	before	Section	116	
was	drafted,	at	least	nine	states	had	laws	allowing	individuals	with	a	sufficient	interest	in	the	welfare	of	
the principal, and upon good cause shown, to petition the court to review an agent’s actions and grant 
appropriate	relief.	(The	nine	states	include:	California,	Colorado,	Illinois,	Indiana,	Kansas,	Missouri,	
New	Hampshire,	Washington	and	Wisconsin).	Since	2006,	the	following	additional	fifteen	states	
adopted UPAA § 116: Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Montana, 
Nebraska, New Mexico, Ohio, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.8

Thus, nearly one half of the states in the country explicitly provide standing to parties interested 

 
in the welfare of a principal to seek judicial review of an agent’s actions undertaken on behalf of a 
principal. Alabama extends standing even further, granting it to “any other person who demonstrates 
a	sufficient	legal	interest	in	the	construction	or	validity	of	the	power	of	attorney	or	the	agent’s	conduct	
in connection with the power of attorney, such as to give that person standing.” Ala. Code 1975, § 
26-1A-116(a)(10). 

In addition, the UPAA authors intended Section 116 to provide an important protection for principals. 

 
Another provision of the UPAA limits the categories of persons who can demand an agent account for 
actions taken on behalf of a principal. UPAA § 114 (Agent’s Duties). Subsection (h) provides: 

“[e]xcept as otherwise provided in the power of attorney, an agent is not 
required  to  disclose  receipts,  disbursements,  or  transactions  conducted 
on  behalf  of  the  principal  unless  ordered  by  a  court  or  requested  by 
the	 principal,	 a	 guardian,	 a	 conservator,	 another	 fiduciary	 acting	 for	 the	
principal,  a  governmental  agency  having  authority  to  protect  the  welfare 

of  the  principal,  or,  upon  the  death  of  the  principal,  by  the  personal 
representative  or  successor  in  interest  of  the  principal’s  estate.  If  so 
requested,  within  30  days  the  agent  shall  comply  with  the  request  or 
provide  a  writing  or  other  record  substantiating  why  additional  time  is 
needed  and  shall  comply  with  the  request  within  an  additional  30  days.”

UPAA § 114(h). The comment to UPAA § 114(h) explains the rationale for this limitation:

Subsection	 (h)	 codifies	 the	 agent’s	 common	 law	 duty	 to	 account	 to	 a	
principal (see Restatement (Third) of Agency § 8.12 (2006); Restatement 
(First)	of	Agency	§	382	(1933)).	Rather	than	create	an	affirmative	duty	of	
periodic  accounting,  subsection  (h)  states  that  the  agent  is  not  required 
to  disclose  receipts,  disbursements,  or  transactions  unless  ordered  by  a 
court	or	requested	by	the	principal,	a	fiduciary	acting	for	the	principal,	or	a	
governmental agency with authority to protect the welfare of the principal. If 
the principal is deceased, the principal’s personal representative or successor 
in	interest	may	request	an	agent	to	account.	While	there	is	no	affirmative	duty	
to account unless ordered by the court or requested by one of the foregoing 
persons,  subsection  (b)(4)  does  create  a  default  duty  to  keep  records.

The narrow categories of persons that may request an agent to account 
are  consistent  with  the  premise  that  a  principal  with  capacity  should 
control	 to	 whom	 the	 details	 of	 financial	 transactions	 are	 disclosed.	 If	 a	
principal	 becomes	 incapacitated	 or	 dies,	 then	 the	 principal’s	 fiduciary	 or	
personal  representative  may  succeed  to  that  monitoring  function.  The 
inclusion  of  a  governmental  agency  (such  as Adult  Protective  Services) 
in  the  list  of  persons  that  may  request  an  agent  to  account  is  patterned 
after state legislative trends and is a response to growing national concern 
about	 financial	 abuse	 of	 vulnerable	 persons.	 See	 755	 Ill.	 Comp.	 Stat.	
Ann.  45/2-7.5  (West  Supp.  2006  &  2006  Ill.  Legis.  Serv.  1754);  20  Pa. 
Cons.  Stat. Ann.  §  5604(d)  (West  2005);  Vt.  Stat. Ann.  tit.14,  §  3510(b) 
(2002  &  2006-3  Vt.  Adv.  Legis.  Serv.  228).  See  generally  Donna  J. 
Rabiner,	 David	 Brown	 &	 Janet	 O’Keeffe,	 Financial	 Exploitation	 of	 Older	
Persons:  Policy  Issues  and  Recommendations  for  Addressing  Them, 
16  J.  Elder  Abuse  &  Neglect  65  (2004).  As  an  additional  protective 
countermeasure to the narrow categories of persons who may request an 
agent to account, the Act contains a broad standing provision for seeking 
judicial  review  of  an  agent’s  conduct.  See  Section  116  and  Comment.

  UPAA § 114(h), comment. (emphasis added). Accordingly, UPAA § 114(h) and § 116 were designed 
to work together, protecting privacy by limiting the number of people who could demand an accounting 
by an agent, but explicitly expanding the list of individuals who could seek judicial review of an agent’s 
actions if a principal is incapacitated. As noted in the comment to UPAA § 116, “[s]ection 116 operates 
as a check-and-balance on the narrow scope of § 114(h) and provides what, in many circumstances, 
may be the only means to detect and stop agent abuse of an incapacitated principal.” (emphasis 
added).

Importantly, Pennsylvania Act 95 of 2014, Act of July 2, 2014, P.L. 855, No. 95, (“Act 95 of 2014”) 

 
includes language substantially identical to UPAA § 114(h),9 but does not contain the corresponding 
language from UPAA § 116. The Committee believes this omission should be corrected in subsequent 
legislation. 

As noted above, in Pennsylvania, standing to challenge the actions of an agent acting under a POA 

 
is currently limited to principals, guardians, and government agencies acting under the OAPSA, and 
individuals who are granted standing on a case-by-case basis. 

The Committee recommends that standing be expanded for the following reasons: (1) government 

 
and	private	studies	note	that	financial	exploitation	in	the	country	is	epidemic;10 (2) nearly half of the 

ELDER ABUSE AND NEGLECT COMMITTEE REPORT

190

ELDER ABUSE AND NEGLECT COMMITTEE REPORT

191

states in the country have expanded standing to challenge actions by agents far beyond what currently 
exists in Pennsylvania in an effort to prevent abuse; (3) as noted in the comment thereto, Section 116 
of the UPAA “may be the only means to detect and stop agent abuse of an incapacitated principal;”11 
and (4) Pennsylvania has already enacted section 114(h) of the UPAA, but has not yet adopted the 
important corollary provisions of Section 116.

 
Statutorily authorizing additional interested parties to seek court review of an agent’s actions taken 
on behalf of an incapacitated principal is a critical step in the detection and prevention of elder abuse. 
Accordingly, the Committee recommends that the General Assembly enact a statute consistent with 
section 116 of the UPAA.12

b)  POA Registry 

 
The Committee discussed a POA registry as a possibility for deterring and preventing abuse 
through	a	POA.	It	was	suggested	that	POAs	could	be	registered	either	statewide	or	in	county	offices,	
thereby providing a mechanism to ensure they are legitimate.

  However, the Committee members expressed several concerns over a registry. First, if POAs were 
filed	as	part	of	a	county	or	statewide	registry,	it	could	expose	elders	to	“scammers,”	as	their	assets	
and otherwise private affairs would become a matter of public record. Second, it may infringe on an 
individual’s right to privacy. Third, the registry, without more, may give rise to an unfounded presumption 
that a POA is legitimate. These same concerns were noted in a policy monograph by the National 
Center for State Courts addressing POA abuse. See Nat’l Ctr. for State Courts, Addressing Power of 
Attorney Abuse: What Courts Can Do to Enhance the Justice System Response, 8. While possible 
benefits	of	a	POA	registry	were	recognized,	the	Committee	ultimately	decided	to	not	recommend	a	POA	
registry. 

	
The	Committee	considered	recommending	a	requirement	that	agents	file	regular	accountings	
(as is done with guardianships). Such a requirement may allow for earlier detection of, and possibly 
prevention of, misdeeds, since an agent may be deterred from acting improperly if the transactions are 
subject to public scrutiny. However, for many of the same reasons noted in rejecting a POA registry, the 
Committee did not adopt this recommendation. 

c)  Accountings

2.  Financial Abuse

a)  Assistance from Financial Institutions: Reporting and Training

	
The	Committee	was	asked	to	consider	other	measures	that	may	help	prevent	elder	financial	
abuse.	It	was	suggested	that	banks	are	often	“on	the	front	lines”	of	attempted	elder	financial	abuse	
and	exploitation	and,	as	such,	are	powerful	allies	in	the	fight	against	such	crimes.	While	the	Committee	
recognized	that	many	banks	and	financial	institutions	take	steps	to	prevent	elder	exploitation	and	
abuse, it was agreed that more can be done. In this regard, the Committee considered whether banks 
and	other	financial	institutions	should	be	required	to	train	employees	to	spot	potential	abuse,	and	be	
designated as mandatory reporters of suspected abuse. 

 
Initially, a question was raised whether reporting suspected abuse could potentially expose an 
individual or institution to liability. However, under 35 P.S. § 10225.302(d), immunity exists for reporting 
suspected abuse or exploitation.13

 
The Committee learned that at least eight states and the District of Columbia have mandatory 
reporting	requirements	by	financial	institutions	if	financial	abuse	is	suspected.14 These jurisdictions 
include:	Arkansas,	California,	Colorado,	the	District	of	Columbia,	Florida,	Georgia,	Hawaii,	Kansas,	and	
Maryland.15 Maryland also has a mandatory training requirement.

The Committee considered three arguments in opposition to mandatory reporting. First, mandatory 

 
reporting	requirements	could	be	onerous	to	banks	and	other	financial	service	providers	that	
constitute	“financial	institutions.”	Second,	defining	what	constitutes	a	financial	institution	may	itself	be	
challenging.16 Third, mandatory reporting would result in AAAs being inundated by reports.

 
As an alternative to mandatory reporting, the Committee considered an information sharing 
and	identification	proposal.	Specifically,	(a)	authority	could	be	sought	from	the	Pennsylvania	Office	
of Attorney General (“OAG”) to enable sharing of “Suspicious Activity Reports” (“SARs”) with the 
Pennsylvania	Department	of	Aging;	(b)	financial	service	providers	could	work	with	the	Department	
of	Aging	on	recommended	protocols	and	training	for	identifying	suspicious	financial	activity;	and	
(c)	financial	service	providers	could	be	given	statutory	authority	(and	immunity)	to	delay	for	five	
days	suspicious	financial	transactions	attempted	by	or	for	elder	customers	(similar	to	the	law	in	
Washington).17

A brief explanation of the SAR Initiative is informative. It has been described as “a joint collaborative 

 
effort by the United States Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and 
state, local, tribal, and territorial law enforcement partners. This initiative provides law enforcement 
with another tool to help prevent terrorism and other related criminal activity by establishing a national 
capacity for gathering, documenting, processing, analyzing, and sharing SAR information.”18 

Pursuant to federal regulations, banks, bank holding companies, and their subsidiaries are required 

 
to	file	a	SAR	with	respect	to:	

Criminal violations involving insider abuse in any amount. 

Criminal	violations	aggregating	$5,000	or	more	when	a	suspect	can	be	identified.	

Criminal violations aggregating $25,000 or more regardless of a potential suspect. 

Transactions	conducted	or	attempted	by,	at,	or	through	the	bank	(or	an	affiliate)	and	aggregating	
$5,000	or	more,	if	the	bank	or	affiliate	knows,	suspects,	or	has	reason	to	suspect	that	the	
transaction: 

	

 

1.	 May	involve	potential	money	laundering	or	other	illegal	activity	(e.g.,	terrorism	financing).

2.  Is designed to evade the [Bank Secrecy Act (“BSA”)] or its implementing regulations.

 
3.  Has no business or apparent lawful purpose or it is not the type of transaction that 
the particular customer would normally be expected to engage in, and the bank knows of no 
reasonable explanation for the transaction after examining the available facts, including the 
background and possible purpose of the transaction.

12 C.F.R. § 21.11.19	SARs	are	confidential,	and	the	reports	or	the	information	contained	therein	
 
may only be shared with: the criminal investigative services of the armed forces; the Bureau of Alcohol, 
Tobacco, and Firearms; an attorney general, district attorney, or state’s attorney at the state or local 
level; the Drug Enforcement Administration; the Federal Bureau of Investigation; the Internal Revenue 
Service	or	tax	enforcement	agencies	at	the	state	level;	the	Office	of	Foreign	Assets	Control;	a	state	or	
local	police	department;	a	United	States	Attorney’s	Office;	Immigration	and	Customs	Enforcement;	the	
U.S. Postal Inspection Service; and the United States Secret Service.20

The	Committee	considered	that	sharing	information	in	the	SARs	could	benefit	the	Department	
	
of Aging insofar as patterns may be more easily seen. In addition, the Department of Aging could 
use the information provided to initiate investigations, when warranted. However, after considerable 
deliberation,	the	Committee	decided	the	SAR	sharing	proposal	is	not	sufficient,	in	itself,	to	address	or	
stop	exploitation	and	financial	abuse. 

The	Committee	noted	that	SARs	are	not	required	to	be	filed	until	30	days,	and	in	some	cases,	up	

	
to 60 days, after the suspicious activity occurs, and therefore may have limited utility in preventing 
financial	abuse.	The	Committee	determined	that	stopping	transactions	at	the	time	of	occurrence,	
and	prompt	reporting	to	local	agencies,	is	critical	to	combating	elder	financial	abuse	and	exploitation.	
Moreover,	the	Committee	was	concerned	that,	given	federal	confidentiality	requirements,	AAAs	may	not	
fit	within	the	federal	definition	of	agencies	eligible	to	receive	SARs.	Nevertheless,	seeking	additional	
collaboration and requesting that the Department of Aging receive a copy of SARs may be a worthwhile 
inquiry for that agency to pursue. The Committee decided that this determination is best left to the 
discretion of the Department of Aging.

ELDER ABUSE AND NEGLECT COMMITTEE REPORT

192

ELDER ABUSE AND NEGLECT COMMITTEE REPORT

193

 
As noted above, at least eight states and the District of Columbia require mandatory reporting by 
financial	institutions	when	financial	abuse	or	exploitation	of	an	elder	is	suspected.	This	seems	to	be	a	
growing trend, with Maryland and Hawaii becoming the latest states to mandate reporting in 2012 and 
2013	respectively.	State	legislatures	appear	convinced	that	financial	institutions	play	an	important	role	
in	curbing	and	preventing	elder	financial	abuse.	As	noted	in	one	recent	publication:

Banks	have	the	potential	to	play	a	critical	role	in	preventing	the	financial	
abuse of older people by reporting suspicious activity to protective 
services agencies and local law enforcement. A bank teller, for example, 
who sees and interacts with bank customers on a regular basis, is in a 
position	to	spot	the	signs	of	financial	elder	abuse.

	
The	author	also	noted	“[s]ome	states	are	including	banks	in	their	efforts	to	combat	elder	financial	
abuse,	recognizing	that	banks	are	usually	the	first	line	of	defense	against	elder	abuse	because	they	are	
in the best position to spot the signs of such abuse.”21

	
Education	and	training	are	also	important	to	enable	banks	to	detect	and	prevent	financial	
exploitation. To assist banks with education and training, for example, the Maryland Bankers 
Association issued a “Member Alert” in September 2012, following that state’s passage of mandatory 
education	and	reporting	laws	for	financial	institutions.	Among	other	tools,	this	document	includes	
guidance for members on an “elder abuse training and reporting program,” a link to an “elder 
financial	abuse	reporting	protocol	chart,”	and	an	“elder	financial	abuse	reporting	form.”22 These tools 
were developed with input from the Bankers Association members, legal counsel, and Maryland’s 
Department of Aging and Adult Protective Services. The Committee therefore decided to recommend 
that	a	similar	publication	be	developed	for	Pennsylvania	financial	institutions.

 
The Committee found Maryland to be a good model, which should help alleviate concerns that 
AAAs	will	be	inundated	with	reports.	The	Department	of	Aging	should	work	with	financial	institutions,	
and with the Pennsylvania Bankers Association, to develop protocols on what activity should be 
reported,	how	it	should	be	reported,	and	develop	a	uniform	reporting	form	for	use	by	all	financial	
institutions. The Committee suggests that carefully specifying what information should be reported and 
developing a uniform reporting template will help the AAAs in focusing on credible reports of suspected 
financial	abuse.

The	Committee	believes	that	strong	steps	need	to	be	taken	to	help	prevent	elder	financial	abuse	

	
and	exploitation.	Mandatory	reporting	laws	for	those	“on	the	front	lines”	(i.e.,	financial	institutions)	can	
go	a	long	way	toward	addressing	the	problem	of	financial	exploitation	of	elders.	Mandatory	training	
requirements, such as those in Maryland and other states, can help ensure that all employees of 
financial	institutions	in	the	Commonwealth	have	a	base	of	knowledge	and	are	better	able	to	identify,	
and	promptly	report,	elder	financial	abuse	and	exploitation	to	authorities.23

	
As	a	further	measure,	providing	financial	service	providers	with	the	authority	to	stop	suspicious	
transactions	before	they	occur	will	give	the	financial	institutions	time	to	inquire	into	the	transaction	
and, when appropriate, notify the AAA or law enforcement. The Committee learned that often bank 
employees suspect a transaction may be improper, but feel powerless to stop the transaction. Because 
it is critically important to stop fraudulent, abusive, and exploitative transactions as they occur or 
risk permanent loss of the funds, the Committee decided to recommend statutory authorization for 
financial	institutions	to	delay	and	report	transactions	that	appear	to	involve	financial	abuse	of	an	elder.	
Delaying	these	transactions	for	five	days	and	reporting	to	AAAs	and/or	law	enforcement	would	allow	
for	an	investigation	to	confirm	the	legitimacy	of	the	transaction	–	before	funds	are	released.	Financial	
institutions should be afforded immunity from liability for good faith efforts undertaken in this regard. 

Accordingly,	the	Committee	recommends	that	the	General	Assembly	statutorily	require	all	financial	

	
institutions	conducting	business	in	Pennsylvania	to	be	mandatory	reporters	of	suspected	financial	
abuse and exploitation against elder customers.24 In addition, a state mandated training program to 
help	identify	elder	financial	abuse	and	exploitation	should	be	established	for	all	employees	of	financial	
institutions who process transactions for elder customers.25	The	specific	training	curriculum	should	
be developed under the leadership of the Department of Aging, with input from relevant stakeholders, 

including	the	banking	industry	and	the	Office	of	Elder	Justice	in	the	Courts	(“OEJC”).	Furthermore,	
financial	institutions	should	be	given	statutory	authority	to	delay	for	five	days	suspicious	transactions	
and to report these to the local AAA and/or law enforcement.

b)  Increased Funding for State and Local Prevention Efforts

The Committee discussed other steps that could help prevent or mitigate the damage caused by 

 
financial	abuse	against	elders.	It	was	noted	that	AAAs	and	local	district	attorneys	provide	the	best	
resources for responding to suspected abuse. However, there was concern that AAAs and even 
district	attorneys	in	Pennsylvania	may	lack	sufficient	resources	to	thoroughly	investigate	allegations	
of	suspected	financial	abuse,	particularly	when	complex	financial	audits	are	necessary.	There	was	a	
general consensus that many AAAs and district attorneys do not have the personnel, funds, or technical 
ability	to	conduct	complex	forensic	audits	in	elder	financial	abuse	cases.	

The Committee recommends increased funding for the Department of Aging, to enable the 52 AAAs 

 
to	more	thoroughly	investigate	allegations	of	financial	abuse.	Currently,	the	Department	of	Aging	has	
only one forensic accountant providing statewide support to the AAAs. To assist, the Pennsylvania 
Commission on Crime and Delinquency (“PCCD”) provided a two year grant to the Department of 
Aging’s Institute on Protective Services at Temple University for a project entitled “Central Pennsylvania 
Multi-County Elder Theft Investigation Collaboration Project.” This initiative provides an additional 
part-time	fraud	examiner/financial	analyst	to	investigate	complex	elder	theft	cases	occurring	in	six	
counties in central Pennsylvania. The Committee recommends that additional funds be made available 
to	expand	the	scope	of	this	and	similar	projects	statewide	to	provide	financial	auditing	services	to	all	
counties in need of assistance.

c)  Additional State-Level Assistance

i.  Assistance From other Commonwealth Departments

 
The Committee recommends that the OAG and the Pennsylvania State Police (“PSP”) make their 
financial	investigators	available	to	assist	local	prosecutors	and	AAAs	with	especially	complex	cases.26 

ii.  Comprehensive Collaboration

The	Committee	learned	that	some	financial	institutions	charge	AAAs	fees	to	obtain	copies	of	

	
financial	records	of	individuals,	and	often	these	fees	can	pose	a	barrier	to	a	thorough	investigation.	The	
Committee agreed that AAAs should, and must, have access to bank records as referenced under the 
OAPSA and other regulations.27 At the same time, the Committee members appreciate that copying 
and	staff	time	imposes	a	cost	on	financial	institutions.	The	Committee	believes	it	may	be	prudent	for	
the	Department	of	Aging	and	representatives	of	financial	institutions	to	collaborate	and	explore	the	
possibility of a standard records request (and cost) for an initial review of complaints. If additional 
information	is	needed,	an	AAA	should	work	with	the	financial	institution	to	determine	the	most	efficient	
and cost-effective way of obtaining the required information. 

Finally, the Committee recommends that funds be made available to enable AAAs to obtain all 
 
records necessary to conduct a thorough evaluation. Financial institutions should be encouraged to 
provide	this	service	at	a	reduced	cost,	given	the	shared	interest	in	protecting	elders	from	financial	
exploitation.	If	necessary,	legislation	should	be	enacted	limiting	the	amount	financial	institutions	may	
charge AAAs for records production.

d)  Use of Court Procedures to Preserve Assets

The	Allegheny	County	District	Attorney’s	Office	reported	it	has	successfully	used	42	Pa.C.S.	§	
	
9728(e)	and	(f)	allowing	the	Commonwealth	to	freeze	assets	simultaneously	with	the	filing	of	a	criminal	
complaint, or even earlier, upon a showing of probable cause to believe the assets will be needed 
to satisfy an anticipated restitution order.28 The Committee believes this mechanism should be used 
by	prosecutors	statewide	in	cases	involving	elder	financial	abuse.	The	Committee	encourages	the	
Pennsylvania District Attorney’s Association (“PDAA”) to educate prosecutors about the existence and 
application	of	this	statute,	particularly	in	elder	abuse	cases.	The	Administrative	Office	of	Pennsylvania	

ELDER ABUSE AND NEGLECT COMMITTEE REPORT

194

ELDER ABUSE AND NEGLECT COMMITTEE REPORT

195

Courts’ (“AOPC”) Judicial Education Department should provide similar education to members of the 
judiciary. 

e)  Assistance from the Bar

The Committee believes access to legal services for elders is critical. Elders often have limited 

 
means, but a great need for competent legal assistance - not only in drafting estate-planning 
documents such as POAs but also in pursuing civil suits to recover funds improperly taken.

 
The Committee requests that the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (“Supreme Court”) consider 
authorizing a limited practice for pro bono service by retired and voluntarily inactive lawyers to work 
with elders and members of the aging network, such as legal service providers, to better ensure elder 
Pennsylvanians have access to legal counsel.

In addition, the Committee recommends that the Supreme Court consider an even more expansive 

 
program to encourage all attorneys (approximately 64,000 active and 11,000 inactive attorneys) to 
engage in pro bono work for elders. As an incentive, it is recommended that continuing legal education 
(“CLE”) credit be given for the work.

 
The pro bono work by retired attorneys and by active attorneys in exchange for CLE credit could be 
part of an ambitious program in which attorneys would be authorized to counsel elders in drafting POA 
or other estate planning documents. Attorneys could also represent elders who have been victimized 
by	financial	exploitation	in	civil	actions	to	recover	their	assets	from	perpetrators.	See Section III.B.3.a. 
Soliciting pro bono attorneys to draft POA instruments might facilitate efforts to detect or deter misuse 
and misunderstanding of the POA. Both of these innovative initiatives could serve as models for other 
states.

f)  Consistent Insurance Requirements

The Committee learned of a possible anomaly in Pennsylvania with regard to insurance 

 
requirements for personal care homes, assisted living residences and home health care agencies. 
As of June 13, 2013, the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services (“DHS”) (formerly known as 
the	Department	of	Public	Welfare)	identified	1248	licensed	personal	care	homes	in	Pennsylvania	
and 22 licensed assisted living residences. The Pennsylvania	Department	of	Public	Health	identified	
491 licensed home health care agencies. Currently, these entities are not required to have liability 
insurance. This is in contrast to physicians, hospitals, birthing centers, nursing homes, and midwives, 
all of which are required to maintain liability insurance pursuant to the Medical Care Availability and 
Reduction of Error Act (“MCARE Act”), 40 P.S. §1303.101 et seq.

  Committee members noted that most of these facilities do carry liability insurance, but some do 
not. Without facility or agency insurance, individuals who are injured as a result of negligent conduct 
may have no recourse to recover for damages suffered. These damages often include major medical 
expenses, which must be borne by the individual. However, since many of those injured as a result 
of negligent conduct are already the most vulnerable Pennsylvanians, and because many injured 
are elders, payment of these medical expenses oftentimes falls to the Commonwealth in the form of 
Medical Assistance payments by DHS. The failure to require insurance not only places unnecessary 
burdens	on	individuals,	but	also	results	in	a	financial	burden	to	the	Commonwealth.

Some Committee members expressed that the General Assembly should require all personal 
 
care homes, assisted living residences and home health care agencies to carry a minimum of liability 
insurance; however, others urged caution, noting the imposition of insurance requirements may force 
some entities out of business. The Committee recommends that the General Assembly consider this 
issue more fully. 

C.  Committee Recommendations

1.  The General Assembly should adopt the provisions of Section 116 of UPAA to statutorily 
 
broaden and specify those individuals and entities who have standing to request judicial review 
of actions of agents operating under a POA document.

2.	 With	regard	to	preventing	or	mitigating	damages	caused	by	financial	abuse	against	

	
elders, the following is recommended: 

a.  Financial Abuse and Exploitation

i.  Financial institutions should be statutorily required to be mandatory reporters of 

suspected	financial	abuse	or	exploitation	of	elders.	

ii.  Financial institutions should be statutorily required to administer training programs 

similar to the ones required in Maryland to help identify, prevent, and report elder 
financial	abuse.	The	training	programs	should	be	uniform	statewide	and	should	be	
developed under the leadership of the Department of Aging.

iii.  Financial institutions should be given statutory authority (and immunity) to delay, for 
five	days,	suspicious	financial	transactions	attempted	by	or	for	elders	and	to	report	
the suspicious conduct to AAAs and/or law enforcement.

iv.  The Department of Aging should consider requesting that it receive a copy of SARs.

b.  Funding for the aging network through the Department of Aging should be increased 
through an appropriation, and more grant opportunities should be available through 
PCCD	to	facilitate	thorough	investigations	of	alleged	financial	abuse.	

c.  State-Level Assistance

i.	 The	OAG	and	PSP	should	be	asked	to	make	financial	investigators	available	to	

assist	local	prosecutors	and	AAAs	when	complex	cases	of	elder	financial	abuse	are	
alleged. 

ii.	 The	Department	of	Aging	and	financial	institutions	should	work	together	to	determine	
the	most	effective	and	efficient	way	for	AAAs	to	obtain	financial	records	needed	to	
conduct	investigations	of	financial	abuse	and	exploitation.	Funds	should	be	made	
available	to	enable	AAAs	to	obtain	needed	records	from	financial	institutions	or,	if	
necessary,	legislation	should	be	enacted	establishing	the	amount	financial	institutions	
may charge AAAs for record production.

d.  Prosecutors in Pennsylvania should use 42 Pa.C.S. § 9728(e) and (f) to the fullest extent 
possible to help ensure funds and assets are available to satisfy anticipated restitution 
orders in appropriate cases, and educational initiatives should be undertaken to ensure 
district attorneys and Common Pleas judges are aware of this mechanism for freezing 
assets. 

e.  The Supreme Court should consider authorizing a limited practice for pro bono service 

by retired and voluntarily inactive lawyers to work with elders and members of the aging 
network to better ensure elder Pennsylvanians have access to legal counsel in drafting 
documents as well as in civil suits to recover misappropriated funds or assets. The 
Supreme Court should also consider ways to encourage active attorneys to provide pro 
bono services to elder Pennsylvanians, such as through CLE credits. 

f.  The General Assembly should consider whether all personal care homes, assisted 

living residences, and home health care agencies should carry a minimum of liability 
insurance.

D.  Timing and Fiscal Impact

	 Recommendations	1a	(standing)	and	2a	(financial	institutions)	are	referred	to	the	General	
Assembly. Presumably, the referral of these recommendations can be made immediately; however, a 
full cost analysis, particularly regarding Recommendation 2a, will need to be considered by the General 
Assembly.	There	will	likely	be	costs,	both	to	the	Commonwealth	and	to	financial	institutions.	It	is	not	

ELDER ABUSE AND NEGLECT COMMITTEE REPORT

196

ELDER ABUSE AND NEGLECT COMMITTEE REPORT

197

believed such costs will be prohibitive, as other states have adopted similar training and reporting 
requirements. It is believed that these Recommendations will have an immediate and substantial 
impact	on	preventing	financial	abuse	of	elders.	

	
It	is	believed	that	portion	of	Recommendation	2a	suggesting	financial	institutions	be	authorized 
to	delay	transactions	for	five	days	will	entail	only	minimal	cost,	while	providing	an	important	tool	for	
stopping	elder	financial	abuse	before	it	occurs.	

  Cost is a central component of Recommendations 2b and 2c, as both call for increased funding 
for the Department of Aging and AAAs, and increased assistance to AAAs and local prosecutors by 
OAG and PSP. The Committee defers to the General Assembly to determine the appropriate amount 
and source of such funding. However, as with other recommendations in this section, it is believed that 
implementation	of	these	recommendations	will	have	an	immediate	and	significant	effect	on	preventing	
elder	financial	abuse.	

  Recommendation 2d calls for an educational effort by the PDAA and the AOPC’s Judicial Education 
Department. It is believed education on this initiative, which will help to preserve funds to satisfy 
anticipated	restitution	orders,	will	be	highly	beneficial.	Minimal	costs	to	fund	the	educational	initiatives	
can be expected.

The	fiscal	implications	of	Recommendation	2e	(assistance	from	attorneys)	will	have	to	be	

	
determined by the Supreme Court. Other than the cost associated with studying these initiatives, no 
significant	cost	is	anticipated	in	the	near	future.	However,	some	cost	will	likely	be	associated	with	
maintaining a database of voluntarily inactive attorneys providing pro bono service. Additionally, if CLE 
credits are to be given for pro bono services, some cost can be anticipated in developing a system 
to	track	credits.	However,	it	is	expected	that	the	benefits	of	providing	free	or	low-cost	legal	counsel	to	
elder Pennsylvanians will far outweigh these negligible expenses. 

  Recommendation 2f (consistent insurance requirements) will have some cost associated with it, the 
amount of which will have to be determined by the General Assembly. 

As noted above, the Committee believes each of these recommendations will have an immediate 

 
and	significant	impact	on	preventing	financial	exploitation	of	elders,	as	well	as	mitigating	damages	
caused	by	financial	abuse.

II.  Training, Information and Collaborations

A.  Issue Statement – Lack of Elder Abuse Education and Training, Information to the Public 
and the Need for Further Collaborations

The Committee agreed that in order to prevent elder abuse in Pennsylvania, and to mitigate its 
 
effects, there should be a robust effort to educate judges, court practitioners, and members of the public 
about elder abuse: what it is, how to prevent it, and where to report it when it is suspected. Also, there 
should be greater communication and collaboration among agencies and organizations that serve 
Pennsylvania’s elders.

B.  Committee Findings

1.  Judicial Education – Bench Cards

The Committee noted that judges are often in a unique position to identify elders in need. Whether 

 
elders come to court as victims, litigants, or witnesses - and regardless of the type of proceeding - 
judges are able to observe how an individual acts or reacts in a controlled setting. While not medical 
doctors	or	psychologists,	judges	may	be	able	to	“raise	a	red	flag”	if	elder	abuse	or	neglect	is	indicated.	
To help judges recognize risk factors and signs of abuse and neglect, the Committee decided to 
recommend “bench cards” be created by the AOPC. These bench cards should be distributed to all 
Common Pleas and Magisterial District Court judges in the Commonwealth. If indications of elder 
abuse or neglect are suspected, the judge can give relevant information to an individual, counsel, family 
members, court staff, or others.

 
The Committee reviewed sample bench cards developed for local jurisdictions in Pennsylvania, as 
well as information from other states. The Committee determined that all judges should have useful and 
practical information readily available, including: a reminder of the most frequent types of elder abuse; 
a summary of risk factors; signs of elder abuse; and a list of relevant state and local contacts. Based 
on these criteria, a sample bench card was developed and is included with this Report in Appendix 
A.	However,	the	final	decision	on	what	to	include	on	bench	cards	should	be	made	by	the	AOPC	
Judicial Education Department and the OEJC, with input from the Advisory Council on Elder Justice 
in the Courts (“Advisory Council”). Information about and from the bench cards should be included at 
educational conferences for trial judges and Magisterial District Court judges. 

It is recommended the bench cards be developed centrally for distribution statewide, but adaptable 

 
for	local	modification.	Specifically,	local	modification	should	include	contact	information	for	the	county	
District	Attorney’s	office	and	for	the	local	AAA.	Information	akin	to	that	on	the	bench	cards	should	
also	be	available	on	pamphlets	or	brochures	in	the	courthouse	and	Magisterial	District	judges’	offices.	
Judicial districts, with the assistance of the Department of Aging/AAAs, should coordinate production 
and distribution. Information should also be available on court websites (both locally and on the state 
judiciary’s webpage).

2.  Judicial Education – Elder Abuse Bench Book

 
The Committee also discussed the value of providing judges with a bench book regarding elder 
abuse. The Committee learned that bench books have been developed for Pennsylvania judges on 
topics such as sexual violence, dependency, public health, and witness and juror intimidation, and 
agreed	that	a	bench	book	on	topics	relevant	to	elder	abuse	would	be	highly	beneficial	to	the	judiciary.	
An exemplary model has been created in California. It is recommended that the Supreme Court 
authorize the development of an Elder Abuse Bench Book for the Pennsylvania judiciary. It is further 
recommended that the bench book provide judges with information on diverse subjects, including, 
but not limited to, the nature of abuse; signs of abuse; substantive laws and procedural court rules 
relevant to cases involving elders;29	financial	abuse	facilitated	through	POA;	basic	science	on	the	
effects of aging and conditions that may affect elders (such as dementia and Alzheimer’s Disease); and 
information on guardianship proceedings. It is recommended that development of this bench book be 
referred to the AOPC Judicial Education Department.

3.  Elder Abuse Task Forces

In addition to providing information to the public, the Committee also discussed using elder abuse 
 
task forces as vehicles to provide education to and share information with judges, court staff, guardians, 
practitioners and others. The Department of Aging currently has approximately 33 Elder Abuse Task 
Forces in various counties engaged in elder abuse case reviews. Some counties have implemented 
elder abuse task forces where information on elder abuse and prevention is shared. Many of these 
local elder abuse task forces are active, with participation from district attorneys, law enforcement, 
AAAs, and community groups. The Committee recommends that the elder abuse task force model be 
expanded to include participation of judges, private attorneys, community groups, clergy members, 
hospitals, and any other interested parties.

Law enforcement should be included in the elder abuse task forces to ensure that elder abuse, 

 
particularly elder abuse in the form of abusive POA, is not seen as a purely civil matter. Including 
law enforcement and district attorneys in elder abuse task forces can help ensure the criminal justice 
system is as responsive as possible to allegations of elder abuse in all forms. 

 
Some county elder abuse task forces include judicial participation, and others do not. A concern 
was expressed that to have judicial participation, the teams must focus on elder abuse systemically, 
and not on individual cases (otherwise judges will not be able to preside over matters that may come 
before them in an adjudicatory capacity). Nevertheless, it was suggested that in those counties/regions 
where judges are not involved, consideration should be given to including them to the extent possible. 
As	with	judicial	participation	in	the	AOPC	Office	of	Children	and	Families	in	the	Courts	(“OCFC”)	
Children’s Roundtable Initiative, judicial participation is highly advisable, if not essential.30

ELDER ABUSE AND NEGLECT COMMITTEE REPORT

198

ELDER ABUSE AND NEGLECT COMMITTEE REPORT

199

The Committee discussed community outreach efforts. It was noted that some counties, notably 

 
Schuylkill County and Montgomery County, do an outstanding job of making information available 
to the public through community outreach efforts. The members agreed that other counties should 
enhance	their	efforts.	Specifically,	counties	should	consider	having	meetings	and	discussions	with	the	
public and elders about elder abuse and what to do if abuse is known or suspected. In counties where 
funding of such meetings is an issue, consideration should be given to partnering with private and civic 
organizations, senior centers, and hospitals to subsidize the costs associated with meeting facilities and 
food/refreshments. 

The Committee suggests that in those counties where elder abuse task forces do not exist, 

 
consideration should be given to legislation requiring their formation. This suggestion may be 
considered by the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, see House Resolution 929 of 2014, Pr. 
No. 4097 (“House Resolution 929”), and is also supported by the National Center on Elder Abuse, 
Administration on Aging.31

Elder abuse task forces should work in collaboration with the Department of Aging as well as 
 
with the OEJC and Advisory Council to develop and disseminate informational brochures, posters, 
and pamphlets to help educate citizens about elder abuse, how to prevent it and where to report it. 
Elder abuse task forces can be instrumental in helping to disseminate information from the Bench 
Cards discussed in Section 2.B.1. The statewide Elder Abuse Hotline numbers should be prominently 
displayed on all publications.

The Committee suggests a list of training topics for elder abuse task forces and, ultimately, the 

 
public, including: 

Warning Signs of Elder Abuse/Reporting Abuse or Neglect of an Elder

Warning Signs of Financial Exploitation

Scams	and	Identity	Theft	–	How	to	Protect	Yourself

Reporting Obligations Regarding Abuse or Neglect of Elders

Bullying of Elders

Appropriate Use of Powers of Attorney

Warning Signs for Exploitation of Powers of Attorney

Guardianships (and how they differ from powers of attorney)

4.  Elder Justice Roundtables 

The Committee also supports a statewide Elder Justice Roundtable, similar to, and modeled after, 

 
the Children’s Roundtable Initiative developed by Justice Max Baer through the OCFC. An Elder 
Justice Roundtable initiative might include participation from local elder abuse task forces, DHS and 
the Department of Aging. The Elder Justice Roundtable could be organized to collect and disseminate 
information on elder abuse prevention “best practices,” provide updates on the law, enable and facilitate 
collaboration, and provide other relevant state and national information. Such information could be 
disseminated to the public through the Roundtable and elder abuse task forces.

  OEJC should, through the Elder Justice Roundtable, also pursue community outreach and 
informational	initiatives,	including	exploring	partnerships	with	financial	institutions,	utility	providers,	and	
perhaps the United States Postal Service and other governmental entities, as vehicles to help provide 
information about elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation to their customers in mailings as well as on 
their websites.

 
Training materials developed through the Elder Justice Roundtable should be presented to 
Pennsylvania’s Common Pleas and Magisterial District Court judges at educational conferences, on 
state and local judiciary websites, as well as disseminated through local elder abuse task forces.

 
Because there is sometimes confusion when multiple entities are involved, the Statewide Elder 
Justice Roundtable or OEJC should also work with the United States Social Security Administration 
(“SSA”), the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) and the Railroad Retirement Board (“RRB”) to 
develop a system for greater information sharing on adult guardianships and when a representative 
payee is appointed.

5.  Public Education

 
Throughout this section, several recommendations were considered regarding public education. 
Because the Committee believes this is one of the most crucial elements of the Task Force’s mission, 
those recommendations are summarized below.

Local elder abuse task forces should ensure that the information about the warning signs of elder 

 
abuse and the other training topics be readily available to the public as well.

 
Information on these items should be produced on brochures or pamphlets and be made readily 
available throughout the community. Where appropriate, informational sessions should be provided in 
senior living centers, community gatherings, churches and other public forums. Information should also 
be provided on county and court websites. 

All informational literature and presentations should contain information on how to recognize elder 
 
abuse, and provide local contact information for reporting suspected elder abuse or neglect, as well as 
the statewide Elder Abuse Hotline numbers for the Department of Aging (1-800-490-8505) and the OAG 
(1-866-623-2137).

C.  Committee Recommendations

1.  Bench Cards

a.  The Committee recommends that bench cards be developed by the AOPC and provided 

to all Common Pleas and Magisterial District Court judges. Bench cards should include 
information on the most frequent types of elder abuse, a summary of risk factors, signs 
of elder abuse to watch for, and a list of relevant state and local contacts.

b.  Information about the bench cards should be provided at educational conferences for 

Trial judges and Magisterial District Court judges. 

c. 

Information on the bench cards should also be available on pamphlets or brochures in 
courthouses	and	Magisterial	District	Judge	offices,	and	should	be	available	on	court	
websites (both state and local). Information should also be disseminated through the 
elder abuse task forces.

2.  Bench Book

The Committee recommends that the Supreme Court authorize the development of an Elder 

 
Abuse Bench Book. Research and production of the bench book should be referred to the AOPC. 
Educational sessions incorporating the bench book should be conducted by the AOPC Judicial 
Education Department for Common Pleas and Magisterial District Court judges. 

3.  Elder Abuse Task Forces 

The Committee recommends the continuation (or creation) of elder abuse task forces in each 

 
county/judicial district to develop best practices, facilitate information sharing and enable and 
promote collaboration. Elder abuse task forces should include participation from, among others, 
judges and law enforcement personnel. 

4.  Elder Justice Roundtables

The Committee recommends a statewide Elder Justice Roundtable based on the initiative 
 
created by Justice Baer and the OCFC, be established, with administrative support provided by the 
OEJC. The Roundtable should pursue community outreach and informational initiatives, and help 

ELDER ABUSE AND NEGLECT COMMITTEE REPORT

200

ELDER ABUSE AND NEGLECT COMMITTEE REPORT

201

facilitate the sharing of information and best practices to and through the elder abuse task forces. 
The	Roundtable	should	explore	partnerships	and	collaborations	with	financial	institutions,	utility	
providers, and others, as vehicles for the dissemination of information about elder abuse, neglect 
and exploitation. 

The Committee recommends that the OEJC collaborate with SSA, the VA, the RRB and the 

 
OPM to develop a system for greater information sharing on adult guardianships.

5.  Information Sharing

6.  Public Education

The Committee recommends that, to the greatest extent possible, information on identifying 

 
elder abuse and neglect be disseminated to the public in public forums and through literature. 
Elder abuse task forces should determine the most effective ways of relaying this information in 
their communities. Local government websites should be included as repositories of information. 
Statewide elder abuse hotline numbers and contact numbers for local elder abuse resources should 
be prominently displayed.

D.  Timing and Fiscal Impact

 
It is suggested these recommendations can be implemented in the near future and will have 
a	significant	impact	by	providing	information	to	the	judiciary	and	to	the	public	on	elder	abuse.	The	
statewide Elder Justice Roundtable and elder abuse task forces will foster collaborations and 
promote best practices in the Commonwealth’s 67 counties. 

 
There will be some cost associated with the development and distribution of bench cards 
and the Elder Abuse Bench Book (Recommendations 1 and 2). The precise cost can best be 
determined by the AOPC. If technical assistance is required, it may be available through the Bureau 
of Justice Assistance. The cost of developing and distributing posters, pamphlets, and other written 
materials can presumably be absorbed by the Department of Aging, county, community partners 
or elder abuse task forces. The Committee cannot determine how much additional funding will 
be necessary for these or other recommendations, including the creation of elder abuse task 
forces	or	the	statewide	Roundtable,	as	well	as	costs	associated	with	training,	education,	staffing,	
and public education efforts. (Recommendations 3 - 5). It is suggested these matters be studied 
by the Advisory Council and OEJC. Local funding sources such as community, businesses, or 
organizations should be considered, as well as appropriation requests to the General Assembly.

III. Effective Court Practices to Address Elder Abuse and Promote Access to 
Justice for Pennsylvania Elders

A.  Issue Statement - Court Practices and Access to Justice

 
The Committee was asked to consider access to justice for Pennsylvania elders as a means 
of addressing elder abuse. Elder abuse is an umbrella term for a complex and pervasive problem 
that	may	take	many	forms,	including	physical,	sexual	or	emotional	abuse;	financial	exploitation;	and	
neglect, abandonment or self-neglect. Pennsylvania is home to one of the largest elder populations 
in the nation, and that population is continuing to grow. It is expected that by the year 2020, up 
to 25% of Pennsylvanians will be elders. It is therefore essential that courts provide appropriate 
judicial solutions that respect the independence, dignity, autonomy, values and wishes of elders 
while protecting their rights, ensuring access to the courts, and enhancing coordination among 
courts and community resources.32

B.  Committee Findings

1.  Quantifying Elder Abuse in the Pennsylvania Courts

In Pennsylvania, statistics provide an inadequate yet disturbing picture of the gravity of elder 

 
victimization. In 2012-13, 18,542 reports of need were made for older adult protective services (“APS”). 

Of those reports, 74% of those cases were deemed appropriate for investigation and 37% were 
substantiated	as	needing	protective	services.	These	reports	were	classified	as	follows:	

42.3% Self Neglect; 

21.6% Caregiver Neglect; 

16.1% Financial; 

15% Emotional; 

4% Physical; and 

1% Sexual.33 

	
In	addition	to	the	statutory	definitions	of	elder	abuse	under	the	OAPSA,	courts	encounter	elder	
abuse in a variety of contexts: criminal cases such as assault, battery, forgery, fraud, murder, rape, 
theft; civil fraud or conversion actions to regain misappropriated property; personal injury actions; 
guardianship; mental health commitment; special protective proceedings initiated through AAAs; 
cases involving health care decisions for an incapacitated patient; and criminal or civil cases regarding 
institutional care in nursing homes or other long-term care facilities.34 The number of petitions for civil 
orders of protection from abuse (“PFA”) for elders are increasing as courts, advocates, and victims 
recognize that violence by family members other than spouses or intimate partners also meet the 
statutory criteria authorizing protections. 

  Currently the Pennsylvania judiciary’s Common Pleas Case Management System (“CPCMS”) 
does not routinely record the age of the named victim.35	As	a	result,	it	is	extremely	difficult	to	quantify	
the number of, and types of, crimes involving elder victims. If an individual is convicted of a crime 
specifically	identified	as	“elder	abuse,”	such	as	Neglect	of	a	Dependent	Care	Person,	18	Pa.C.S.	§	
2713,	this	form	of	criminal	elder	abuse	can	be	quantified.	However,	many	other	crimes	committed	
against elders, including domestic and family violence, are not documented and reported as crimes 
against the elderly. 

The Committee recommends recording the age of the victim in criminal cases for statistical 

 
purposes and in order to accurately assess the scope of the elder abuse problem. Moreover, recording 
the	age	of	the	victim	on	the	criminal	complaint	could	be	beneficial	to	practitioners	and	judges	since,	
for some crimes, a greater penalty may be imposed if the victim is an elder.36 Also, for the judiciary, a 
great deal of literature reveals that court practices and procedures may need to be reviewed, and likely 
modified,	to	ensure	that	elder	crime	victims	have	appropriate	accommodations	necessary	to	participate	
in, and understand, court proceedings. Quantifying the scope of elder abuse and neglect will help in this 
regard.

The	Committee	recommends	either	a	check	box	or	a	new	mandatory	field	on	the	complaint	form	to	

	
record the victim’s age. Presumably, that information can be electronically captured by CPCMS.37

The Committee considered whether victim age or a check box should also be included for cases 

 
prosecuted without a complaint, such as summary matters initiated by citation.38 Members agreed 
that while there could be value in collecting this information for certain crimes, such as summary 
harassment, there was reluctance to impose upon police the additional burden of collecting a victim’s 
age for relatively minor offenses. Ultimately the Committee does not recommend the collection of the 
victim’s age on summary citations. 

 
In addition, the Committee recommends that data collected on the age of the victim/petitioner in 
PFA cases be compiled. 23 Pa.C.S. §§ 6101-6122.39 Currently, Pa.R.C.P. 1905(b) directs that PFA 
petitions include the date of birth of the petitioner. It is suggested that this information be reported to the 
AOPC for statistical purposes.

ELDER ABUSE AND NEGLECT COMMITTEE REPORT

202

ELDER ABUSE AND NEGLECT COMMITTEE REPORT

203

2.  Criminal Matters 

a)  Mandatory Minimum Sentences

After considerable discussion and debate, the Committee recommends that the Pennsylvania 
 
General Assembly amend 42 Pa.C.S. § 9717 to add mandatory minimum sentences for convictions of 
additional	offenses	dealing	with	the	financial	exploitation	of	elders.40

  While sentencing issues generally focus on the conduct of the defendant, this recommendation is 
designed to enhance protections of the elder victim. The Committee believes that, although there is a 
national	trend	to	eliminate	mandatory	minimum	sentences	in	drug	trafficking	cases,	that	trend	is	inapt	
when considering the protection of Pennsylvania’s elders. The use of mandatory minimum sentences 
can make quick resolution of criminal cases more common, and will likely decrease court appearances 
for the elder crime victim.

	 Currently,	the	only	financial	crime	against	elders	that	falls	into	a	mandatory	minimum	category	
is theft by deception. Historically, prosecutors in theft by deception cases have been able to offer 
immediate plea agreements in cases involving elder victimization, especially when immediate full or 
partial reimbursement can be made. Criminal defendants who have committed these crimes often have 
an incentive to accept such plea agreements without running the risk of being subject to the mandatory 
minimum if convicted at trial. This incentive has caused criminal defendants to enter a plea quickly, 
facilitating the recovery of stolen funds, and has prevented the re-victimization of elders by forcing 
them to take the stand. Most importantly, convictions have been obtained while limiting ongoing court 
appearances.

The Committee acknowledges the unique challenges encountered in prosecuting cases with elder 

 
victims, such as memory loss, hearing loss, physical disabilities and declining health. Should the 
Pennsylvania General Assembly choose to add mandatory minimums for crimes involving elders, the 
criminal justice system would better serve and protect elder victims. 

 
In addition, because of the serious and arguably unique effect some crimes against elders 
may	have,	particularly	those	involving	financial	losses,	the	Committee	also	recommends	that	the	
Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing consider increasing the offense gravity score for crimes 
involving	elder	victims,	especially	with	regard	to	financial	crimes.41

b)  Clarification in Pa.R.Crim.P. 500

	
The	Committee	considered	proposed	changes	to	criminal	procedural	rules,	specifically	whether	
those rules should be amended so that the testimony of elder victims and witnesses may be preserved 
earlier in a criminal prosecution. This topic was raised due to concerns that long delays in bringing a 
case	to	trial	often	are	a	significant	hardship	on	an	elder	victim	or	witness.	A	means	to	record	testimony	
early	in	the	prosecution	may	be	highly	beneficial.

 
It was suggested that consideration be given to recommending changes to Pa.R.Crim.P. 500 and 
541 to allow for the preservation of testimony in criminal cases at or shortly after the preliminary hearing 
(assuming the defendant has been provided with discoverable material and is afforded an opportunity 
to cross-examine). However, after further consideration and review of the Rules, the Committee 
members are of the opinion that rule changes may not be necessary, but some clarity through 
amendment	to	the	official	comment	may	be	beneficial.	Pa.R.Crim.P.	500	(A)	provides:

(A) By court order.

(1)  At  any  time  after  the  institution  of  a  criminal  proceedings,  upon  motion  of 
any  party,  and  after  notice  and  hearing,  the  court  may  order  the  taking  and 
preserving of the testimony of any witness who may be unavailable for trial or 
for any other proceeding, or when due to exceptional circumstances, it is in the 
interests of justice that the witness’ testimony be preserved.

(2)  The court shall state on the record the grounds on which the order is based. 

(3)  The court’s order shall specify the time and place for the taking of the testimony, 
the manner in which the testimony shall be recorded and preserved, and the 
procedures for custody of the recorded testimony. 

(4)  The  testimony  shall  be  taken  in  the  presence  of  the  court,  the  attorney  for 
the Commonwealth, the defendant(s), and defense counsel, unless otherwise 
ordered. 

(5)	 The	 preserved	 testimony	 shall	 not	 be	 filed	 of	 record	 until	 it	 is	 offered	 into	

evidence at trial or other judicial proceeding. 

Pa.R.Crim.P. 500 (A). The comment to the Rule provides: 

This  rule  is  intended  to  provide  the  means  by  which  testimony  may  be  preserved  for  use 
at  a  subsequent  stage  in  the  criminal  proceedings.  When  testimony  is  to  be  preserved  by 
videotape recording, see also Rule 501.

This  rule  does  not  address  the  admissibility  of  the  preserved  testimony.  All  questions  of 
admissibility must be decided by the court. See, e.g., Judicial Code § 5917, 42 Pa.C.S. § 5917 
(1982); Commonwealth v. Scarborough, 421 A.2d 147 (Pa. 1980); Commonwealth v. Stasko, 
370 A.2d 350 (Pa. 1977).

“May be unavailable,” as used in paragraph (A), is intended to include situations in which the 
court has reason to believe that the witness will be unable to be present or to testify at trial 
or other proceedings, such as when the witness is dying, or will be out of the jurisdiction and 
therefore cannot be effectively served with a subpoena, or may become incompetent to testify 
for	any	legally	sufficient	reason.	

Under paragraph (A)(4), a judge should preside over the taking of testimony. The court, however, 
may order that testimony be taken and preserved without a judge’s presence when exigent 
circumstances exist or the location of the witness renders a judge’s presence impracticable. 
Furthermore, nothing in this rule is intended to preclude counsel, the defendant(s), and the 
judge from agreeing on the record that the judge need not be present. Paragraph (B)(3) permits 
the  attorney  for  the  Commonwealth,  the  defendant(s),  and  defense  counsel  to  determine 
among themselves whether a judge should be present during the taking of testimony. That 
determination should be made a part of the written agreement required by paragraph (B)(1). 

Nothing in this rule is intended to preclude the defendant from waiving his or her presence 
during the taking of testimony. 

The  means  by  which  the  testimony  is  recorded  and  preserved  are  within  the  discretion  of 
the court under paragraph (A) and the parties under paragraph (B), and may include the use 
of electronic or photographic techniques such as videotape. There are, however, additional 
procedural requirements for preservation of testimony by videotape recording mandated by 
Rule 501. 

The  party  on  whose  motion  testimony  is  taken  should  normally  have  custody  of  and  be 
responsible for safeguarding the preserved testimony. That party should also promptly provide 
a copy of the preserved testimony to any other party upon payment of reasonable costs. 

When  testimony  is  taken  under  this  rule,  the  proceeding  should  be  adversarial,  and  afford 
the parties full opportunity to examine and cross-examine the witness. Counsel should not 
reserve objections for time of trial.

Paragraphs (A)(5) and (B)(5) are intended to guard against pretrial disclosure of potentially 
prejudicial matters.

ELDER ABUSE AND NEGLECT COMMITTEE REPORT

204

ELDER ABUSE AND NEGLECT COMMITTEE REPORT

Pa.R.Crim.P. 500 (comment). The Committee suggests consideration be given to amending the 
definition	of	“may	be	unavailable”	in	comment	paragraph	3	to	add	the	following:	“‘Exceptional	
circumstances’ may include those cases where the victim is an elder, frail or demonstrates the 
symptoms	of	mental	infirmity	or	dementia,	creating	the	risk	that	they	will	not	be	able	to	testify	in	the	
future. Persons 60 and older are presumed to be elders even if they do not otherwise meet this 
criterion.”

The Committee recommends that an educational effort be undertaken by the AOPC to ensure that 
 
district attorneys and Common Pleas judges across the Commonwealth are aware of this Rule and the 
procedures authorized when an elder is involved in a case either as a victim or a witness.

c)  Requiring District Attorney Approval in Certain Cases

 
The Committee considered the value of ensuring that district attorneys are aware from the earliest 
stages when a case involves an elder victim. To aid in that regard, Allegheny County instituted a new 
procedure pursuant to Pa. R.Crim.P. 507, that requires police departments to obtain approval from the 
district	attorney’s	office	before	filing	Complaints	when	a	case	involves	a	victim	65	and	older.42 It has 
been reported that this procedure is favored by municipal police departments in Allegheny County, and 
it is suggested other district attorneys consider a similar policy in their jurisdictions.

d)  Increased Collaboration with Victim Service Providers

The Committee recognized the important role played by victim service providers, including 

 
PCCD’s	Office	of	Victim	Services	(“OVS”),	the	Office	of	the	Victim	Advocate	(“OVA”)	and	the	diverse	
victim service programs (such as local district attorney-based, community-based and statewide 
programs). The Committee recommends that advocates, attorneys, law enforcement, and courts work 
collaboratively with victim service providers to continue to evaluate and improve services to elder crime 
victims. This effort should place special emphasis on insuring that all elders are provided their rights as 
outlined in the Pennsylvania Crime Victim Bill of Rights. 18 P.S. § 11.201. Determining ways to evaluate 
and improve services to elder crime victims should be considered by the elder abuse task forces 
discussed in Section II.B.3 of this report, and if implemented, by the Elder Justice Roundtable (Section 
II.B.4).

Elder victims of crime are a special subset of victims who, due to individual vulnerabilities, may 

 
require specialized services and assistance. In Pennsylvania, all crime victims are covered by a 
comprehensive	Crime	Victim	Bill	of	Rights	which	provides	guarantees	of	specific	performance	by	
agencies involved with victim services. 

  Many different agencies may be involved depending on the stage of prosecution or punishment. 
OVS helps to provide victims of crime access to assistance and resources to heal from their trauma 
and	move	forward	with	their	lives,	including	providing	financial	help	through	the	Victims	Compensation	
Assistance Program. This program administers funding to local and statewide victim service agencies 
that work directly with crime victims, and provides training to victim service and allied professionals. 

  OVA represents the rights and interests of crime victims before the Board of Probation and Parole 
and	the	Department	of	Corrections,	by	providing	notification	to	crime	victims	of	the	potential	for	inmate	
release and the opportunity to present testimony. It also provides referrals for crime victims to local 
programs and resources.

Victim	services	organizations,	including	those	employed	by	the	local	AAAs,	provide	specific	

	
assistance at a front line level. Coordination and collaboration among these various organizations are 
vital to insuring that elder crime victims are properly assisted and served.

3.  Civil Matters

a)  Private Cause of Action 

The Committee considered whether enhanced civil remedies should be recommended, especially 
 
when an individual breaches a duty to an elder through misuse of a POA. The Committee considered 
provisions	of	the	UPAA,	specifically	Section	117,	which	states:

205

Section  117.  Agent’s  Liability.  An  agent  that  violates  this  [act]  is  liable  to  the  principal  or 
the  principal’s  successors  in  interest  for  the  amount  required  to:  (1)  restore  the  value  of 
the  principal’s  property  to  what  it  would  have  been  had  the  violation  not  occurred;  and  (2) 
reimburse  the  principal  or  the  principal’s  successors  in  interest  for  the  attorney’s  fees  and 
costs paid on the agent’s behalf.

Comment:

This section provides that an agent’s liability for violating the Act includes not only the amount 
necessary to restore the principal’s property to what it would have been had the violation not 
occurred, but also any amounts for attorney’s fees and costs advanced from the principal’s 
property on the agent’s behalf. This section does not, however, limit the agent’s liability exposure 
to these amounts. Pursuant to Section 123, remedies under the Act are not exclusive.

If	a	jurisdiction	has	enacted	separate	statutes	to	deal	with	financial	abuse,	an	agent	may	face	
additional	civil	or	criminal	liability.	For	a	discussion	of	state	statutory	responses	to	financial	
abuse, see Carolyn L. Dessin, Financial Abuse of the Elderly: Is the Solution a Problem?, 34 
McGeorge L. Rev. 267 (2003).

  UPAA § 117. The JSGC’s Advisory Committee considered UPAA § 117 and recommended the 
General Assembly not adopt this provision and opined: “[a]lthough a comparable provision does not 
exist in 20 Pa.C.S. Chapter 56, the Advisory Committee believed that courts are sophisticated enough 
to resolve issues regarding an agent’s liability and grant appropriate relief without the need for language 
analogous to that contained in §§ 114 and 117 of the UPAA.” 43

  However, this Committee disagrees with the JSGC’s Advisory Committee assessment. Rather, 
the	Committee	suggests	there	should	be	enhanced	civil	remedies	for	financial	abuse	and	exploitation.	
This would include recognition of a private right of action on behalf of an elder under the OAPSA and a 
right to recover attorneys’ fees against an abuser. The Committee supports adoption of the private right 
of action recognized in House Bill 2057. Concurrently, the Committee recommends that the award of 
attorneys’ fees or other sanctions may also be appropriate for the frivolous pursuit of causes of action 
alleging	financial	abuse	or	exploitation.	

b)  Preventing Abusers from Benefiting from the Estate of an Elder

The Committee was asked to address the possibility of seeking the General Assembly’s 
 
consideration of amending the existing Slayer’s Statute to cover not only homicide but also any 
conviction	for	elder	abuse,	neglect	or	exploitation,	so	as	to	bar	abusers	from	benefitting	from	the	estate	
of an elder.44

A “slayer statute” bars a killer from inheriting from a victim. Slayer statutes are based on public 
 
policy considerations centered on morality, equity and deterrence. Nearly all states have enacted some 
form of slayer statute.45 Pennsylvania’s Slayer’s Statute, 20 Pa.C.S. §§ 8801-15, provides that “[n]
o	slayer	shall	in	anyway	acquire	any	property	or	receive	any	benefit	as	the	result	of	the	death	of	the	
decedent[.]” Id.	§	8802.	A	“slayer”	is	defined	as	“any	person	who	participates,	either	as	a	principal	or	as	
an accessory before the fact, in the willful and unlawful killing of any other person.” Id. § 8801. 

These directives are declared a policy of the Commonwealth in Section 8815: “This chapter shall 

 
not be considered penal in nature, but shall be construed broadly in order to effect the policy of this 
State	that	no	person	shall	be	allowed	to	profit	by	his	own	wrong,	wherever	committed.”	Id. § 8815.

 
The Committee learned that in 2001, California began the movement to expand slayer statute 
prohibitions to address elder abuse crimes.46 California law disinherits an abuser upon proof by clear 
and convincing evidence that a person abused an elder who lacked capacity at the time of abuse, 
and who did not regain capacity prior to death. In addition, an individual is automatically barred from 
receiving a share of the decedent’s estate if that individual was convicted of criminally abusing the 
decedent. Cal. Prob. Code § 259. 

ELDER ABUSE AND NEGLECT COMMITTEE REPORT

206

ELDER ABUSE AND NEGLECT COMMITTEE REPORT

207

  Under a Michigan statute, an individual who is convicted of committing abuse, neglect, or 
exploitation with respect to the decedent is prohibited from inheriting from the decedent›s estate. 
Michigan Compiled Laws Annotated (“MCLA”) § 700.2803. The statute provides: 

An individual who feloniously and intentionally kills or who is convicted of committing 
abuse,	 neglect,	 or	 exploitation	 with	 respect	 to	 the	 decedent	 forfeits	 all	 benefits	
under  this  article  with  respect  to  the  decedent›s  estate,  including  an  intestate 
share,  an  elective  share,  an  omitted  spouse›s  or  child›s  share,  a  homestead 
allowance, a family allowance, and exempt property. If the decedent died intestate, 
the decedent›s intestate estate passes as if the killer or felon disclaimed his or her 
intestate share.

MCLA § 700.2803(1).

Similarly,	an	Illinois	statute	provides	that	“[p]ersons	convicted	of	[financial	exploitation,	abuse,	or	

	
neglect	of	an	elderly	person	or	a	person	with	a	disability]	shall	not	receive	any	property,	benefit,	or	
other interest by reason of the death of that person . . . [and that the abuser’s] interest shall pass as 
if the person convicted . . . died before the decedent.” 755 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/2-6.6. See also Or. Rev. 
Stat. Ann. § 112.465 (“[p]roperty that would have passed by reason of the death of a decedent to a 
person who was a slayer or an abuser of the decedent…passes and vests as if the slayer or abuser 
had predeceased the decedent”); Wash. Rev. Code § 11.84.020 (“[n]o slayer or abuser shall in any way 
acquire	any	property	or	receive	any	benefit	as	the	result	of	the	death	of	the	decedent.”).47

  Under Maryland law, “[a] person may not knowingly and willfully obtain by deception, intimidation, 
or	undue	influence	the	property	of	an	individual	that	the	person	knows	or	reasonably	should	know	is	at	
least 68 years old, with intent to deprive the individual of the individual’s property.” Md. Code, Criminal 
Law, § 8-801(b)(2). If convicted, the defendant may not inherit from the decedent’s estate to the extent 
he or she has failed to fully restore the unlawfully obtained property, or its value. Id. § 8-801(e)(1). 

The Committee members agree that consideration should be given to amending Pennsylvania’s 

 
Slayer Statute as has been done in other states. Individuals should be prohibited from receiving 
financial	benefit	through	a	will,	intestate	succession,	insurance	proceeds,	or	in	any	other	way,	from	an	
elder who has been abused, neglected or exploited. However, consideration will need to be given to 
the	following,	including,	but	not	limited	to,	identifying	the	specific	criminal	convictions	that	would	bar	
recovery under the statute; determining if a testator chooses to bequeath assets notwithstanding the 
occurrence	of	abuse,	exploitation,	or	neglect;	and	determining	if	an	heir	convicted	of	financially	abusing	
an elder can “cure” disinheritance by returning/repaying improperly taken funds. The Committee 
suggests these matters be referred to the General Assembly.

4.  Access to Justice 

a)  American Bar Association Recommendations 

	 Many	elders	face	significant	attitudinal	and	systemic	factors	which	serve	as	obstacles	to	accessing	
the courts, navigating the legal system, and pursuing access to justice. The American Bar Association’s 
(“ABA”) Commission on Law and Aging enumerated these factors:

(1)  The abused person’s attitudes about the courts and about the pursuit 
of	legal	remedies.	Attitudinal	barriers	identified	include[	]:

Older  abused  persons  are  commonly  reluctant  to  press  charges  against 
abusive  family  members  or  caregivers  because  “they do not want to get 
that person in trouble.”

Often,  the  abused  person  is  dependent  on  the  abuser  for  care  or 
companionship, and, therefore, believes that he or she has “no choice” but 
to continue in the abusive relationship.

Older  persons  also  fear  that  involving  APS  or  law  enforcement  in  their 
problems  will  lead  to  their  removal  from  their  home  and  placement  in  a 

nursing home. They also fear that APS or court intervention will not prevent 
further abuse or retaliation.

Older abused persons are sometimes so afraid of testifying in court or so 
ashamed to have their abusive situation aired in public that they are willing 
to forego pursuit of their legal rights.

Older persons’ lack of knowledge about their rights and about the judicial 
system also inhibits their pursuit of appropriate legal remedies.

Older abused persons may have no means of traveling to the courthouse for 
hearings or may have no one to provide care for their ill spouse, partner, or 
care-dependent adult child while they are meeting with lawyers or testifying 
at trial.

Older  abused  persons  often  are  ignorant  of  the  availability  of  APS  and 
other services that may be able to help them correct an abusive situation. 
Additionally, even if they are aware of these services they may not think of 
themselves as abused.

(2)  Systemic practices in or related to the courts. These include[ ]:

The lack of knowledge about and sensitivity to elder abuse by judges was 
seen  as  inhibiting  prosecutors,  civil  lawyers,  and  abused  persons  from 
bringing cases into the courts.

The  failure  of  court  staff  to  explain  the  judicial  process  to  older  abused 
persons, particularly to those who have a mental or cognitive disability or 
who may be intimidated or confused, was considered to be a barrier to the 
pursuit of legal remedies by abused persons. 

The courts’ failure to recognize that older persons who are homebound or 
bedbound  may  be  incapable  of  traveling  to  the  courthouse  even  though 
they are capable of testifying was also considered to be a barrier to elder 
abuse cases.

Court delays—typical or otherwise—were thought to be particularly onerous 
to older abused persons who are nearing the end of their life span, and who 
may be losing their capacity to remember the abuse and testify about it.

Lack of knowledge about elder abuse among prosecutors, law enforcement 
officers,	and	civil	lawyers	was	also	viewed	as	a	barrier	by	the	participants	
[ ].48 

(1)  Ways in which the state courts can improve their handling of cases 
involving elder abuse: 

Have  judges  and  other  court  staff,  [in  partnership  with  the  Department 
of Aging], obtain training on topics related to elder abuse (ABA 1 and 2). 
[Presumably this could be accomplished with the assistance of the AOPC 
Judicial Education Department, or perhaps through the OEJC].

Encourage  and  support  the  training  of  other  relevant  professionals, 
including	prosecutors,	law	enforcement	officers,	civil	lawyers,	APS	workers,	
and others about the dynamics and issues of elder abuse and about the 
role of the courts in addressing that problem (ABA 3).

 
To  address  these  attitudinal  and  systemic  barriers,  the  Committee  recommends  that  the Advisory 
Council consider, and, where appropriate, the Supreme Court adopt, the following 29 ABA recommended 
guidelines  for  state  courts  to  increase  access  to  justice  for  Pennsylvania  elders  consistent  with  the 
recommendations contained in the Task Force’s Report:

ELDER ABUSE AND NEGLECT COMMITTEE REPORT

208

ELDER ABUSE AND NEGLECT COMMITTEE REPORT

209

Provide  accommodations  for  older  persons  with  physical  or  mental 
impairments, including holding hearings in elder abuse cases in the setting 
that best accommodates the older person’s needs (ABA 4). 

Understand	that	capacity	to	participate	in	judicial	proceedings	may	fluctuate	
depending	on	time	of	day,	medications,	or	other	issues,	and	being	flexible	
in scheduling hearings to accommodate those challenges (ABA 5).

Expedite elder abuse cases on the court’s calendar (ABA 6). 

Use expert witnesses, evaluators, guardians ad litem, court investigators, 
court visitors, or interdisciplinary teams who are trained and knowledgeable 
about the problems of older persons to assess the older person’s capacity 
(ABA 7).

Understand gradations of diminished capacity in order to more effectively 
manage and adjudicate cases involving elder abuse (ABA 8).

Consider  that  incapacity  could  increase  the  likelihood  of  abuse  and,  if 
necessary,  ordering  that  an  unbiased  assessment  of  the  older  person’s 
capacity	be	conducted	by	a	qualified	evaluator	(ABA	9).

Ensure that plea agreements meet the needs of the older abused person, 
including protection from further abuse, by being willing to be creative in 
negotiations and sentencing after exploration of the alternatives available 
to the older abused person (ABA 13).

Consider	 the	 ramifications	 of	 courts	 taking	 steps	 when	 necessary	 to	
reduce the level of fear experienced by an older person who is testifying 
against his or her abuser such as allowing the hearing to be held in a less 
confrontational  setting,  allowing  testimony  and  cross-examination  of  the 
older abused person by videotape or closed-circuit television, and closing 
the courtroom to the public (ABA 15).

Develop  ways  of  ensuring  that  judges  become  aware  of  cases  involving 
older abused persons that might be underway simultaneously in different 
divisions of the court or that might previously have been heard and have 
some legally relevant bearing on a current case (ABA 17).

Consider the concept of consolidating the courts handling cases involving 
elder abuse (ABA 18). 

Avoid or be cautious about the use of alternative dispute resolution in cases 
involving elder abuse (ABA 19).

(2)  Ways of ensuring that cases involving elder abuse enter the court 
system:

Train  newly  appointed  guardians  about  their  role  and  responsibilities  as 
guardians, and about preventing, recognizing, and reporting elder abuse 
(ABA 20).

Encourage and support the availability and involvement of victim services 
providers who are knowledgeable about elder abuse to assist older abused 
persons throughout the judicial process in both non-criminal and criminal 
court proceedings (ABA 21 and 22). 

Ensure that court staff are able and available to help explain and de-mystify 
the  court  process  for  older  abused  persons  who  may  be  intimidated, 
confused,  or  experiencing  a  mental  or  cognitive  disability,  particularly  if 

there are no victim services providers available to provide such help (ABA 
23).

(3)  Coordination of the state judicial system with other community 
resources:

Encourage  and  support  the  development  and  continuing  operation  of  a 
state or local task force or coordinating council on elder abuse issues (ABA 
24).

Support existing task forces or coordinating councils on elder abuse (ABA 
24).

Encourage  evolving  or  existing  task  forces  or  coordinating  councils  on 
family violence or domestic violence to incorporate elder abuse advocates 
into their membership and elder abuse issues into their agenda (ABA 24).

Include  APS  and  aging  services  providers  on  court  advisory  council 
or  developing  other  mechanisms  for  establishing  linkages  with  those 
organizations and others that address elder abuse (ABA 25).

Encourage and support the development and continued operation of elder 
abuse multidisciplinary teams (ABA 26).

Encourage  and  support  the  development  of  protocols  or  memoranda  of 
understanding  between  various  entities  involved  in  elder  abuse  cases 
(ABA 27).

Ensure that judges and court personnel are familiar with APS, aging, and 
other social services providers in their community, and have brochures or 
other materials from those agencies so that they can direct an older abused 
person to appropriate service providers (ABA 28).

Encourage  and  support  the  development  of  a  “court  social  worker”  or 
“court  ombudsman”  program  to  help  older,  disabled,  incapacitated,  or 
other  individuals  by  giving  them  information  about  social  services  and 
other community organizations, linking them to social services and other 
community  organizations,  assisting  them  with  the  completion  of  pro  se 
documents, and helping them understand the court process (ABA 29) [ ].49

 
The above guidelines were adopted by the American Bar Association, Commission on Law 
and Aging, Section on Real Property, Trust and Estate Law - Report to the House of Delegates: 
Resolution.50 Recognition of the special challenges of elder victims should be made by all courts across 
the Commonwealth with the goal of making accommodations as needed to overcome these obstacles. 
In addition to the above, these include:

Strategizing on ways to give cases involving an elder victim priority. 

Enabling at least temporary PFA orders for elder victims to be obtained through telephone or 
making other accommodations, particularly for those who are unable or for whom it is especially 
difficult	to	travel	to	court	due	to	medical,	disability,	mobility	or	other	challenges.

Physical	changes	or	modifications	to	courtrooms	and	attendant	areas,	including	separate	waiting	
rooms,	visual	and	hearing	amplification	systems	or	aids,	colored	carpeting,	etc.

Transportation assistance and court accompaniment to enable elders to get to and from and 
navigate the courthouses.51

ELDER ABUSE AND NEGLECT COMMITTEE REPORT

210

ELDER ABUSE AND NEGLECT COMMITTEE REPORT

211

b)  Pilot “Elder Court”

 
Specialized courts, dockets and court-based projects focused on the problems of elders are 
emerging “best practices” throughout the country. Their focus is on elder victims, witnesses and/or 
offenders. The Committee recommends that the Supreme Court encourage one or more pilot “elder 
courts” in jurisdictions where there are large, documented numbers of elders and/or elder victims. 
The	purpose	would	be	to	provide	focused	services	such	as	a	modified	courtroom	or	court	calendar,	
for example, for elders based on the ABA model and guidelines.52 Philadelphia court leaders have 
expressed an interest in pursuing such a pilot court. 

c)  Elder Clinics and Programs

The Committee was asked to consider other potential resources that would assist elders in 

 
obtaining information and services, including materials on estate planning. Members discussed the idea 
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. These institutions, with 
appropriate supervision, could also draft or review simple documents, such as a POA or a living will. 
While the Committee members strongly endorse this concept, it was recognized that many details need 
to be carefully considered, including, but not limited to, which institutions would be most appropriate 
to encourage and collaborate with, what types of services could be offered, what resources could be 
made available to the institutions from the government or private organizations, what costs could be 
reasonably expected, and possible sources of funding.

d)  Access to Civil Legal Aid for Pennsylvania Elders

The Committee discussed the growing number of elders who need access to civil legal aid to 
 
address critical legal issues, including those affecting basic human needs of safety, shelter, and 
sustenance, their rights, and access to justice. 

A report released in May 2014 by the Pennsylvania Civil Legal Justice Coalition to the Pennsylvania 

 
Senate Judiciary Committee highlights a growing crisis in the state’s civil justice system. In Toward 
Equal Justice for All: Report of the Civil Legal Justice Coalition to the Pennsylvania State Judiciary 
Committee, live testimony, written statements, and studies presented at three statewide hearings 
comprehensively document that the lack of representation for low-income, unrepresented litigants 
negatively affects the quality of justice for those unable to afford counsel, and undermines the rule of 
law.53 

Pennsylvania	Chief	Justice	Ronald	D.	Castille,	Honorary	Chair	of	the	Coalition,	testified	at	the	May	

	
23, 2013 hearing: “The unfortunate and often tragic fact is that many Pennsylvanians face formidable 
legal situations in our civil courts where those citizens may face dire consequences as the result of a 
civil legal matter that can greatly impact their lives or their futures. The vast majority of those citizens 
are left to fend for themselves in an unfamiliar courtroom without legal representation.”54 The Chief 
Justice further remarked that the Commonwealth should treat civil legal services for indigent individuals, 
families and elders as an important government service. The report, which includes the Chief Justice’s 
testimony, concludes that increased civil legal aid is needed to ensure fairness for all in the justice 
system, help streamline the court system and maximize Commonwealth funds. 

  Our Commonwealth is facing a “civil justice crisis” in which at least 80 percent of the critical legal 
needs of most low-income individuals and families go unmet. According to a recent IOLTA Report, 
“[o]nly	one	in	five	low-income	Pennsylvanians	having	a	critical	legal	problem	receives	legal	help	
from any source.” Legal aid organizations — the core response to serving the legal needs of the 
poor — are drastically underfunded. Even with pro bono assistance, the great majority of low-income 
Pennsylvanians’ legal needs are not met.55

The stakes are enormous for elders who cannot afford an attorney for their most basic legal 

 
problems and must navigate the complex legal system alone. 

The recent economic downturn has exacerbated the crisis of the unavailability of counsel. Those 

 
with low and moderate income have been severely affected, with high rates of foreclosures, abuse, 

unemployment,	and	reductions	in	public	benefits	intended	to	alleviate	poverty.	These	economic	
hardships have led to a growth in a wide range of legal problems while, at the same time, there has 
been a radical decline in funding for civil legal aid – from the federal Legal Services Corporation, the 
IOLTA program, the state legislature, private foundations, local government contracts, private donors, 
and	other	sources.	This	confluence	has	led	to	a	dramatic	increase	in	the	unmet	civil	legal	needs	of	low	
income people and a surge in the numbers of unrepresented litigants in the Pennsylvania courts.

Poverty involving elders in Pennsylvania is severe: 10.1 percent of older women live in poverty. 
 
Seniors in Pennsylvania also face alarming rates of deep poverty, defined	as	less	than	50	percent	of	
the federal poverty level, surviving on less than $500/month. Deep poverty for Pennsylvanians 65 and 
over rose 11 percent between 2011 and 2012. The National Women’s Law Center reports that 750,000 
female elders across the nation live in deep poverty, with dramatic increases from 2011-12.56

	
The	growing	justice	gap	in	Pennsylvania	reflects	a	national	trend.	According	to	a	2009	study	of	
the “justice gap” by the federal Legal Services Corporation, there is one attorney for every 429 people 
above the poverty level in the United States.57 For people eligible for legal services, there is one 
attorney for every 6,415 people. 

 
Access to civil legal services in basic human needs cases provides substantial economic and 
social	benefits	to	individual	litigants	and	the	community,	while	significant	economic	and	social	harm	
to	individuals	and	the	community	is	inflicted	when	critical	legal	needs	are	not	met.	Funding	civil	legal	
aid	produces	dramatic	economic	and	social	benefits	for	Pennsylvania:	for	each	dollar	spent	on	legal	
aid, there is an eleven dollar return to Pennsylvania and its residents.58 Civil legal representation 
serves Pennsylvania businesses and saves costs associated with domestic violence, foster care, child 
custody, housing, healthcare, crime and imprisonment. 

 
The Committee recognizes the critical importance of access to civil legal aid, for low-income and 
vulnerable elders. The Committee recommends that consideration be given to how to meet the civil 
justice crisis in the Commonwealth. 

C.  Committee Recommendations

1.  The Committee recommends that a victim’s age be collected by police departments on 

 
all	criminal	complaint	forms,	and	that	information	be	included	in	the	Unified	Judicial	System’s	
Common Pleas Case Management System (“CPCMS”). The Committee also recommends that 
the victim’s age be reported to the AOPC Research and Statistics Department.

 

2.  Criminal Matters

a.  The Committee supports enhanced mandatory minimum sentences in addition to 

those listed in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9717 for the conviction of crimes against elders. There 
are	strong	policy	and	practical	justifications	for	such	enhancements.	However,	
the Committee also recognized that there may be countervailing considerations. 
Ultimately, the issue of enhanced mandatory minimum sentences for crimes against 
elders	is	a	legislative	issue.	The	General	Assembly	should	determine	the	specific	
additional crimes for which enhanced mandatory minimum penalties should apply. 
The Committee also recommends that the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing 
consider increasing the offense gravity score for crimes involving elder victims.

b.  The Committee recommends that the Comment to Pa.R.Crim.P. 500 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 
the bench and bar are aware of this Rule and its implications for cases involving 
elders.

c.  The Committee recommends that district attorneys consider requiring municipal 

police	departments	to	obtain	approval	before	filing	criminal	charges	in	certain	cases	
involving elder victims 60 and over.

ELDER ABUSE AND NEGLECT COMMITTEE REPORT

212

ELDER ABUSE AND NEGLECT COMMITTEE REPORT

213

d.  The Committee recommends that advocates, attorneys, law enforcement, and 

courts work collaboratively with the OVS, OVA and other victim service providers to 
continue to evaluate and improve services to elder crime victims.

 

3.  Civil Matters 

a.  The Committee recommends the creation of a civil private right of action for elder 

abuse or exploitation, such as the one recognized in House Bill 2057. Concurrently, 
the Committee recommends that the award of attorneys’ fees or other sanctions 
may	also	be	appropriate	for	the	frivolous	pursuit	of	causes	of	action	alleging	financial	
abuse or exploitation.

b.  The Committee recommends that the General Assembly consider enacting 

amendments to Pennsylvania’s Slayer’s Statute, 20 Pa.C.S. §§ 8801-15, to include 
not	only	homicide,	but	also	convictions	of	specified	crimes	resulting	in	elder	abuse,	
neglect, or exploitation. Such statutory expansion would be a progressive and 
significant	step	in	addressing	both	prevention	and	remediation	of	elder	abuse.

 

4.  Access to Justice

a.  The Committee recommends, consistent with the recommendations of the Task 

Force’s Report, 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’s elders.

b.  The Committee recommends the Supreme Court authorize a pilot “Elder Court” in a 

judicial district, with consideration given to Philadelphia. 

c.  The Committee 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 POA or living will. The development of such elder 
clinics	could	provide	tremendous	benefits	to	elders.

d.  The Committee recommends that the General Assembly provide greater and more 
consistent	funding	and	support	of	civil	legal	aid,	including	services	specifically	
targeted to low income Pennsylvania elders. The Committee further recommends 
that bar associations, AAAs, the Department of Aging, law schools and other 
organizations in the aging network strengthen their partnership with, support and 
fund civil legal aid resources for elders.  This recommendation is timely with the 2014 
release of the Civil Legal Justice Coalition Report, and merits immediate attention. It 
will	have	a	significant	impact	on	the	prevention	and	remediation	of	elder	abuse,	as	
well as the safety, shelter, and economic security of Pennsylvania’s elders. 

D.  Timing and Fiscal Impact

 
For Recommendation 1, regarding the inclusion of a victim’s age on criminal complaint forms, 
this measure should be raised with the Supreme Court for referral to the Criminal Procedural Rules 
Committee for a determination of whether Pa.R.Crim.P 504 should be amended. If approved, the 
criminal complaint form should be amended by the AOPC to include a place for the victim’s age to be 
added. The AOPC should begin to collect data about victim ages from criminal and PFA matters. If it is 
determined that a Rule change is warranted, and new criminal forms be developed, some cost will be 
associated with the change and development of the forms; however, the Committee cannot determine 
the extent of that cost. This Recommendation could be implemented immediately.

  Recommendation 2a regarding increases in mandatory minimum sentences for certain crimes 
against elders and that sentencing guidelines be enhanced should be referred to the General Assembly 
for	a	financial	analysis.	

For Recommendation 2b that the Comment to Pa.R.Crim.P. 500 be amended to clarify when 

 
testimony of elders may be preserved, it is suggested this matter be referred to the Criminal Procedural 
Rules Committee. Such an amendment could be implemented immediately.

It is suggested that the educational recommendations 2b and 2c regarding the use of procedures 

 
identified	in	Pa.R.Crim.P.	500	and	Allegheny	County	Local	Rule	(requiring	approval	by	the	District	
Attorney’s	Office	before	certain	cases	involving	elder	victims	are	filed),	be	referred	to	the	AOPC	Judicial	
Education Department and to the PDAA. There will be some modest cost associated with increased 
educational efforts. These efforts could begin immediately.

  Recommendation 2d, regarding collaborative efforts by OVS, OVA and victim service providers 
does	not	necessarily	have	a	fiscal	aspect	to	it.	On	the	contrary,	better	information	sharing	and	
collaboration will likely save money for all interested parties. 

	

There	does	not	seem	to	be	any	fiscal	impact	regarding	Recommendation	3a	–	civil	matters.

The recommendation 3b to amend Pennsylvania’s “Slayer Statute,” to prevent abusers from 

 
benefiting	from	the	estate	of	an	elder,	can	be	implemented	in	the	near	future	and	may	have	a	
significant	impact	on	the	prevention	and	remediation	of	elder	abuse.	The	only	costs	associated	with	this	
recommendation would be those incurred through the legislative process.

  
It is recommended the Advisory Council consider the ABA’s 29 recommended guidelines for 
state courts to increase access to justice for Pennsylvania’s elders. (Recommendation 4a). These 
recommendations, if adopted, will likely need to be implemented over time.

  With regard to Recommendations 4b (Elder Court) and 4c (Elder Law Clinics and Programs), there 
will	be	a	financial	impact.	Both	of	these	recommendations	will	require	further	study	to	determine	their	
feasibility. These recommendations should be studied by the OEJC and the Advisory Council.

	 Recommendation	4d,	civil	legal	aid	for	Pennsylvania	elders,	necessarily	has	a	fiscal	component.	
This matter should be referred to the Legislature.

The	Committee	believes	the	recommendations	in	this	section	will	have	a	significant	impact	on	
	
reducing elder abuse and neglect through greater educational initiatives, mandatory prison sentences 
for offenders, better tracking of elder crime, greater collaboration among victim service providers, the 
creation of private rights of action, increased funding, and promoting access to justice for elders.

 
Additional funding for the recommendations in this Report may be available through appropriations 
from the General Assembly, or possibly through grants or collaboration with other state agencies, such 
as the Department of Aging and DHS. Funds for some initiatives may be available through Criminal 
Justice Advisory Boards or, as noted above, through the PCCD. Another consideration could be to 
generate funds through costs of prosecution in elder abuse cases, or through fees, although increased 
imposition of such fees is disfavored. The sources of such funding are matters for the General 
Assembly to consider.

E.  Timing and Impact

	 Many	of	the	initiatives	in	this	Report	call	for	funding,	some	relatively	modest	and	some	significant.	
The Committee urges that funding be found to support these important recommendations, as many 
will	not	occur	without	financial	support.	Given	the	scope	of	the	elder	abuse	and	neglect	problem	in	
Pennsylvania,	the	Committee	believes	finding	ways	to	financially	support	these	recommendations	as	
soon as possible is critical.

ELDER ABUSE AND NEGLECT COMMITTEE REPORT

214

ELDER ABUSE AND NEGLECT COMMITTEE REPORT - ENDNOTES AND REFERENCES

215

ENDNOTES AND REFERENCES

1 
 Pennsylvania Dep’t of Aging, Older Adult 
Protective Services Annual Report, FY 2012-2013, 
7, http://www.aging.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/
community/agency_publications/17894.

 US Dep’t of Justice, Nat’l Inst. of Justice, Financial 

2 
Exploitation of the Elderly, http://www.nij.gov/topics/
crime/elder-abuse/Pages/financial-exploitation.aspx.

 Nat’l Conference of State Legislatures, Financial 

3 
Crimes Against the Elderly 2012 Legislation, 1, 
http://www.ncsl.org/research/financial-services-and-
commerce/financial-crimes-against-the-elderly-2012-
legis.aspx; see also United States Gov’t Accountability 
Office, National Strategy Needed to Effectively Combat 
Elder Financial Exploitation, 1, http://www.gao.gov/
products/GAO-13-110.

 See e.g., Jane A. Black, The Not-so-Golden Years: 

4 
Power of Attorney, Elder Abuse, and Why Our Laws 
Are Failing a Vulnerable Population, 82 St. John’s L. 
Rev. 289 (2008), http://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/
lawreview/vol82/iss1/7.

 See, e.g., Elizabeth O’Brien, Power of attorney: It’s 

5 
easily abused, Wall Street Journal Market Watch (Mar. 
19, 2013), http://www.marketwatch.com/story/power-of-
attorney-its-easily-abused-2013-03-19.

6 

 Compare UPAA §116.

7 
 In Pennsylvania, agencies operating under the 
Older Adults Protective Services Act have statutory 
authority to challenge the actions of an agent acting 
under a POA in certain circumstances. See 20 Pa. C.S. 
§ 5604(d)(1). Similarly, guardians may have standing to 
demand an accounting. Id. § 5604(c)(1). Pennsylvania 
courts have also recognized standing to challenge a 
POA in various circumstances to include, for example, 
a trust, In re Trust of Golub, 27 Fiduc. Rep.2d 260, 
(Pa. Com. Pl. Phila. 2006); presumed intestate heirs 
or	known	beneficiaries,	Nikoden v. Losey, 27 Fiduc. 
Rep.2d 28 (Pa. Com. Pl. Northampton 2005), In re 
Wills, Alleged Incapacitated Person, 20 Fiduc. Rep.2d 
16	(Pa.	Com.	Pl.	Adams	1998);	and	beneficiaries	under	
a will, Haskins, et al. v. Carroll, et al., 25 Fiduc. Rep.2d 
361 (Pa. Com. Pl. Bradford 2005).

 Ala Code § 26-1A-116; Ark Code Ann. § 28-68-
8 
116; Colo Rev. Stat. § 15-14-716; 2014 Haw. Rev. Stat. 
§ -12; Idaho Code Ann. § 15-12-116; Iowa Code § 
633B.116; Md. Code Ann. Est. & Trusts § 17-103; Me. 
Rev. Stat., tit. 18 § 5-916; Mont. Code Ann. § 72-31-
321; Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-4016; N.M. Stat. § 45-5B-
116; Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 1337.36; Va. Code Ann. § 
64.2-1614; W.Va. Code § 39B-1-116; Wis. Stat. Ann. § 
244.16.

 Act. of July 2, 2014, P.L. 855 No. 95 (“Act 95 of 
9 
2014”), § 3 (amending 20 Pa. C.S. § 5601.3(d)(1)). 
Act 95, § 5 enables a party who in good faith accepts 
a POA without actual knowledge that a signature or 
mark thereon is not genuine may, without liability, rely 
upon the genuineness of the signature or mark of 
individuals enumerated in the Act. It is assumed this 

statute “legislatively overrules” the result reached in 
Vine v. Commonwealth, 9 A.3d 1150 (Pa. 2010). While 
other amendments have been made to the Power of 
Attorney statute through Act 95, such as notice and 
acknowledgment provisions, this Act also allows a third 
party	to	request	additional	assurance	(e.g.,	certification	
or opinion of counsel) that a POA is valid; adds a 
new section governing the power to make limited 
gifts; enumerates what an agent may do in regard to 
gifts; and adds a new section outlining the duties of 
agents who have accepted appointment as an agent 
(e.g., acting in accordance with principal’s reasonable 
interests, loyalty, good faith). On this last point it is 
unclear	what	effect,	if	any,	this	has	on	the	fiduciary	
relationship between principals and agents, formerly 
found at 20 Pa.C.S.A. § 5601(e) (amended by Act 95, § 
1).

10   See United	States	Gov’t	Accountability	Office,	
National Strategy Needed to Effectively Combat Elder 
Financial Exploitation, 1, http://www.gao.gov/products/
GAO-13-110; see also, Nat’l Conference of State 
Legislatures, Financial Crimes Against the Elderly 2012 
Legislation, 1, http://www.ncsl.org/research/financial-
services-and-commerce/financial-crimes-against-the-
elderly-2012-legis.aspx.

11   See also J. Rhein, No One in Charge: Durable 
Powers of Attorney and the Failure to Protect 
Incapacitated Principals, 17 Elder L.J. 165, 181-182 
(2009) (noting that many states have broad standing 
provisions and that § 116 of the UPAA “may be the 
only means to detect and stop agent abuse of an 
incapacitated principal.”)

12   The National Center for State Courts noted “[c]ourt 
leaders would have a powerful voice on issues related 
to broadening standing of third parties to demand an 
accounting from an agent suspected of using a power 
of attorney against the interests of the principal.” 
Susan	Keilitz	&	Paula	Hannaford-Agor,	Nat’l	Ctr.	for	
State Courts, Addressing Power of Attorney Abuse: 
What Courts Can Do to Enhance the Justice System 
Response, 12 (2013), http://www.eldersandcourts.
org/~/media/Microsites/Files/cec/POA%20White%20
Paper%20Final%209_3_2013.ashx.

13   In addition, while not binding on a Pennsylvania 
court, case law from other jurisdictions provides some 
guidance. See Santucci v. Citizens Bank of R.I., 799 
A.2d 254 (R.I. 2002)(holding there is no private right of 
action against a bank for failing to stop a transaction); 
Shamgochian v. Bank of America, 2013 WL 1098256 
(Cal.App. 5 Dist. 2013)(same); Repub.Nat’l Bank of 
Miami v. Johnson, 622 So.2d 1015 (Fla. App.3 Dist 
1993)(holding banks have no duty to halt suspicious 
transactions).

14   The Committee was advised that banks operating 
in jurisdictions where mandatory reporting is the law 
also	report	all	suspected	financial	abuse	in	other	
jurisdictions where they operate (even if mandatory 
reporting is not required) since different policies would 
be impractical.

15   Ark. Code Ann § 12-12-1708; Cal. Welf. & Inst. 
Code § 15630.1; Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-6.5-108; D.C. 

Code Ann. § 7-1903; Fla. Stat. Ann. § 415.1034; Ga. 
Code Ann. § 30-5-4; Haw. Rev. Stat. § 412:3-114.5; 
Kan.	Stat.	Ann.	§	39-1431;	Md.	Fin.	Inst.	Code	Ann.	§	
1-306.

16   The Committee would defer to the Legislature 
to	determine	how	broadly	the	phrase	“financial	
institutions”	should	be	defined.	

17   See Wash. Rev. Code § 74.34.215.

18   Nationwide SAR Initiative, The Nationwide SAR 
Initiative, http://nsi.ncirc.gov/?AspxAutoDetectCookieS
upport=1.

19   See also Federal Financial Institutions 
Examination Council, Bank Secrecy Act/Anti-Money 
Laundering InfoBase, Suspicious Activity Reporting 
- Overview, http://www.ffiec.gov/bsa_aml_infobase/
pages_manual/OLM_015.htm.

20   Id. at n. 73.

21   Leslie Callaway, Stopping the Financial Abuse of 
Seniors, ABA Bank Compliance, July-August 2011, 
14-15, https://www.aba.com/Products/bankcompliance/
Documents/JulyAug11CoverStory.pdf.

22	 	Letter	from	Kathleen	M.	Murphy,	President	&	CEO,	
Maryland Bankers Association, to Members, Maryland 
Bankers Association (Sept. 14, 2012), http://www.
mdbankers.com/External/WCPages/WCWebContent/
WebContentPage.aspx?ContentID=1695.

23   The GAO report cited above stated that elder 
financial	exploitation	is	underreported	by	banks	and	
that bank staff may not be aware of signs of or how to 
report	it.	See	United	States	Gov’t	Accountability	Office, 
National Strategy Needed to Effectively Combat Elder 
Financial Exploitation, 32, http://www.gao.gov/products/
GAO-13-110. The GAO report was based on interviews 
conducted in four states, including Pennsylvania. 
The report states that banks are important partners 
and well-positioned to recognize, report and provide 
evidence	about	suspected	financial	abuse.	

24   This recommendation is at odds with the 
recommendation in a portion of House Bill 2014 
of	2014,	Pr.	No.	3326,	which	would	make	financial	
institutions	“voluntary	reporters”	of	suspected	financial	
abuse. The Legislature may also consider what 
penalties may be appropriate for the failure to report. 
See, e.g. Colo. Rev. Stat. §18-6.5-108(1)(c)(providing 
a	fine	of	$50	-	$750	plus	six	months	imprisonment);	
Md.Fin.Inst.Code.Ann. §1-305(c)(2)(providing a civil 
penalty of $1,000 to $5,000 for willful failure to report). 
In	California,	it	has	been	asserted	that	not	all	financial	
institutions are complying with mandatory reporting 
laws. An effort is being considered to increase the 
statutory	fine	from	$1000	to	$25,000	as	an	incentive	to	
improve reporting.

25   The Committee members recognize that banks 
and	other	financial	service	providers	may	not	have	the	
date of birth for some customers who opened accounts 
prior to 2001.

26   It is unclear if statutory authorization would be 
necessary for such assistance.

27   See 35 P.S. § 10225.304 and 6 Pa. Code §§ 15.62 
& 15.63.

28   42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9728(e),(f). 

29   The Bench Books could include information 
pertaining to procedures for freezing assets that may 
be necessary for restitution, 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 9728(e) 
and (f), and procedures for recording testimony 
pursuant to Pa. R.Crim.P. 500.

30   The Committee suggested that if discussions turn 
toward	a	specific	case	likely	to	come	before	the	court,	
the judge can decline to be present or participate in 
that portion of the discussion.

31   See Department of Health and Human Services, 
The Elder Justice Roadmap A Stakeholder Initiative 
to Respond to an Emerging Health, Justice, Financial 
and Social Crisis, 21, http://ncea.acl.gov/Library/Gov_
Report/docs/EJRP_Roadmap.pdf; see also note 34, 
infra.

32   See National Center for State Courts, Elder Abuse 
Resource Guide, http://www.ncsc.org/topics/children-
families-and-elders/elder-abuse/resource-guide.aspx. 

33   See Pennsylvania Dep’t of Aging, Older Adult 
Protective Services Annual Report, FY 2012-2013, 
7, http://www.aging.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/
community/agency_publications/17894.

34   Lori A. Stiegel, American Bar Association, Final 
Technical Report to the National Institute of Justice on 
‘A Multi-Site Assessment of Five Court-Focused Elder 
Abuse Initiatives’ (2010), 1, http://www.americanbar.
org/content/dam/aba/uncategorized/2011/2011_aging_
ea_fin_rep_ct_fcus.authcheckdam.pdf, citing Lori A. 
Stiegel, American Bar Association, Recommended 
Guidelines for State Courts Handling Cases Involving 
Elder Abuse (1995).

35   Under current case law, when age is an element 
of an offense, or relevant to sentencing, it must 
be included in the Information. Victim age is not 
necessarily	included	in	the	Affidavit	of	Probable	Cause	
or the Criminal Complaint.

36   42 Pa.C.S. § 9717. Sentences for offenses against 
elderly persons. 

(a)  Mandatory sentence.--A person under 60 years 
of age convicted of the following offenses when 
the victim is over 60 years of age and not a police 
officer	shall	be	sentenced	to	a	mandatory	term	of	
imprisonment as follows:

18 Pa.C.S. § 2702(a)(1) and (4) (relating to 
aggravated assault) - not less than two years.

18 Pa.C.S. § 3121 (relating to rape) - not less than 
five	years.

18 Pa.C.S. § 3123 (relating to involuntary deviate 
sexual	intercourse)	-	not	less	than	five	years.

ELDER ABUSE AND NEGLECT COMMITTEE REPORT - ENDNOTES AND REFERENCES

216

ELDER ABUSE AND NEGLECT COMMITTEE REPORT - ENDNOTES AND REFERENCES

217

18 Pa.C.S. § 3922 (relating to theft by deception) - 
not less than 12 months, but the imposition of the 
minimum sentence shall be discretionary with the 
court	where	the	court	finds	justifiable	cause	and	
that	finding	is	written	in	the	opinion.

(b)  Eligibility for parole.--Parole shall not be 
granted until the minimum term of imprisonment 
has been served.

37   The Committee members assume this can 
be accomplished by simply changing the criminal 
complaint form. It is not known if this will also require a 
change to Pa.R.Crim.P. 504, Contents of Complaint.

38   See, e.g., Pa.R.Crim.P. 403, Contents of Citation.

39   Petitions for emergency court orders under the 
OAPSA, 35 P.S. § 10225.307, necessarily apply to 
the elderly, so a separate recommendation is not 
necessary.

40   For example, offenses under the following 
provisions of 18 Pa.C.S.:

(1)  § 3921 (relating to theft by unlawful taking or 
disposition).

(2)  § 3922 (relating to theft by deception).

(3)  § 3923 (relating to theft by extortion).

(4)  § 3924 (relating to theft of property lost, 
mislaid, or delivered by mistake).

(5)  § 3925 (relating to receiving stolen property).

(6)  § 3926 (relating to theft of services).

(7)  § 3927 (relating to theft by failure to make 
required disposition of funds received).

(8)  § 4101 (relating to forgery).

(9)  § 4105 (relating to bad checks).

(10) § 4106 (relating to access device fraud).

(11) § 4107 (relating to deceptive or fraudulent 
business practices).

(12) § 4113 (Misapplication of entrusted property 
and	property	of	government	or	financial	
institutions).

(13) § 4114 (Securing execution of documents by 
deception).

(14) § 4117 (relating to insurance fraud).

(15) § 4120 (relating to identity theft). 

This list of crimes is similar to, but more extensive than, 
those	identified	in	House	Bill	2057	of	2014,	Pr.	No.	
3054.

41   204 Pa.Code § 303.1-303.18.

42   Criminal cases charging the following require 
approval of the Allegheny County District Attorney’s 
office:	Neglect	of	a	Care-Dependent	Person	(18	
Pa.C.S. § 2713); Aggravated Assault (18 Pa.C.S. 
§ 2702); Robbery (18 Pa.C.S. § 3701); Rape (18 
Pa.C.S. § 3121); Statutory Sexual Assault (18 Pa.C.S. 
§ 3122.1); Involuntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse (18 
Pa.C.S. § 3123); Sexual Assault (18 Pa.C.S. § 3124.1) 
or Aggravated Indecent Assault (18 Pa.C.S. § 3125); 
Theft by Deception (18 Pa.C.S. § 3922- Felony grade); 
Identity Theft (18 Pa.C.S. § 4120); Misapplication 
of Entrusted Property and Property of Government 
or Financial Institutions (18 Pa.C.S. § 4113); Home 
Improvement Contracts (73 P.S.§ 517.7) and the victim 
is of 65 years old or older. ** Note: Allegheny County 
has determined age 65 to be key, however the Task 
Force recommends identifying elders as age 60 and 
older.

43   Joint State Government Commission, Report of 
the Advisory Committee on Decedents’ Estates Laws, 
Powers of Attorney: Proposed Amendments to the 
Probate, Estates and Fiduciaries Code (March 2010), 
42. 

44	 	Katherine	C.	Pearson,	Should “Elder Abuse” 
Trigger Disinheritance? Elder Law Prof Blog (Nov. 
10, 2013), http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/elder_
law/2013/11/should-elder-abuse-trigger-disinheritance-.
html.

45   Lisa C. Dumond, The Undeserving Heir: Domestic 
Elder Abuser’s Right to Inherit, 23 Quinnipiac Prob. 
L.J. 214, 222-23 (2010) (comparing four statutes that 
disinherit elder abusers).

46	 	Kymberleigh	N.	Korpus,	Extinguishing Inheritance 
Rights: California Breaks New Ground in the Fight 
Against Elder Abuse But Fails to Build an Effective 
Foundation, 52 Hastings L. J. 537, 569 (2001) 
(providing rationale for adapting the unworthy heir 
statute to the elder abuse context).

47   Adam D. Matherly, Washington State Slayer 
and Abuser Statute Expanded, The ADM, esq. 
Blog Site (May 19, 2011), http://admesq.wordpress.
com/2011/05/19/washington-state-slayer-and-abuser-
statute-expanded.

48   See Lori A. Stiegel, American Bar Association, 
Final Technical Report to the National Institute 
of Justice on ‘A Multi-Site Assessment of Five 
Court-Focused Elder Abuse Initiatives’ (2010), 
5-6, http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/
uncategorized/2011/2011_aging_ea_fin_rep_ct_fcus.
authcheckdam.pdf.

49   See id. at 6-8.

50   American Bar Association, Commission 
on Law and Aging, Section on Real Property, 
Trust and Estate Law, Report to the House 
of Delegates, 4-6 (Aug. 2012), http://social.
un.org/ageing-working-group/documents/egm/
AmericanBarAssociation-CommissiononLawandAging-
ReporttotheHouseofDelegates.pdf.

51   It is further recommended that elders be provided 
with information regarding their rights during hearings, 
or have information available to assist the elder in 
contacting a local advocate.

52   National Center for State Courts, Center for Elders 
and the Courts, Programs and Guidelines, http://www.
eldersandcourts.org/Elder-Abuse/Programs-and-
Guidelines.aspx.

53   Toward Justice For All: Report of the Civil Legal 
Justice Coalition to the Pennsylvania State Judiciary 
Committee (April 2014), http://www.philadelphiabar.org/
WebObjects/PBA.woa/Contents/WebServerResources/
CMSResources/ReportoftheCivilLegalJusticeCoalition.
pdf.

54   Id. at 20.

55   The Resource for Great Programs, Inc., Report on 
Pennsylvania’s Access to Justice Act, FY 2004-2011, 
6 (May 2012), https://www.pabar.org/public/probono/
Full%20Report.pdf. 

56   National Women’s Law Center, National Snapshot: 
Poverty among Women & Families, 2012 (Sept. 
2013), http://www.nwlc.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/
povertysnapshot2012.pdf; Alfred Lubrano, Steep rise 
seen in deep poverty among elderly, Philadelphia 
Inquirer, Oct. 11, 2013, http://articles.philly.com/2013-
10-11/news/42904099_1_deep-poverty-north-
philadelphia-law-center.

57   Legal Services Corporation, Documenting the 
Justice Gap In America: The Current Unmet Civil 
Legal Needs of Low-Income Americans (Sept. 2009), 
19, http://www.lsc.gov/sites/default/files/LSC/pdfs/
documenting_the_justice_gap_in_america_2009.pdf. 

58   Pennsylvania Interest on Lawyers Trust Account 
Board, The Economic Impact of Outcomes Obtained 
for Legal Aid Clients Benefits Everyone in Pennsylvania 
(April 11, 2012), 1, https://www.paiolta.org/wp-content/
uploads/2014/05/Economic-Impact-of-Legal-Aid.pdf.

ELDER ABUSE AND NEGLECT COMMITTEE REPORT - ENDNOTES AND REFERENCES

218

ELDER ABUSE AND NEGLECT COMMITTEE REPORT - APPENDIX A

219

Overarching Findings and Recommendations 
of the Elder Law Task Force Concerning Court 
Administration, Judicial Education, Funding, 
and Public Awareness 

I. Creation of an Office of Elder Justice in the Courts

A. Issue Statement

A	sustained	and	significant	effort	will	be	required	to	implement	the	Task	Force’s	

	
recommendations and coordinate activities among the court system’s elder justice partners. Many 
of the initiatives recommended are complex, multi-year projects. 

B.  Task Force Findings

 
1.  The Task Force found that the creation of a new	Office	of	Elder	Justice	in	the	Courts	
(“OEJC”)	within	AOPC	was	necessary	to	effectively	and	efficiently	implement	the	Task	Force’s	
recommendations.	The	functions	of	the	new	office	will	be	consistent	with	CCJ	and	COSCA	
recommendations that outline activities which states should be undertaking to address issues 
relating to guardianship, elder abuse and access to justice.

2.	 COSCA	calls	on	each	state’s	administrative	office	of	the	courts	to	establish	a	state	
	
guardianship coordinator position to provide staff support to the recommended statewide 
guardianship task force (or Guardianship Court Improvement Program (“GCIP”)), if created. 
Suggested responsibilities for the coordinator include: working with local courts to ensure 
compliance with guardianship case monitoring policies and procedures; identifying sources of 
funding for guardianship initiatives, including the availability of grants; providing training and 

PART III  

OVERARCHING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ELDER LAW TASK FORCE 

220

OVERARCHING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ELDER LAW TASK FORCE 

221

technical assistance to judges, court staff, attorneys, guardians and others; and overseeing the 
implementation of recommendations developed by the statewide guardianship task force.169

3.  CCJ and COSCA recommend court systems increase judicial and court awareness of aging 

 
issues and elder abuse by: increasing the availability of training for judges and court staff on elder 
issues; encouraging local courts to examine current responses and develop innovative methods 
and approaches to elder abuse; developing court performance standards and case management 
systems that improve documentation and oversight of cases involving elders; encouraging judicial 
and court participation in multi-agency partnerships to combat elder abuse; advancing the use of 
technology to identify and document cases that involve older persons; improving monitoring and 
compliance practices; developing statewide model practices; and encouraging funding agencies to 
provide adequate resources to enable the courts to identify and respond to elder abuse.170 

C.  Task Force Recommendations

1.  Pursuant to Findings 1, 2 and 3, the Task Force recommends that an OEJC be established 

 
to assist the Supreme Court in implementing the recommendations in this Report. The OEJC 
is	anticipated	to	benefit	the	Commonwealth’s	agencies	that	provide	guardianship	services	and	
respond to elder abuse by promoting collaborative efforts. The Task Force believes collaborations 
with these agencies will result in elder justice system improvements, and possibly conserve 
resources by eliminating the duplication of efforts.171 The Task Force further believes an OEJC 
will assist all Pennsylvanians through its efforts to protect vulnerable elders by addressing issues 
relating to guardianship, elder abuse, and access to justice.

 
2.  The Task Force recommends the OEJC be staffed by a director. The director will require 
assistance from staff with skills in research, legal analysis and information technology, and will also 
need secretarial assistance.

3.   During the early deliberations of the Task Force, it became clear that AOPC staff resources 

 
will be required to implement the recommendations in this Report. Given the unanimity of the 
Task Force’s members in urging the Supreme Court to establish an OEJC, Madame Justice Todd 
presented the Task Force’s recommendation to the Supreme Court for consideration, and the 
Supreme Court approved the establishment of an OEJC. The AOPC’s Assistant Director of Judicial 
Programs will become the director of the OEJC. Research, grant-writing, legal analysis, information 
technology and secretarial services will be provided by AOPC staff. 

D.  Timing and Fiscal Impact

The OEJC will be established in January 2015. Because AOPC personnel will be able to provide 

 
services	to	the	OEJC,	there	is	no	immediate	fiscal	impact.	Nevertheless,	as	the	OEJC	moves	
forward with the implementation of the initiatives and recommendations in this Report, additional 
resources and funding will be necessary.

II.  Creation of an Advisory Council on Elder Justice in the Courts

  Given the multitude of Task Force recommendations to be implemented, the OEJC will require 
guidance regarding the priorities for implementation and collaborations to be established with the 
court system’s elder justice partners. 

A.  Issue Statement

B.  Task Force Findings

The Task Force has made numerous recommendations that will require prioritization. 

 
Coordination and collaboration with the court system’s elder justice partners will also be critical. An 
advisory body is necessary to provide guidance to the OEJC. 

C.  Task Force Recommendations

	
Pursuant	to	the	above	finding,	the	Task	Force	recommended	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. 
Task Force members were unanimous in urging that the Supreme Court create an Advisory Council. 
Madame Justice Todd presented the Task Force’s request to the Supreme Court for consideration, 
and the Supreme Court approved the creation of the Advisory Council. 

D.  Timing and Fiscal Impact

	
The	Advisory	Council	will	be	established	in	January	2015.	The	financial	impact	is	anticipated	
to be minimal, as costs will be limited to travel expenses for members to attend meetings at the 
Pennsylvania Judicial Center.

III. Inclusion of Orphans’ Court Clerks in Unified Judicial System 

A.  Issue Statement

The Guardianship Monitoring Committee examined guardianship case monitoring practices in 
 
Orphans’	Court	Clerks’	offices	across	the	Commonwealth,	and	found	a	lack	of	consistent,	statewide	
practices.	In	addition	to	case	monitoring,	the	offices’	management	practices,	training	of	staff	and	
computer	systems	vary	widely.	The	variance	in	these	practices	and	procedures	makes	it	difficult	to	
establish uniform practices relating to the monitoring and collection of guardianship data.

B.  Task Force Findings

1.  Responsibilities of Orphans’ Court Clerks include maintaining and docketing court 

 
guardianship records, administrative record-keeping tasks, and assisting Orphans’ Court Judges 
and	litigants.	Office	management	practices,	case	management	procedures,	staff	training	and	
computer systems vary widely from county to county. Under current law, except in home rule 
counties that have opted for a different structure, Orphans’ Court Clerks are elected or appointed 
officials	who	generally	do	not	have	a	relationship	with	the	judicial	district’s	President	Judge	or	court	
administration	office,	and	operate	independently.	

The Guardianship Monitoring Committee recommends that Orphans’ Court Clerks be 
 
responsible for docketing and monitoring a guardian’s compliance with several reporting 
requirements, and taking follow-up action. 

  Research conducted by the AOPC suggests that Orphans’ Court guardianship case-docketing 
practices are inconsistent and in need of improvement. In 2007, the AOPC attempted to obtain a 
reliable	number	of	active	current	guardianships.	Each	Orphans’	Court	Clerk’s	Office	was	requested	
to provide all guardianship docket sheets for one year. The terminology and amount of information 
captured on the docket sheets varied widely. The Orphans’ Court Clerks did not consistently track 
and docket when a guardianship was terminated, or enforce the annual report submissions required 
of guardians by statute. Because	of	the	variance	in	practice	among	the	offices,	the	AOPC	found	it	
difficult	to	obtain	a	reliable	number	of	current	guardianships.	

As related personnel of the UJS, Orphans’ Court Clerks have a responsibility to comply with 
 
requirements pertaining to uniform procedures, indexes and dockets as approved by the Supreme 
Court under Pa.R.J.A. 505(11). 

2.  An automated, statewide Orphans’ Court case management system will promote the 

 
standardized	collection	of	guardianship	data	by	Orphans’	Court	Clerks,	and	assist	them	in	fulfilling	
their guardianship monitoring responsibilities. 

OVERARCHING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ELDER LAW TASK FORCE 

222

OVERARCHING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ELDER LAW TASK FORCE 

223

C.  Task Force Recommendations

1.  Pursuant to Finding 1, the Task Force recommends that Orphans’ Court Clerks become 

 
employees of the UJS. Including Orphans’ Court Clerks in the UJS will ensure that uniform 
practices,	procedures	and	training	can	be	effectively	and	efficiently	administered	statewide,	and	
coordination	with	court	administration	offices	will	be	improved.

2.  Pursuant to Finding 2, the Task Force recommends the implementation of a statewide 
 
Orphans’ Court case management system, which is tentatively planned for 2017. In the interim, 
the Task Force recommends that Orphans’ Court Clerks make necessary upgrades to their 
case management systems in order to comply with the Guardianship Monitoring Committee’s 
recommendations. Upgrades are necessary not only to adopt much needed monitoring practices, 
but also as a precursor to migrating Orphans’ Court data into the statewide system.

D.  Timing and Fiscal Impact

The	transition	of	Orphans’	Court	Clerks	from	elected	officials	to	appointed	court	personnel	under	

	
the direct authority of the President Judge of each judicial district requires legislative action. The 
Orphans’ Court Clerks, like the Prothonotary and Clerk of Courts, exist solely to serve the court 
system. Orphans’ Court Clerks do not perform duties other than court duties, although in most 
counties,	the	office	is	combined	with	another	office	such	as	Register	of	Wills.

 
It is recommended that any effort to transition Orphans’ Court Clerks into the UJS be 
coordinated with the efforts already underway to make Prothonotaries and Clerks of Court 
appointed	court	officials.	Funding	for	office	holders	would	become	a	state	responsibility	and	is	
included in the proposed Clerk of Courts/Prothonotary Transfer Act, SB 1215 of 2014, Pr. No. 1716, 
by using funds already allocated to the counties in the county court reimbursement grant.

Several counties already have the functionality needed to track all guardianship data items 

 
recommended in this Report. There is a subset of counties that will be able to request this 
functionality from their software vendors without incurring additional costs. However, depending 
on the maintenance agreement each county has with its software vendor, some will have to pay 
to	have	data	fields	added	to	their	current	case	management	systems.	Orphans’	Court	Clerks	
will require adequate time to perform any necessary software upgrades to comply with the 
recommendations in this Report. Upgrades may be undertaken as soon as practicable for the 
Orphans’ Court Clerks and their counties.

E.  Additional Comments

 
The AOPC Research and Statistics Department will provide technical assistance to the 
Orphans’ Court Clerks as they work with their software vendors to obtain the system upgrades.

IV. Development of Bench Books for Guardianship and Elder Abuse Cases

Pennsylvania	bench	books	regarding	guardianship	and	elder	abuse	cases	would	be	a	beneficial	

A.  Issue Statement

	
resource for the judiciary.

B.  Task Force Findings

Judicial education concerning guardianships and elder abuse cases is lacking in Pennsylvania. 

 
While the Commonwealth’s judges have access to general, national reference materials on 
guardianships and elder abuse, Pennsylvania bench books for these types of cases are not 
available. Uniform, statewide reference materials on issues related to guardianship and elder abuse 
cases are essential for judges.

C.  Task Force Recommendations

	
Based	on	the	above	findings	and	recommendations	from	the	Guardians	and	Counsel	and	Elder	
Abuse and Neglect Committees, the Task Force recommends that the OEJC and the AOPC Judicial 
Education Department, in consultation with interdisciplinary groups or practicing professional and 
non-professional guardians, develop bench books for guardianship and elder abuse cases. 

D.  Timing and Fiscal Impact

 
The timing of the development of the bench books will be ascertained at a later date, through 
consultation between the AOPC Judicial Education Department and the OEJC. The bench books 
will be electronically available on the UJS’ website resulting in a modest cost associated with the 
printing of a small number of copies.

V.  Creation of Guardianship Mediation Program

A.  Issue Statement

  Mediation	in	the	guardianship	context	may	have	the	potential	to	benefit	AIPs,	IPs,	guardians	and	
other interested parties.

B.  Task Force Findings

1.  In 2013, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s Orphans’ Court Procedural Rules Committee 

 
published proposed new rules, including new Rule 1.6 which states:

Rule 1.6. Mediation by Local Rule or Special Order:

The Court, by Local Rule or special order, may direct the parties to participate in 
private or court-sponsored mediation.

Note: Rule 1.6 has no counterpart in former Orphans’ Court Rules.

Explanatory	Comment:	The	confidentiality	of	mediation	is	provided	by	statute,	
see 42 Pa.C.S. § 5949.172

(The Task Force notes that Proposed Rule 1.6 would provide for mediation in all Orphans’ Court 
matters, and would not be limited to guardianship matters.)

2.  The Pennsylvania Bar Association (“PBA”) is currently considering a proposal of the 

 
Orphans’ Court Mediation Subcommittee of its Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee to facilitate 
and encourage mediation by way of a model local rule. The proposal would provide for mediation of 
all Orphans’ Court matters.

3.  The	Task	Force	finds	that	mediation	of	guardianship	matters	has	been	implemented	in	other	

 
states	and	has	the	potential	to	provide	benefits	and	ameliorate	some	of	the	problems	associated	
with guardianship decision-making; however, there is a need to assess its disadvantages and how 
such a process would work in practice.

C.  Task Force Recommendations

Pursuant to Findings 1, 2 and 3, 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 question of program structure and 
implementation.

D.  Timing and Fiscal Impact

The	recommended	study	can	begin	as	soon	as	is	practicable.	The	fiscal	impact	of	this	
 
recommendation should be minimal as only travel and meeting expenses are anticipated.

OVERARCHING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ELDER LAW TASK FORCE 

224

OVERARCHING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ELDER LAW TASK FORCE 

225

VI. Increase of Guardianship Fees for Medicaid Nursing Home Patients

A.  Issue Statement

  Given concerns that independent guardians (attorneys, professional guardians or other 
practitioners) frequently do not monitor or advocate for the health and safety of nursing home 
residents and may be unresponsive to nursing home requests for information and assistance, 
an increase in the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services (“DHS”) (formerly known as 
the Department of Public Welfare) guardianship fees is warranted to encourage higher quality 
guardianship services. 

B.  Task Force Findings

1.  DHS’s policy allows guardians of Medicaid nursing home residents to retain up to $100 per 

 
month of income (in those cases where income exists) as payment for guardianship services.173 
Pennsylvania’s statute allows for payment of guardian fees from income, but does not place a dollar 
limit on those fees. 174 The Orphans’ Court does not have the discretion to award greater fees even 
though they may be deemed appropriate and necessary.

 
2.  In many cases, nursing home residents under guardianship have complicated medical 
diagnoses	and	personal	situations	that	demand	a	significant	amount	of	a	guardian’s	attention	and	
time.	A	guardian	is	frequently	appointed	to	investigate	and	correct	financial	irregularities	that	may	be	
the	result	of	prior	financial	exploitation,	misappropriation	of	funds,	unpaid	bills,	etc.,	which	requires	
expertise, effort and time. Limiting a guardian’s fees to $100 per month in these cases creates a 
financially	untenable	situation	in	that	the	low	dollar	amount	does	not	allow	guardians	to	provide	the	
attention necessary to manage the complicated needs and issues of the IP.

C.  Task Force Recommendations

Based on Findings 1 and 2, the Task Force recommends that DHS’s 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.

D.  Timing and Fiscal Impact

This	recommendation	may	be	communicated	to	DHS	as	soon	as	is	practicable.	The	fiscal	
 
impact	of	increasing	the	monthly	amount	of	income	is	unknown,	but	will	likely	not	be	significant.	

VII.  Guardianship Support to be Billable as a Service Under the Medicaid Home 
and Community-Based Services Waiver

Low-income individuals with disabilities and functional impairments frequently are placed in a 

 
nursing home although a less restrictive, less expensive level of care would be preferable.

A.  Issue Statement

B.  Task Force Findings

1.	 In	FY	2014,	the	average	cost	of	individual	nursing	home	care	to	the	Pennsylvania	Medicaid	

	
program was $59,787 per year.175 The average cost of individual home and community-based 
services during the same period under a Medicaid Waiver was less than half the cost of a skilled 
nursing facility at $25,543 per year.176

2.   Independent guardians (attorneys, professional guardians, or other practitioners) may be 

 
paid only from an incapacitated person’s income. However, unlike guardians for individuals in 
facilities, guardians for incapacitated persons receiving home and community-based services under 
Medicaid are not eligible for the $100 fee for guardians. 

 
3.  Some individuals declared “incapacitated” by the Orphans’ Court can be maintained 
safely in the community with adequate support. Currently, however, many IPs are shifted into 
nursing homes.177 It should be recognized that the $100 fee would not be adequate to support IPs 
residing in a community setting, including the management of a household, bill payment, and the 
management of services. 

 
4.  As the costs for the home and community-based waiver are less than half the cost of 
nursing home payments, allowing IPs to age in place with community-based services has the 
potential to save tax dollars while improving the quality of life of those under guardianship.178

C.  Task Force Recommendations

Based on Findings 1, 2, 3 and 4, the Task Force recommends that DHS 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.

D.  Timing and Fiscal Impact

The	recommendation	may	be	communicated	to	DHS	as	soon	as	is	practicable.	The	fiscal	impact	

 
of amending a home and community-based services waiver to allow guardianship support to be 
billable as a waiver service is unknown. However, the anticipated savings to the Medicaid program 
due	to	diversion	from	nursing	homes	may	be	significant.

VIII. Court Collaboration with Federal Representative-Payment and Fiduciary 
Programs

A.  Issue Statement

The need for federal and state collaboration regarding representative-payment	and	fiduciary	
 
programs is “accentuated by ongoing demographic trends, including increases in the population 
of older people, as well as adults with dementia, intellectual disabilities, mental illness, substance 
abuse, and traumatic brain injuries.”179 “Representative-payment programs are not [systemically] 
coordinated with guardianship systems and other payee systems serving the same population, 
putting	vulnerable	adults	at	risk	of	financial	exploitation.”180

B.  Task Force Findings

1.  GAO found an overlap of federal agency and state court programs serving incapacitated 
 
populations, but the extent of this overlap is not known. “Some state courts and federal agencies 
share certain information on a case-by-case basis. However, the absence of a systematic means for 
compiling and exchanging pertinent information may leave many incapacitated people at risk and 
result	in	the	misuse	of	benefits	and	increased	federal	expense.”181

 
The ABA noted that, with respect to veterans, “some coordination does take place through 
the Uniform Veterans Guardianship Act. In states that have adopted this Act, state courts must 
notify the VA when they appoint a guardian for a veteran, and send copies of court orders and 
accountings.”182 Pennsylvania did not fully adopt the Uniform Veterans Guardianship Act, but 
enacted legislation making the Veterans Bureau (the precursor of the VA) a party in interest in the 
guardianship of incompetent veterans.183 

 
2.   In August 2013, the ABA issued a resolution that urged courts with jurisdiction over adult 
guardianships and governmental agencies administering representative-payment programs “to 
collaborate with respect to information sharing, training and education in order to protect vulnerable 
individuals	with	fiduciaries	who	make	financial	decisions	on	their	behalf.”184

OVERARCHING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ELDER LAW TASK FORCE 

226

OVERARCHING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ELDER LAW TASK FORCE 

227

The ABA’s resolution declared that “instances of misuse and exploitation of funds 

 
by	guardians,	representative	payees	and	VA	fiduciaries	have	been	identified	by	
the	U.S.	Government	Accountability	Office	and	other	significant	studies.	There	is	a	
compelling	need	to	protect	funds	managed	by	fiduciaries	in	all	three	arenas.”185 The 
resolution	asserted	the	“systemic”	sharing	of	information	about	specific	cases	and	
“coordination	among	SSA	field	offices,	VA	regional	offices,	and	state	.	.	.	courts	[will]	
make it easier to identify trends, develop training, recruit volunteers, and educate the 
public.”186

3.  In January 2014, CCJ and COSCA adopted a resolution urging improved coordination and 

 
collaboration between state courts and state and federal governmental agencies that administer 
representative-payment programs for the purposes of protecting vulnerable adults placed under 
guardianship.187

 
4.  The extent to which Pennsylvania’s courts send notices of guardianship appointment and 
other	information	to	federal	agencies	that	administer	representative-payment	or	fiduciary	programs	
is unknown. The AOPC does not exchange guardianship case data with federal agencies. 

 
5.  In June, 2014 NCSC and the Administrative Conference of the United States (“ACUS”) 
requested	that	judicial	officers	and	court	administrators	nationwide	participate	in	a	survey	on	state	
court adult guardianship practices. ACUS was engaged by SSA to collect information. The intent 
of the survey was to improve information sharing and coordination between SSA and the state 
courts.188 The AOPC coordinated the Pennsylvania courts’ survey responses.

C.  Task Force Recommendation

 
Pursuant to Findings 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, the Task Force recommends the Orphans’ Courts and 
the OEJC collaborate and coordinate with federal agencies that administer representative-payment 
and	fiduciary	programs	on	the	exchange	and	collection	of	adult	guardianship	data,	and	on	training	
and education for guardians about their responsibilities when they are appointed as representative 
payees. 

D.  Timing and Fiscal Impact

	 Outreach	to	representatives	from	representative-payment	and	fiduciary	programs can be made 
as	soon	as	is	practicable.	The	fiscal	impact	is	anticipated	to	be	minimal,	as	only	travel	and	meeting	
expenses will be incurred.

IX. Request for State Funding to Implement the Elder Law Task Force’s 
Recommendations

A.  Issue Statement

The	Task	Force’s	Report	identifies	the	pressing	needs	of	Pennsylvania’s	growing	population	

 
of elders and makes recommendations for addressing them. Going forward, government and 
community collaboration will be needed to prioritize the recommended initiatives that address those 
needs.

The Task Force recognizes that economic conditions have limited the capacity of government to 
 
support	new	and	existing	initiatives	in	many	areas.	However,	findings	of	the	Task	Force	demonstrate	
that the problems facing Pennsylvania’s elders will neither go away, nor, given an expanding elder 
population, likely diminish.

The challenge is to identify and provide available or new resources to support the needs of our 

 
elders. This report provides a solid basis from which to begin a collaborative discussion of these 
issues.

B.  Task Force Findings

 
1.  According to the JSGC’s Report of the Working Group on Guardianships, 61.4 percent of 
AAA respondents surveyed stated, “[c]urrent statutes, programs and services are not effective in 
meeting the current demand for guardianship,” and 84.1 percent predicted, “current programs and 
services will not be able to meet the need for guardianship services in the future.”189 Almost all 
respondents opined that the state should fund guardianship services.190 The Report also noted some 
counties need additional funds to ensure adequate numbers of guardians are available, particularly 
those	in	which	non-profit	organizations	provide	guardianship	services.191

2.  The NCSC’s Richard Van Duizend and Brenda Uekert lament that “elder abuse and 

 
exploitation is not a short-term problem. These cases will take up an increasing share of judicial, law 
enforcement, and social services caseloads for many years. The courts are in the best position to 
call attention to the problem and bring community leaders together to address it.”192 

The	New	York	City	Elder	Abuse	Center	observes	that	the	prevention	of	elder	abuse	must	be	
	
seen as an investment, not an expenditure, and asserts, “[r]esponding to and preventing elder abuse 
will save Medicare and Medicaid dollars in addition to ensuring the dignity of older adults.”193 

 
A 2011 report by the GAO found that, “[w]hile the demand for APS services is increasing 
substantially	and	cases	are	becoming	more	complex...funding	for	staffing,	training,	and	public	
awareness is not keeping pace.”194	Twenty-five	of	38	states	surveyed	by	the	GAO	ranked	insufficient	
funding	for	program	operations	as	“the	most	significant	challenge	they	face.”195 

3.  Improving access to justice and the courts for elders in the Commonwealth will require 
 
funding	for	accommodations	and/or	retrofits	to	court	facilities	in	many	counties;	statewide	outreach	
to elder, families, and the public regarding guardianship and elder abuse resources; and the 
provision of legal services for elders.

 
4.  Because of the importance of funding to the implementation of its recommendations, the 
Task Force created a Subcommittee on Funding (“Funding Subcommittee”) to study sources of 
funding for its proposed initiatives, which reported the following:

  Most governmental programs, including those involving the courts, are supported by 
funds appropriated by either state or federal legislative bodies. The importance and impact of 
governmental funding cannot be overstated.

	
The	imposition	of	filing	fees	and	surcharges	as	a	vehicle	to	fund	the	elder	initiatives	should	be	
a last resort because of their potential negative impact on a litigant’s right of access to the courts. 
However, there may be circumstances for which it may be appropriate to fund some elder initiatives 
by	allocating	a	portion	of	filing	fees	in	those	guardianship	cases	involving	significant	assets.	This	
idea warrants study. Given the importance of implementing the Task Force’s proposed initiatives and 
the chronic underfunding of the state court system, the Task Force concludes that the “last resort” 
option	of	utilizing	a	portion	of	filing	fees	only	in	cases	involving	significant	assets	deserves	careful	
study.

The Funding Subcommittee assessed the availability of federal resources, and took note of 

 
these viewpoints:

“I  am  deeply  concerned  about  the  funding  crisis  that  is  threatening  state  courts 
across the country. Combined with the impact of federal sequestration and other 
harmful cuts to Justice Department programs and the federal court system, these 
reductions are delaying or denying access to justice for millions of Americans.”196 
(U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder)

“Unlike  drug  courts  and  domestic  violence  courts,  other  kinds  of  courts  have  no 
specified	source	of	federal	funds	to	assist	with	planning	and	initial	implementation.”197 
(Richard Van Duizend and Brenda Uekert)

OVERARCHING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ELDER LAW TASK FORCE 

228

OVERARCHING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ELDER LAW TASK FORCE 

229

Although  there  is  substantial  federal  interest  in  state  guardianship  and  elder 
abuse	 issues	 and	 an	 awareness	 of	 state	 need	 for	 federal	 financial	 assistance,	
grant programs for the collection of guardianship data or to implement “innovative 
procedures and practices to prevent, detect, and address abuse and exploitation,” 
do not currently exist.198 (CCJ and COSCA)

“To  ensure  the  right  of  access  to  guardianship  services,  states  should  provide 
public funding for: [g]uardianship services for those unable to pay[;] [s]ervices to 
coordinate alternatives to guardianship[;] and the obligation to make such services 
available to all vulnerable persons.”199 “States need to look for creative solutions…
[which] could include Medicare and Medicaid funding sources…[possibly] from the 
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“PPACA”), which includes provisions 
that	are	intended	to	reduce	readmissions	for	Medicare	beneficiaries.”200 (National 
Guardianship Summit)

The Funding Subcommittee examined the possibility of receiving funding under the Elder 
 
Justice Act (“EJA”). Introduced in 2002 and enacted in 2010 as part of the Affordable Care Act, 
the	EJA	is	the	first	comprehensive	federal	legislation	to	address	elder	abuse.	The	EJA	takes	aim	
at developing and implementing strategies to decrease the likelihood of elder abuse, neglect and 
exploitation. However, no money has yet been appropriated for initiatives of the EJA. Opportunities 
for the Elder Law Task Force’s initiatives under the EJA may arise in the future, particularly for older 
adult protective services and law enforcement activities.

At the state level, legislatures elsewhere have begun to recognize the importance of elder 
 
issues,	and	have	provided	specific	funding	for	elder	justice	initiatives.	In	2013,	Indiana	Supreme	
Court Chief Justice Brent Dickson included a funding request of $520,000 for adult guardianship 
programs	in	the	Indiana	Supreme	Court’s	FY	2013-2015	budget.	In	order	to	“swell”	the	number	
of volunteer guardians, the Indiana General Assembly provided $500,000 (for each year of a 
two year budget cycle) to the Indiana Supreme Court to provide grants to programs and projects 
that	manage	volunteer	guardians.	In	January	2014,	an	Adult	Guardianship	Office	opened	within	
Indiana’s	State	Court	Administration	Office,	and	an	Adult	Guardianship	Advisory	Committee	is	to	be	
created “to set long-range goals and strategies for the grant program.”201

  Michigan Governor Rick Snyder’s 2015 budget includes “an additional $1 million investment to 
prevent elder abuse. The funds will aid in reporting, training, and developing a restitution initiative 
for	seniors	subject	to	physical	or	financial	abuse,”	and	will	include	additional	funds	for	legal	and	
advocacy services.202

C.  Task Force Recommendations

1.  The Task Force believes the initiatives contained in this Report are crucial to helping the 

 
court system and its elder justice partners address the needs of the Commonwealth’s growing 
number of elders. Based upon that belief and Findings 1, 2, 3 and 4, the Task Force recommends 
that the Legislature – in the interest of all Pennsylvanians – provide an annual appropriation to 
the Supreme Court for the implementation and ongoing support of the Task Force’s initiatives and 
explore the possibility of using funds from any other available sources, such as the Pennsylvania 
Lottery. Given the scope of guardianship, elder abuse and neglect, and access to justice issues in 
Pennsylvania, adequate funding from the Legislature is critical to implementing the elder law reform 
efforts outlined in this Report. 

 
2.  Also pursuant to Finding 4, the Task Force recommends that the Advisory Council study 
the	feasibility	and	implications	of	allocating	a	portion	of	filing	fees	in	those	guardianship	cases	that	
involve	significant	assets	to	funding	initiatives	in	this	Report.	

D.  Timing and Fiscal Impact

The amount of the appropriation to be requested annually will be determined by the Supreme 
 
Court with input from the Advisory Council and OEJC, and will be based on the particular initiatives 

to be implemented each year. Many of the recommendations contained in this Report will require 
significant	funding,	while	others	will	entail	only	modest	funding.	It	is	anticipated	that	such	a	funding	
request	will	be	made	in	the	FY	2016-17	Budget	Request.	

E.  Additional Comments

The Funding Subcommittee appreciates that many of the recommendations for better serving 

 
elders will not necessarily fall under the courts.

  Richard Van	Duizend	and	Brenda	Uekert	emphasize	the	benefits	of	a	multidisciplinary	
approach towards funding: “[c]ollaboration…helps identify sources of possible additional funding 
for supplementary services from federal health, mental health, human services, and criminal 
justice agencies.”203 The Task Force believes that the collaborative relationships established by its 
members will help in identifying additional funding sources as its initiatives are implemented. 

X.  Request for Federal Funding to Implement the Elder Law Task Force’s 
Recommendations

  Congressional action is needed to increase federal funding for services to elder victims of crime 
and elders under guardianship. Increased federal funding could be used to implement many of the 
initiatives recommended in this Report.

A.  Issue Statement

B.  Task Force Findings

 
1.  The Elder Abuse and Neglect Committee discussed ways in which elders who are crime 
victims can receive assistance and services, and concluded that programs which provide services 
to elder victims are vastly underfunded and understaffed. The Committee believes increased federal 
funding for these programs is critically important.

2.  The Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency (“PCCD”) appropriates federal 

 
grant funds provided to the Commonwealth, and, as such, administers the  Crime Victims Fund 
(“Fund”). The Fund was created by the Victims of Crime Act (“VOCA”), a  special account dedicated 
solely to assisting an average of 3.7 million diverse victims annually.204

	
The	Fund	is	not	financed	by	taxpayers,	but	rather	through	fines	and	penalties	paid	by	 convicted	
federal	offenders.	Thus,	spending	is	budget	neutral	and	does	not	add	to	the	national	 debt	or	deficit.	
Through VOCA, millions of dollars are invested annually in compensation  and assistance to victims 
in every state.

Starting	in	2000,	in	response	to	large	fluctuations	in	deposits,	Congress	placed	a	cap	on	the	
	
funds available for distribution. These annual caps were intended to maintain the Fund as a stable 
source	of	support	for	future	victim	services.	Today,	however,	the	current	FY	2014	cap	of	$745	
million severely and unduly  restricts the funding of the victim services the Fund was created to 
support. The National Association of VOCA Assistance Administrators (“NAVAA”) notes that in 2014, 
there	will	be	$11.431	billion	in	the	Fund	according	to	projections	from	the	Office	of	Management	
and  Budget.205 The Elder Abuse and Neglect Committee feels strongly that the cap on VOCA funds 
should be raised so the Task Force can pursue such funding for its elder abuse initiatives, including, 
but not limited to, establishing elder courts and programs that improve judicial and victim services 
responses in elder abuse and neglect cases.

 
3.  On March 31, 2014, eighty members of the U.S. House of Representatives sent a  letter 
to the Chairman and Ranking Members of the U.S. House Committee on Appropriations  and the 
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies.  See Appendix A. Among 
other things, the letter’s signers urged raising the 2015 VOCA cap  “to no less than $1.489 billion, 
the amount deposited in 2013.”206

 
4.  On April 11, 2014, twenty-four U.S. Senators sent a letter similar to the one above to the 
Chairwoman and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and Science of the 

OVERARCHING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ELDER LAW TASK FORCE 

230

OVERARCHING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ELDER LAW TASK FORCE 

231

Senate Appropriations Committee. See Appendix B. Among other things, the Senators requested 
that “outlays from the Crime Victims Fund be as  high as possible to support core VOCA assistance 
programs	and	fulfill	 the	needs	of	victims	across	the	country.”207 

 
5.  On a related front, on July 23, 2013,  Chief Justice Myron T. Steele of the Supreme Court 
of  Delaware and COSCA President Donald D. Goodnow sent a letter to the Assistant Secretary of 
Aging, Administration for Community Living at the U.S. Department of Health and Human  Services. 
The letter discussed several recommendations of which the CCJ and COSCA wanted the Elder 
Justice Coordinating Council to be aware, including one that called for the creation of a national 
“GCIP or similar pilot program to improve court oversight and collaboration between courts and 
government agencies that  administer representative-payment programs.”208 

 
The letter further detailed CCJ’s and COSCA’s support of the proposed Court-Appointed 
Guardian Accountability and Senior Protection Act.  Chief Justice Steele and President Goodnow 
observed the bill is  modeled after the Child Welfare Court Improvement Program (“CIP”), which was 
established in  1993 and has effectively reduced judicial delay in dependency cases, enhanced the 
ability of  judges and lawyers to handle complex cases and strengthened the review and monitoring 
of  dependency cases. 

At their annual meeting one week later, CCJ and COSCA issued Resolution 6, In Support  of 

 
the Court-Appointed Guardian Accountability and Senior Protection Act. The Resolution  urged 
Congress	to	enact	the	Act	and	appropriate	sufficient	funds	to	implement	its	provisions. 209

C.  Task Force Recommendations

 
1.  Based on Findings 1, 2, 3, and 4, the Task Force recommends the U.S. House Committee 
on Appropriations and the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science  and Related Agencies 
act on the requests contained in the March 31, 2014 letter sent by members of the House of 
Representatives; and that the U.S. Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and Science of the 
Senate Appropriations Committee act on the requests contained in the April 11, 2014 letter sent by 
U.S. Senators in order to increase the VOCA cap.

2.  Based on Finding 5, the Task Force recommends that the federal government act  on 

 
proposed legislation that would fund state GCIP programs similar to the CIP.

D.  Timing and Fiscal Impact

 
The Task Force’s support for the requests outlined in the letters from the U.S. Senators and 
Representatives and for action by the federal government to fund a GCIP can be communicated as 
soon as is practicable.

In the event federal funds become available through VOCA or for the establishment of a GCIP, 

 
the Supreme Court will apply for them to support its elder abuse initiatives and the OEJC.

XI. Reporting Elder Abuse

A.  Issue Statement

The U.S. Department of Justice opines that “[n]o single entity can address elder abuse by itself. 

 
Everyone can make a difference.”210 Elder abuse is not just a domestic issue for individuals and 
families — communities must also become conscious of the problem. “[T]he battle against elder 
abuse can only be won with grassroots action at the community and individual level. … Turning 
the tide against elder abuse requires much greater public commitment, so every American will 
recognize elder abuse when they see it and know what to do if they encounter it.”211 

B.  Task Force Findings

1.  June 2014 was proclaimed “Elder Abuse Awareness Month” by Pennsylvania Governor Tom 

 
Corbett to call attention to the growing problem of elder abuse in the Commonwealth. Brian Duke, 
Secretary of the Department of Aging, urged Pennsylvanians to watch for signs of elder abuse and 

to	confidentially	report	any	and	all	suspicions	of	elder	abuse	using	a	statewide	hotline.	“Now	is	the	
perfect time to remind every Pennsylvanian of our shared responsibility to protect the health, safety, 
dignity and rights of older adults. Although taking a stand against elder abuse requires a total team 
effort, all action starts at an individual level – one person, one action and one state.”212

2.  Many free publications are available on the Internet to help elders and those who care about 

 
them learn the signs of elder abuse and how to prevent it. 

 
3.  There are two statewide hotlines Pennsylvanians can use to report suspected elder 
abuse. The Department of Aging urges any person who believes an elder is being abused, 
neglected, exploited, or abandoned to call its statewide Elder Abuse Hotline at 1-800-490-8505. 
The Department of Aging’s hotline is operational twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. The 
hotline automatically reads a caller’s area code and directs the call to the AAA in the county in which 
the call is placed. If the caller is reporting abuse in a different county, the call is redirected to the 
AAA in the county in which the abuse occurred. 

 
The OAG’s website states, “[e]lder abuse complaints are received from the toll free Elder 
Abuse Hotline 1-866-623-2137….Because various state agencies, local law enforcement, criminal 
investigators	and	prosecutors	work	together	to	resolve	cases	of	elder	victimization,	it	may	be	difficult	
to know where to report certain elder abuse concerns. A toll free call to the Elder Abuse Unit to 
report	the	abuse,	neglect,	financial	exploitation	or	victimization	of	an	older	Pennsylvania	citizen,	
can	provide	necessary	assistance	to	help	address	your	questions	efficiently	and	expeditiously.”213 
According to the testimony of OAG’s David Shallcross before the Pennsylvania House Aging and 
Older Adult Services Committee, after-hours callers receive a message advising that if immediate 
assistance is needed, callers should contact the local AAA, and if it is an emergency, callers should 
dial 911.214

Local resources about elder abuse may be found on the Department of Aging’s Website:  

 
http://www.aging.state.pa.us/, or on the OAG’s website: http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/. Other local 
resources for elders may be found online at www.eldercare.gov or by telephoning the toll-free Elder 
Care Locator at 1-800-677-1116. For general information, see the Elder Law Task Force Website: 
http://www.pacourts.us/courts/supreme-court/committees/supreme-court-boards/elder-law-task-
force. 

For	a	fact	sheet	on	“red	flags”	of	abuse,	see	Appendix	C.	To	learn	about	11	things	anyone	
 
can do to help prevent elder abuse, see Appendix D. Other national resources about elder abuse 
prevention may be found at www.ncea.aoa.gov or www.centeronelderabuse.org. 

C.  Task Force Recommendations

1.  Based on Findings 1, 2 and 3, the Task Force believes everyone has a responsibility to 
 
protect elders from abuse, and recommends that Pennsylvanians who believe an elder is displaying 
any warning signs of mistreatment should report such symptoms to the Department of Aging or 
OAG using either hotline. Abuse reports can be made on behalf of an older adult whether the 
person lives in his or her home or in a care facility (nursing facility, personal care home, hospital, 
etc.). A caller may remain anonymous, and has legal protection from retaliation, discrimination and 
civil or criminal prosecution. If the person reporting the abuse is unsure whether it has occurred, the 
incident should still be reported, as the AAA will ascertain whether abuse has been committed.

2.	 Also,	based	on	the	above	findings,	the	Task	Force	recommends	that	all	Pennsylvanians	

	
learn the signs that indicate elder abuse, and take steps to prevent it. 

D.  Timing and Fiscal Impact

 

This recommendation may be implemented immediately and does not entail any costs.

OVERARCHING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ELDER LAW TASK FORCE 

232

CATEGORIZED RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ELDER LAW TASK FORCE 

233

Categorized Recommendations of  
The Elder Law Task Force 

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. 

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.

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. 

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. 

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. See also Overarching Administrative Findings and 
Recommendations, §IV.C. 

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. 

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.

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

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.

Recommendation 10:   The Task Force recommends that judges be informed when the AIP was 
previously involved in a case under OAPSA, 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.

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.

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.

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.

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 and 
Appendix H thereto. 

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.

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. 

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. 

CATEGORIZED RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ELDER LAW TASK FORCE 

234

CATEGORIZED RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ELDER LAW TASK FORCE 

235

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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 and Appendix K thereto. 

Recommendation 24:   The Task Force recommends that the AOPC’s judicial automation plan for an 
Orphans’ 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 Orphans’ Court Common Pleas Court Management System (“CPCMS”) 
application to provide guardianship monitoring data to court staff. See Guardianship Monitoring 
Committee Report, §V.C.6. 

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. 

Recommendation 26:   The Task Force recommends that the Bill of Rights of an Alleged 
Incapacitated Person be provided to the AIP, as well as to any family members or concerned parties, at 
the time he or she is served with the petition, and that the Bill of Rights of an Incapacitated Person 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. 

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. 

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. 

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.

Recommendation 30:   The Task Force recommends that the Supreme Court consider providing 
continuing legal education (“CLE”) credits to encourage active attorneys to provide pro bono services to 
elder Pennsylvanians. See Elder Abuse and Neglect Committee Report, §I.C.2.e.

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.

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. See 
also Overarching Administrative Findings and Recommendations, §IV.C.

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	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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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. 

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	

CATEGORIZED RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ELDER LAW TASK FORCE 

236

CATEGORIZED RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ELDER LAW TASK FORCE 

237

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.

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.

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..

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. This training should include, but not be limited to matters of liability and ethics. See 
Guardians and Counsel Committee Report, §III.C.1.a. 

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.

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.

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

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. 

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.

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

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

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. See 
Guardianship Monitoring Committee Report, §III.C.1.

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.

CATEGORIZED RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ELDER LAW TASK FORCE 

238

CATEGORIZED RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ELDER LAW TASK FORCE 

239

Recommendation 60:   The Task Force recommends that guardians be required, through 
amendment to the Orphans’ Court Procedural Rules, to complete a Firearms Search (Appendix D to 
the Guardianship Monitoring Committee Report) within 90 days of appointment. See Guardianship 
Monitoring Committee Report, §III.C.3. 

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.

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. 

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. 

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

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. 

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,	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. 

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. and §X.C.1.a.

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. 

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.

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. and §X.C.1.d. 

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 and §X.C.1.b.

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. 

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. 

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.

Recommendation 75:   The Task Force recommends that the OEJC work with the SSA, VA, RRB 
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. 

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. 

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 dialog with federal agencies such as the SSA, VA, and RRB, 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, and 
§X.C.1.e., f. and g. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

Recommendation 81:   The Task Force recommends that the Advisory Council and the OEJC study 
NGA 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. 

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. 

CATEGORIZED RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ELDER LAW TASK FORCE 

240

CATEGORIZED RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ELDER LAW TASK FORCE 

241

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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.

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.

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. 

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. 

RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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 

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.

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. 

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

CATEGORIZED RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ELDER LAW TASK FORCE 

242

CATEGORIZED RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ELDER LAW TASK FORCE 

243

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Recommendation 115:   The Task Force recommends that the Pennsylvania Department of Aging 
determine	if	it	should	request	copies	of	SARs	from	the	Pennsylvania	Attorney	General’s	Office.	See 
Elder Abuse and Neglect Committee Report, §I.C.2.a.iv.

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.

Recommendation 117:   The	Task	Force	recommends	that	the	OAG	and	the	PSP	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.

Recommendation 118:   The Task Force recommends that DHS 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.

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.

RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

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

Recommendation 121:   The Task Force recommends that the federal government act  on proposed 
legislation that would fund a state GCIP program similar to the CIP. See Overarching Administrative 
Findings and Recommendations, §X.C.2.

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.

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

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.

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. 

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. 

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. 

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 
and i. 

CATEGORIZED RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ELDER LAW TASK FORCE 

244

CATEGORIZED RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ELDER LAW TASK FORCE 

245

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

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.

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.

Abbreviations and Acronyms

AAA
AARP
ABA
Act 95 of 2014
ACUS
ADA
Advisory Council 
Advisory Committee
AIP
AOPC
APS
ARC
BSA
CARIE
CASA
CCJ
CEC
CIP
CLE
COSCA
CPCMS
DA
Department of Aging
DHS

EJA
FBI
Fund
FY
GAL
GAO
GCIP
GSA
GSAI

HB
HHS
Institute

IP
JSGC

Area Agency on Aging
American Association of Retired Persons
American Bar Association
Act of July 2, 2014, P.L. 855, No. 95
Administrative Conference of the United States
Assistant District Attorney
Advisory Council on Elder Justice in the Courts
Advisory Committee on Decedents’ Estates Laws
Alleged Incapacitated Person
Administrative	Office	of	Pennsylvania	Courts
Adult Protective Services
National Association for Retarded Citizens
Bank Secrecy Act
Center for Advocacy for the Rights and Interests of the Elderly
Court Appointed Special Advocates
Conference of Chief Justices
Center for Elders and the Courts
Child Welfare Court Improvement Program
Continuing Legal Education
Conference of State Court Administrators
Common Pleas Case Management System
District Attorney
Pennsylvania Department of Aging
Pennsylvania Department of Human Services (formerly known as the 
Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare)
Elder Justice Act
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Crime Victims Fund
Fiscal	Year
Guardian ad Litem
United	States	Government	Accountability	Office
Guardianship Court Improvement Program
Guardianship Support Agency
Guardianship Support Agency, Inc. (Lehigh County’s Guardianship 
Support Agency)
House Bill
United States Department of Health and Human Services
Institute on Protective Services at Temple University’s College of 
Health Professionals and Social Work, Harrisburg Campus
Incapacitated Person
Pennsylvania Joint State Government Commission

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

246

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

247

Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error Act
Model Code of Ethics for Guardians (Nat’l Guardianship Ass’n 1988)
National Adult Protective Services Association
Third National Guardianship Summit 

MCARE Act
Model Code
NAPSA
National Guardianship 
Summit
NAVAA
NCEA
NCSC
NGA
NORS
OAG
OAPSA
OCFC
OEJC
OPM
OVA
OVS
Pa.R.Crim.P.
Pa.R.P.C.
PBA
PBI
PCCD
PDA
PFA
POA
POLST 
PPACA
PSP
RRB
SAR
SB
SLC
Supreme Court
SSA
Task Force
UJS
UPAA
VA
VOCA

National Association of VOCA Assistance Administrators
National Center on Elder Abuse
National Center for State Courts
National Guardianship Association
National Ombudsman Reporting System
Pennsylvania	Office	of	Attorney	General
Older Adults Protective Services Act
Office	of	Children	and	Families	in	the	Courts
Office	of	Elder	Justice	in	the	Courts
United	States	Office	of	Personnel	Management
Office	of	the	Victim	Advocate
Office	of	Victim	Services
Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure
Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct
Pennsylvania Bar Association
Pennsylvania Bar Institute
Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency
Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association
Protection From Abuse
Power of Attorney
Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
Pennsylvania State Police
United States Railroad Retirement Board
Suspicious Activity Report
Senate Bill
SeniorLAW Center
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
United States Social Security Administration
Elder Law Task Force
Unified	Judicial	System	of	Pennsylvania
Uniform Power of Attorney Act 
United States Department of Veterans Affairs
Victims of Crime Act

Adjudication of Incapacity The  legal  proceeding  conducted  pursuant  to  20  Pa.C.S.  §  5501  et 

“The desertion of an older adult by a caretaker”. 35 P.S. § 10225.103.
The occurrence of one or more of the following acts:
(1)	 The	

injury,	 unreasonable	 confinement,	
intimidation  or  punishment  with  resulting  physical  harm, 
pain or mental anguish.

infliction	 of	

(2)  The willful deprivation by a caretaker of goods or services 
which are necessary to maintain physical or mental health.
(3)	 Sexual	harassment,	rape	or	abuse,	as	defined	in	the	act	
of  October  7,  1976  (P.L.1090,  No.218),  known  as  the 
Protection From Abuse Act.

35 P.S. § 10225.103.

seq. by which a court determines that an individual is incapacitated. 
The	office	of	the	Court	Administrator	of	Pennsylvania,	who,	through	
AOPC,  assists  the  Supreme  Court  in  administering  Pennsylvania’s 
judicial system and is responsible for the prompt and proper disposition 
of the business of all courts. See Pa.R.J.A. 501(a).
[A]ctivities, resources and supports provided to older adults under [the 
Older Adults Protective Services Act, 35 P.S. § 10225.101 et seq.] to 
detect, prevent, reduce or eliminate abuse, neglect, exploitation and 
abandonment. 35 P.S. § 10225.103.
A person authorized by another to act in his or her place. Black’s Law 
Dictionary (9th ed. 2009).
A person who is claimed to be incapacitated in a petition for adjudication 
of incapacity. If the petition is granted, the person is referred to as an 
Incapacitated Person (IP).
A progressive mental deterioration that can occur in middle or old age, 
due to generalized degeneration of the brain and which is the most 
common cause of premature senility.
“[T]he  single  local  agency  designated  by  the  [Department  of Aging] 
within each planning and service area to administer the delivery of a 
comprehensive and coordinated plan of social and other services and 
activities.” 71 P.S. § 581-2.
As used in this report, a housing facility for people with disabilities.

As  used  in  this  report,  a  means,  other  than  a  bond,  of  assuring  a 
proposed guardian has the ability to make the incapacitated person 
whole in the event of loss in the assets of the estate occasioned by 
the  proposed  guardian’s  breach  of  the  applicable  standard  or  care, 
including,  but  not  limited  to,  insurance,  letters  of  credit,  pledging  of 
assets, etc. 
As used in this report, the payment for legal services.
An  organization  of  lawyers  established  to  promote  professional 
competence, enforce standards of ethical conduct, and encourage a 
spirit of public service among members of the legal profession.

Administrative	Office	of	
the Pennsylvania Courts 
(AOPC)

Adult Protective Services 
or Protective Services

Agent

Alleged Incapacitated 
Person (AIP)

Alzheimer’s Disease

Area Agency on Aging 
(AAA)

Assisted Living 
Residences or Assisted 
Living Facility
Assurance of Financial 
Responsibility

Attorneys’ Fees
Bar Association

248

Definitions

Abandonment
Abuse

DEFINITIONS

DEFINITIONS

249

Bench Book

Bill of Rights

Bond

Clerk of Courts

Cognitive Impairment

Common Pleas Case 
Management System
Conservatorship
Continuing Legal 
Education (CLE) 
Corporate Fiduciary

As used in this report, a book providing an overview of legal rules and 
other information for a judge, and which can be used as a resource 
guide to assist in the disposition of a case.
As used in this report, a formal summary of those rights and liberties 
considered essential to a people or group of people.
As	used	in	this	report,	a	type	of	fiduciary	bond,	sometimes	referred	
to	as	a	surety	bond,	required	by	a	court	to	be	filed	by	a	guardian	to	
insure proper performance of his or her duties. Black’s Law Dictionary, 
201 (9th ed. 2009). 
An	official	appointed	by	a	court	or	elected	to	oversee	administrative,	
nonjudicial activities of the court.
An  intermediate  stage  between  the  expected  cognitive  decline  of 
normal  aging  and  the  more  serious  decline  of  dementia,  which  can 
involve problems with memory, language, thinking and judgment that 
are greater than normal age-related changes.
The courts’ statewide, electronic case management system.

See	definition	of	Guardianship.
The  education  requirements  that  active  attorneys  in  Pennsylvania 
must complete every year. See Pa.R.C.L.E. 101 et seq. 
A  corporate  entity,  such  as  a  bank  or  trust  company,  serving  as  a 
guardian. 

Court Administrative Staff As  used  in  this  report,  the  employees  of  the  courts  involved  in 

Court Administrator

guardianship matters.
An	officer	appointed	or	elected	to	oversee	administrative,	nonjudicial	
activities of the court. 

Court Appointed Counsel As used in this report, the attorney appointed by the court to represent 

Court Rules 

Court-Appointed Special 
Advocates (CASA)

an individual.
The rules promulgated by the Supreme Court to govern various legal 
proceedings  such  as  the  procedural  rules  of  court,  attorney  and 
judicial disciplinary rules, CLE rules, etc.
A network of 951 community-based programs that recruit, train and 
support citizen-volunteers to advocate for the best interests of abused 
and neglected children in courtrooms and communities.
As  used  in  this  report,  a  criminal  records  check  conducted  by  the 
Pennsylvania State Police and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Criminal Background 
Check
Decedents’ Estates Laws Pennsylvania’s Probate, Estates and Fiduciaries Code, 20 Pa. C.S. § 

Defendants

Dementia

Deposition

Diminished Capacity

101 et seq. and related statutes.
In a civil case, the individual or entity being sued; in a criminal case, 
the individual or entity charged with a crime.
A chronic or persistent disorder of the mental processes caused by 
brain disease or injury and marked by memory disorders, personality 
changes and impaired reasoning.
The recorded, sworn testimony of a witness taken under oath outside 
of court. 
As  used  in  this  report,  a  client’s  decreased  capacity  “to  make 
adequately considered decisions in connection with a representation 
. . . due either to minority, mental impairment or some other reason.” 
Pa.R.P.C. 1.14(a).

representatives,  guardians  and 

The  Pennsylvania  Rules  of  Professional  Conduct  (Pa.R.P.C.)  for 
attorneys,  and  the  Pennsylvania  Rules  of  Disciplinary  Enforcement 
(Pa.R.D.E.).
As  used  in  this  report,  the  legal  authorization  for  one  person  to  act 
on  behalf  of  another  individual  that  remains  in  effect  even  after  the 
individual becomes incapacitated.
A  court  designed  specially  to  address  legal  proceedings  involving 
elders.
A guardian appointed “when it appears that the [AIP] lacks capacity, 
is in need of a guardian and a failure to make such appointment will 
result in irreparable harm to the [AIP] or their estate.” 20 Pa.C.S. § 
5513.
An act or course of conduct by a caretaker or other person against an 
older adult or an older adult’s resources, without the informed consent 
of the older adult or with consent obtained through misrepresentation, 
coercion or threats of force, that results in monetary, personal or other 
benefit,	gain	or	profit	for	the	perpetrator	or	monetary	or	personal	loss	
to the older adult. 35 P.S. § 10225.103
“[P]ersonal 
trustees,  whether 
domiciliary or ancillary, individual or corporate subject to the jurisdiction 
of the orphans’ court division.” 20 Pa.C.S. § 102. 
“A	duty	to	act	for	someone	else’s	benefit,	while	subordinating	one’s	
personal interests to that of the other person.” Black’s Law Dictionary, 
581 (9th ed. 2009). 
As  used  in  this  report,  a  program  established  to  protect  individuals 
and	other	beneficiaries	who,	due	to	injury,	disease	or	age,	are	unable	
to	manage	their	financial	affairs.
An	order	of	the	court,	fully	and	finally	disposing	of	litigation.
As  used  in  this  report,  any  of  the  offenses  under  the  following 
provisions  of  18  Pa.C.S.  (relating  to  crimes  and  offenses):  theft  by 
unlawful  taking  or  disposition;  theft  by  deception;  theft  by  extortion; 
theft  of  property  lost,  mislaid,  or  delivered  by  mistake;  receiving 
stolen  property;  theft  of  services;  theft  by  failure  to  make  required 
disposition  of  funds  received;  unauthorized  use  of  automobiles  and 
other vehicles; theft from a motor vehicle; forgery; bad checks; access 
device  fraud;  deceptive  or  fraudulent  business  practices;  insurance 
fraud and identity theft.
As used in this report, the illegal or improper use of an elder’s funds, 
property or assets.
The  legislative  branch  of  the  government  of  the  Commonwealth  of 
Pennsylvania comprised of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives 
and the Pennsylvania Senate.
A	 fiduciary	 responsible	 for	 the	 care	 and	 management	 of	 the	 estate	
(i.e., a guardian of the estate) or the person (i.e., a guardian of the 
person) of an incapacitated person. See 20 Pa.C.S. § 102.
A  person  appointed  by  a  court  to  represent  interests  of  a  minor  or 
incapacitated person involved in legal proceedings.
The legal arrangement under which a guardian has the legal right and 
duty  to  care  for  an  incapacitated  person  and/or  his  or  her  property. 
See Black’s Law Dictionary, 776 (9th ed. 2009). 

Disciplinary Rules

Durable Power of 
Attorney

Elder Court

Emergency Guardian

Exploitation

DEFINITIONS

Fiduciary

Fiduciary Duty

Fiduciary Program

Final Decree
Financial Crimes

Financial Exploitation

General Assembly

Guardian

Guardian ad Litem

Guardianship

250

DEFINITIONS

251

Guardianship Support 
Agency (GSA) 

Home Rule County

Id.

Incapacitated Person (IP)

Interdisciplinary Teams

Inter vivos

Inventory

Joint State Government 
Commission (JSGC)

Limited Guardianship

Model Code of Ethics 
(Model Code)

National Guardianship 
Association Standards of 
Practice (NGA Standards)

National Probate Court 
Standards

An  agency  created  pursuant  to  20  Pa.C.S.  §§  5551-55  “to  provide 
services,  as  an  alternative  to  guardianship,  to  individuals  whose 
decision-making  ability  is  impaired,  to  serve  as  guardian  when  an 
individual is found to need a guardian and no other person is willing 
and	 qualified	 to	 serve	 and	 to	 provide	 services	 to	 courts,	 guardians	
and others.” 20 Pa.C.S. § 5551.
As  used  in  this  report,  a  county  where  the  basic  authority  to  act  in 
municipal  affairs  is  transferred  from  state  law,  as  set  forth  by  the 
General Assembly, to a local charter, adopted and amended by the 
voters.
A  signal  referring  to  the  authority  or  citation  immediately  before. 
Black’s Law Dictionary, 813 (9th ed. 2009).
“[A]n adult whose ability to receive and evaluate information effectively 
and	communicate	decisions	in	any	way	is	impaired	to	such	a	significant	
extent	 that	 he	 is	 partially	 or	 totally	 unable	 to	 manage	 his	 financial	
resources  or  to  meet  essential  requirements  for  his  physical  health 
and safety.” 20 Pa.C.S. § 5501.
An adjective describing a transfer of property during life, rather than by 
will or in contemplation of an imminent death. Black’s Law Dictionary, 
898 (9th ed. 2009).
The  teams  described  in  (II)(C)(1)(d)  modeled  after  the  Supreme 
Court’s Children’s Roundtable Initiative and comprised of individuals 
from	different	fields	to	advise	and	support	guardians	and	the	court.
A guardian’s required statement, within three months of receiving any 
real  or  personal  estate  of  his  ward,  of  all  received  property  and  all 
anticipated receipt of property. See 20 Pa.C.S. § 5412. 
The  primary,  non-partisan  research  organization  for  the  General 
Assembly that provides a readily available mechanism for conducting 
interdisciplinary studies. See 46 P.S. §§ 65 & 66.
A	 guardianship	 for	 a	 person	 whom	 the	 court	 finds	 to	 be	 partially	
incapacitated, wherein the guardian has only those powers consistent 
with	the	court’s	findings	of	the	person’s	limitations.	See 20 Pa.C.S. § 
5512.1(b), (d).
The  Model  Code  of  Ethics  for  Guardians  adopted  by  the  National 
Guardianship Association in 1988, which “suggest[s] ethical and legal 
standards designed to simplify and improve” the guardian’s decision 
making  process.  A  Model  Code  of  Ethics  for  Guardians  §  I  (Nat’l 
Guardianship Ass’n 1988). 
The	Standards,	first	adopted	by	the	National	Guardianship	Association	
in  2000,  which  guide  guardians  in  executing  their  duties  and 
responsibilities. Standards of Practice Preamble (Nat’l Guardianship 
Ass’n 4th ed. 2013).
The standards originally published in 1993 by the National College of 
Probate Court Judges and revised in 2013, which “promote uniformity, 
consistency, and continued improvement in the operations of probate 
courts.” National Probate Court Standards (Nat’l Coll. of Probate Ct. 
Judges 2013).

“The  failure  to  provide  for  oneself  or  the  failure  of  a  caretaker  to 
provide goods or services essential to avoid a clear and serious threat 
to physical or mental health. An older adult who does not consent to 
the provision of protective services will not be found to be neglected 
solely on the grounds of environmental factors which are beyond the 
control of the older adult or the caretaker, such as inadequate housing, 
furnishings, income, clothing or medical care.” 35 P.S. § 10225.103.
As used in this report, a guardian with two or fewer guardianships at 
the same time. 
A number used under Pennsylvania Sentencing Guidelines to denote 
the seriousness of an offense, with higher numbers representing more 
serious offenses.
As used in this report, an entity that sells bonds for guardians on the 
internet.
As used in this report, the division of a court of common pleas exercising 
jurisdiction  as  provided  in  20  Pa.  C.S.  §  711  over  guardianships  of 
incapacitated persons.
The  rules  governing  practice  and  procedure  in  the  orphans’  courts 
throughout the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
“Any  premises  in  which  food,  shelter  and  personal  care  assistance 
or  supervision  .  .  .  are  provided  for  a  period  exceeding  twenty-four 
hours for four or more adults who are not relatives of the operator,” 
who  do  not  require  the  services  in  or  of  a  licensed  long-term  care 
facility,  but  “who  require  assistance  or  supervision  in  such  matters 
as	 dressing,	 bathing,	 diet,	 financial	 management,	 evacuation	 of	 a	
residence in the event of an emergency or medication prescribed for 
self-administration.” 62 P.S. § 1001.
The	petition	filed	pursuant	to	20	Pa.C.S. § 5501 et seq. to have an 
alleged incapacitated person declared incapacitated.
As	 used	 in	 this	 report,	 the	 party	 filing	 a	 petition	 for	 adjudication	 of	
incapacity. 20 Pa.C.S. § 5511(a).
A person, corporation, legal entity, etc., initiating a civil lawsuit, also 
called complainant or petitioner.
A	guardianship	for	a	person	the	court	finds	to	be	totally	incapacitated	
and  in  need  of  complete  guardianship  services.  See  20  Pa.C.S.  § 
5512.1(c) & (e).
A set of medical orders, similar to a do-not-resuscitate order. 

Legal authorization for one person to act on behalf of another 
individual. 
A judge of the court of common pleas of a judicial district who exercises 
general  supervision  and  administrative  authority  over  judges  and 
magisterial district judges within the judicial district.

Non-Professional 
Guardian
Offense Gravity Score

Online Bonding Service

Orphans’ Court Division 
(Orphans’ Court)

Orphans’ Court 
Procedural Rules
Personal Care Homes

Petition for Adjudication of 
Incapacity
Petitioner

Plaintiff

Plenary Guardianship

Physician Orders for 
Life-Sustaining Treatment 
(POLST)
Power of Attorney (POA)

President Judge

Neglect

DEFINITIONS

252

DEFINITIONS

253

Principal

Private Counsel

Private Guardian

Private Right of Action

Pro Bono

Probate Court
Professional Guardian

Proposed Guardian

Protection From Abuse 
Order (PFA) 
Prothonotary
Public Guardian

Representative Payee

Representative-Payment 
Program
Respondent

Sealed File

Self-Neglect

In the context of 20 Pa.C.S. § 5461(d), “an individual who executes 
an advance health care directive, designates an individual to act or 
disqualifies	an	individual	from	acting	as	a	health	care	representative,	
or  an  individual  for  whom  a  health  care  representative  acts  in 
accordance with [the laws]. 20 Pa.C.S. § 5422.

In the context of a power of attorney, the individual who has executed 
the power of attorney, permitting or directing another to act on his or 
her behalf, subject to his or her direction and control.
As	used	in	this	report,	an	advocate,	counsel	or	official	agent	employed	
in preparing, managing and trying cases in the courts who is employed 
by a private person rather than by a government or subdivision thereof.
A	 fiduciary	 responsible	 for	 the	 care	 and	 management	 of	 the	 estate	
(i.e., a guardian of the estate) or the person (i.e., a guardian of the 
person)  of  an  incapacitated  person  who  is  employed  by  a  private 
person  rather  than  by  a  government  or  subdivision  thereof.  See 
definition	of	Guardian.
As  used  in  this  report,  and  as  referenced  in  HB  2057,  any  older 
adult	who	is	injured	by	an	act	of	financial	exploitation	or	any	person	
authorized to act on behalf of the older adult may institute an action, in 
the court of common pleas, or any other court of competent jurisdiction, 
for damages sustained by the older adult.
Legal services performed free of charge. Black’s Law Dictionary, 1323 
(9th ed. 2009).
Court with authority to supervise estate administration.
As used in this report, persons serving as guardian for two or more 
non-family members at the same time.
The person or entity proposed to the court in the petition for adjudication 
of incapacity to serve as guardian. 20 Pa.C.S. § 5511(e). 
A court order directing an abuser to cease abusing an individual and 
taking additional precautions to ensure the safety of that individual. 
The chief clerk of a court in some states, including Pennsylvania.
A	 fiduciary	 responsible	 for	 the	 care	 and	 management	 of	 the	 estate	
(i.e., a guardian of the estate) or the person (i.e., a guardian of the 
person) of an incapacitated person, who is employed by a government 
or	governmental	subdivision.	See	definition	of	Guardian.
As used in this report, the person or organization selected by a federal 
or	state	agency	to	receive	benefits	on	behalf	of	a	beneficiary.	
See	definition	of	Fiduciary	Program.

As  used  in  this  report,  the  person  responding  to  a  petition  for 
adjudication of incapacity; the alleged incapacitated person.
As	used	in	this	report,	a	file	which	may	not	be	accessed	in	the	absence	
of a court order.
“The failure to provide for oneself . . . the goods or services essential to 
avoid a clear and serious threat to physical or mental health. An older 
adult who does not consent to the provision of protective services will 
not be found to be neglected solely on the grounds of environmental 
factors which are beyond the control of the older adult . . ., such as 
inadequate  housing,  furnishings,  income,  clothing  or  medical  care.” 
See 35 P.S. § 10225.103.

functioning,  either 

An “injury which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes 
serious	permanent	disfigurement	or	protracted	loss	or	impairment	of	
the function of a body member or organ.” 35 P.S. § 10225.103.
An	injury	that:	“(1)	causes	a	person	severe	pain;	or	(2)	significantly	
impairs  a  person’s  physical 
temporarily  or 
permanently.” 35 P.S. § 10225.103.
“Intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causing or attempting to cause 
rape, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, sexual assault, statutory 
sexual  assault,  aggravated  indecent  assault,  indecent  assault  or 
incest.” 35 P.S. § 10225.103.
An act of the General Assembly. 1 Pa.C.S. § 1991.
As used in this report, a legal right granted by statute.
As	used	in	this	report,	a	fee	imposed	on	filings	in	guardianship	matters.
As	used	in	this	report,	a	document	that	financial	institutions	must	file	
with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network following a suspected 
incident of money laundering or fraud.
As used in this report, a death that is unexpected and circumstances 
or cause of which are medically or legally unexplained.
As	used	in	this	report,	an	influence	by	which	a	person	is	induced	to	
act otherwise than by their own free will or without adequate attention 
to the consequences.
The	unified	state	court	system	of	the	Commonwealth	of	Pennsylvania.

A model statute addressing the issue of jurisdiction over adult 
guardianships, conservatorships and other protective proceedings, 
providing a mechanism for resolving multi-state jurisdictional 
disputes, and seeking to ensure that only one state will have 
jurisdiction over a particular guardianship at any one time.
A model statute providing a procedure by which people may manage 
their property via a power of attorney in case of future incapacity, 
and including safeguards for his or her protection. 
As used in this report, a program that utilizes volunteers to monitor 
active  guardianships  and  seek  court  involvement  when  intervention 
is necessary.
See	definition	of	Incapacitated	Person	(IP).	

Statute
Statutory Right
Surcharge
Suspicious Activity 
Reports (SARs)

Suspicious Death

Undue	Influence

Unified	Judicial	System	
(UJS) 
Uniform Adult 
Guardianship and 
Protective Proceedings 
Jurisdiction Act

Uniform Power of 
Attorney Act (UPAA)

Volunteer Monitoring 
Program

Ward

Serious Bodily Injury

Serious Physical Injury

Sexual Abuse

DEFINITIONS

254

ENDNOTES

255

ENDNOTES

 Conference of Chief Justices and Conference 

1 
of State Court Administrators, In Support of The 
Court-Appointed Guardian Accountability and 
Senior Protection Act, Resolution 6 (2013), http://
ccj.ncsc.org/~/media/Microsites/Files/CCJ/
Resolutions/07312013-Support-Court-Appointed-
Guardian-Accountability-Senior-Protection-Act-CCJ-
COSCA.ashx.

2	
	Brenda	K.	Uekert	&	Denise	Dancy,	State 
Courts and Elder Abuse: Ensuring Justice for Older 
Americans, 5 (2007), http://cdm16501.contentdm.oclc.
org/cdm/ref/collection/famct/id/198.

3 

4 

 Id. at 9.

 Id. at 9.

6 

 Id.

5	
	Richard	Van	Duizend	&	Brenda	K.	Uekert,	
Elder Abuse and Exploitation: How Courts Can Take 
Leadership in Developing Effective Responses, 24 
Experience 1, 22 (2014).

 Conference of Chief Justices and Conference of 

7 
State Court Administrators, Encouraging Collaboration 
Between State Courts and Federal and State 
Representative Payee Programs, Resolution 4 (2014), 
http://ccj.ncsc.org/~/media/Microsites/Files/CCJ/
Resolutions/01292014-Encouraging-Collaboration-
State-Courts-Federal-State-Representative-Payee-
Programs.ashx.

8 
 National Center on Elder Abuse, Statistics/Data, 
(citing U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census 
Bureau (2011); The older population: 2010 (Publication 
C2010BR-09), Washington, D.C.)) http://www.ncea.
aoa.gov/Library/Data/.

9 
 United States Census Bureau, Profile America 
Facts for Features (2012), https://www.census.gov/
newsroom/releases/archives/facts_for_features_
special_editions/cb12-ff07.html. 

10   National Center on Elder Abuse, Statistics/
Data, (citing U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. 
Census Bureau (2010); The next four decades: The 
older population in the United States: 2010 to 2050 
(Publication P25-1138). Washington, D.C.)) http://www.
ncea.aoa.gov/Library/Data/.

11   Pennsylvania Department of Aging, State Plan on 
Aging (2012-16), 7, http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/
server.pt/community/departmern_of_aging_home_
new/19366/hide_plan_on_aging_2012/1070778.

12   Id. at 7-8.

13   United States Census Bureau, 2010 Census, 
Population for States by Age Group: (April 1, 2010).

14   Pennsylvania State Data Center, Detailed State and 
County Population Estimates Released for Pennsylvania: 
Commonwealth’s Population Continues to Grow 
Increasingly Diverse, Penn State Harrisburg, Pa. (June 
26, 2014), http://pasdc.hbg.psu.edu/sdc/pasdc_files/
researchbriefs/2013_Detailed_County_Est.pdf.

15   Pennsylvania Department of Aging, State Plan on 
Aging (2012-16), 2, 9, http://www.portal.state.pa.us/
portal/server.pt/community/departmern_of_aging_
home_new/19366/hide_plan_on_aging_2012/1070778.

16   Conference of Chief Justices and Conference 
of State Court Administrators, In Support of The 
Court-Appointed Guardian Accountability and 
Senior Protection Act, Resolution 6 (2013), http://
ccj.ncsc.org/~/media/Microsites/Files/CCJ/
Resolutions/07312013-Support-Court-Appointed-
Guardian-Accountability-Senior-Protection-Act-CCJ-
COSCA.ashx.

17   Max B. Rothman & Burton D. Dunlop, Judicial 
Responses to an Aging America, 42 Ct. Rev.: J. Am. 
Judges Ass’n, 9 (May 1, 2005). 

18   Conference of State Court Administrators, 
The Demographic Imperative: Guardianships and 
Conservatorships, 3 (2010), http://cosca.ncsc.org/~/
media/Microsites/Files/COSCA/Policy%20Papers/
COSCA%20White%20Paper%20-2010.ashx.  

19   Pam Belluck, Dementia Care Cost Is Projected to 
Double by 2040,	N.Y.	Times,	Apr.	3,	2013,	http://www.
nytimes.com/2013/04/04/health/dementia-care-costs-
are-soaring-study-finds.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0.

20   National Center on Elder Abuse, Statistics/Data, 3, 
http://www.ncea.aoa.gov/Library/Data/. 

21   Conference of State Court Administrators, 
The Demographic Imperative: Guardianships and 
Conservatorships, 2 (2010), http://cosca.ncsc.org/~/
media/Microsites/Files/COSCA/Policy%20Papers/
COSCA%20White%20Paper%20-2010.ashx.

22	 	Brenda	K.	Uekert,	Zygmont	A.	Pines	&	David	
Slayton, National Center for State Courts, Trends 
in State Courts, Addressing the Needs of Older 
Americans in the Pennsylvania and Texas Courts, 81 
(2014), http://www.ncsc.org/~/media/Microsites/Files/
Future%20Trends%202014/Addressing%20the%20
Need%20of%20Older%20Americans%20in%20
the%20PA%20and%20TX%20Courts_Pines-Slayton.
ashx.

23   Senator Gordon H. Smith, Hearing Before the 
Special Committee on Aging, United States Senate, 
D.C., Exploitation of Seniors: America’s Ailing 
Guardianship System (Sept. 7, 2006), http://www.
gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-109shrg31448/html/CHRG-
109shrg31448.htm.

24   Center for Elders and the Courts, Basics, http://
www.eldersandcourts.org/Guardianship/Guardianship-
Basics.aspx. 

25   Conference of State Court Administrators, 
The Demographic Imperative: Guardianships and 
Conservatorships, 1 (2010), http://cosca.ncsc.org/~/
media/Microsites/Files/COSCA/Policy%20Papers/
COSCA%20White%20Paper%20-2010.ashx.

26	 	Brenda	K.	Uekert	&	Thomas	Dibble,	Guardianship 
of the Elderly: Past Performance and Future Promises, 
23 The Court Manager 4, 9 (2008), http://www.
guardianship.org/reports/Guardianship_of_the_Elderly.
pdf.

27   Id. at 10.

28   Center for Elders and the Courts, Basics, http://
www.eldersandcourts.org/Guardianship/Guardianship-
Basics/Guardianship-Data.aspx. 

29	 	Brenda	K.	Uekert	&	Thomas	Dibble,	Guardianship 
of the Elderly: Past Performance and Future Promises, 
23 The Court Manager 4, 11-12 (2008), http://www.
guardianship.org/reports/Guardianship_of_the_Elderly.
pdf.

30   Joint State Government Commission, 
Guardianship Law in Pennsylvania, Report of the 
Working Group on Guardianships, 5 (May 2007), 
http://jsg.legis.state.pa.us/resources/documents/ftp/
publications/2007-30-Guardianship%20Law%20in%20
PA.pdf.

31	 	Administrative	Office	of	Pennsylvania	Courts,	
Department of Research and Statistics, 2013 
Caseload Statistics of the Unified Judicial System 
of Pennsylvania, http://www.pacourts.us/news-and-
statistics/research-and-statistics/caseload-statistics.

32   Act of April 16, 1992 (P.L. 108, No. 24). 

33   The Act 24 data provided to the Administrative 
Office	of	Pennsylvania	Courts	came	from	internal	
reports.

34   Mary Joy Quinn, Springer Series on Ethics, Law 
and Aging, Guardianship of Adults: Achieving Justice, 
Autonomy, and Safety,	162	(N.Y.:	Springer	Publ’g.	Co.,	
2005).

35	 	U.S.	Government	Accountability	Office, 
Guardianships: Cases of Financial Exploitation, 
Neglect, and Abuse of Seniors, (GAO-10-1046), 7-8 
(Sept. 2010), http://www.globalaging.org/elderrights/
us/2010/Finance_Neglect.pdf.

36	 	Brenda	K.	Uekert	&	Thomas	Dibble,	Guardianship 
of the Elderly: Past Performance and Future Promises, 
23 The Court Manager 4, 9 (2008), http://www.
guardianship.org/reports/Guardianship_of_the_Elderly.
pdf.

37   Conference of State Court Administrators, 
The Demographic Imperative: Guardianships and 
Conservatorships, 6 (2010), http://cosca.ncsc.org/~/
media/Microsites/Files/COSCA/Policy%20Papers/
COSCA%20White%20Paper%20-2010.ashx.

38	 	Brenda	K.	Uekert	&	Thomas	Dibble,	Guardianship 
of the Elderly: Past Performance and Future Promises, 
23 The Court Manager 4, 10 (2008), http://www.
guardianship.org/reports/Guardianship_of_the_Elderly.
pdf.

43	 	Brenda	K.	Uekert	&	Thomas	Dibble,	Guardianship 
of the Elderly: Past Performance and Future Promises, 
23 The Court Manager 4, 10 (2008), http://www.
guardianship.org/reports/Guardianship_of_the_Elderly.
pdf.

44   Third National Guardianship Summit Standards 
and Recommendations, 2012 Utah L. Rev. 1191, 1200 
(2012), http://www.epubs.utah.edu/index.php/ulr/article/
view/833/642.

45   Conference of State Court Administrators, 
The Demographic Imperative: Guardianships and 
Conservatorships, 19 (2010), http://cosca.ncsc.org/~/
media/Microsites/Files/COSCA/Policy%20Papers/
COSCA%20White%20Paper%20-2010.ashx.

46   Conference of Chief Justices and Conference of 
State Court Administrators, Encouraging Collection of 
Data on Adult Guardianship, Adult Conservatorship, 
and Elder Abuse Cases by All States, Resolution 14 
(2009), http://ccj.ncsc.org/~/media/Microsites/Files/
CCJ/Resolutions/08012009-Encouraging-Collection-
of-Data-on-Adult-Guardianship-Adult-Conservatorship.
ashx.

47	 	Brenda	K.	Uekert,	Center	for	Elders	and	the	
Courts, Adult Guardianship Court Data and Issues, 
Results from an Online Survey, 4 (Mar. 2, 2010), http://
www.guardianship.org/reports/Guardianship_Survey_
Report.pdf.

48   Id. at 8.

49   American Bar Association Resolution 100A, 
3 (Aug. 12-13, 2013) (citing Social Security 
Administration	Office,	Office	of	Retirement	and	
Disability Policy, Annual Statistical Supplement to the 
Social Security Bulletin, 2012 (Feb. 2013)).

50   What You Need to Know about Guardianship, 
Herald Tribune, July 21, 2013, http://www.heraldtribune.
com/article/20130721/ARTICLE/130729968.

51   American Bar Association Resolution 100A, 4 
(Aug. 12-13, 2013).

52	 	U.S.	Government	Accountability	Office,	
Guardianships: Collaboration Needed to Protect 
Incapacitated Elderly People, (GAO-04-655), 4 (July 
2004), http://www.gao.gov/assets/250/243297.pdf. 

53   20 Pa.C.S. § 5501.

54   Id. § 5511.

55   Delaware County Bar Association, Elder Law 
Handbook and Resource Guide (2012), 23, http://www.
delcosa.org/Portals/_AgencySite/Elder%20Law%20
Handbook%202012%20with%202014%20update.pdf; 
20 Pa.C.S. § 5511.

56   20 Pa.C.S. §§ 5511, 5518.

39   Id.

40   Id.

41   Id.

42   Sally Balch Hurme & Erica Wood, Guardian 
Accountability Then and Now: Tracing Tenets for an 
Active Court Role, 31 Stetson L. Rev. 867, 872 (2002), 
http://www.stetson.edu/law/lawreview/media/guardian-
accountability-then-and-now-tracing-tenets-for-an-
active-court-role.pdf.

57   Id. § 5511(f).

58   Id. § 5512.1.

59   Id.

60   Id. § 5521(a).

61   Id. § 5521(c).

ENDNOTES

256

ENDNOTES

257

62   Id. § 5517.

63   Conference of State Court Administrators, 
The Demographic Imperative: Guardianships and 
Conservatorships, 1 (2010), http://cosca.ncsc.org/~/
media/Microsites/Files/COSCA/Policy%20Papers/
COSCA%20White%20Paper%20-2010.ashx.

64   United States Department of Health and Human 
Services, Administration for Community Living, 
DOJ and HHS call for action to address abuse of 
older Americans, ACL News (July 9, 2014), http://
www.acl.gov/NewsRoom/Press_Releases/archive_
ACL/2014/2014_07_09.aspx (quoting Associate 
Attorney General Tony West).

65	 	Brenda	K.	Uekert	&	Denise	Dancy,	State 
Courts and Elder Abuse: Ensuring Justice for Older 
Americans, 4 (2007), http://cdm16501.contentdm.oclc.
org/cdm/ref/collection/famct/id/198.

66   United States Department of Health and Human 
Services, Administration for Community Living, 
DOJ and HHS call for action to address abuse of 
older Americans, ACL News (July 9, 2014), http://
www.acl.gov/NewsRoom/Press_Releases/archive_
ACL/2014/2014_07_09.aspx.

67   Broken Trust,	N.Y.	Times,	Mar.	16,	2011,	http://
www.nytimes.com/2011/03/17/opinion/17thu2.html?_
r=0.

68	 	Brenda	K.	Uekert	&	Denise	Dancy,	State 
Courts and Elder Abuse: Ensuring Justice for Older 
Americans, 4 (2007), http://cdm16501.contentdm.oclc.
org/cdm/ref/collection/famct/id/198.

69   National Center on Elder Abuse, Red Flags of 
Abuse, http://ncea.aoa.gov/Resources/Publication/
docs/NCEA_RedFlags_web508.pdf.

70   Older Adults Protective Services Act, 35 P.S. § 
10225.103.

71   Marie-Therese Connolly et al., U.S. Department 
of Justice, Department of Health and Human Services, 
The Elder Justice Roadmap: A Stakeholder Initiative 
to Respond to an Emerging Health, Justice, Financial 
and Social Crisis, 1 (2014), http://ncea.acl.gov/Library/
Gov_Report/index.aspx.

72   National Center on Elder Abuse, Statistics/Data, 
http://www.ncea.aoa.gov/Library/Data/ (citing Charles 
P. Mouton, MD, MS et al., Prevalence and 3-year 
Incidence of Abuse Among Postmenopausal Women, 
94 American Journal of Public Health 605 (2004)).

73   Marie-Therese Connolly et al., U.S. Department 
of Justice, Department of Health and Human Services, 
The Elder Justice Roadmap: A Stakeholder Initiative 
to Respond to an Emerging Health, Justice, Financial 
and Social Crisis, 3 (2014), http://ncea.acl.gov/Library/
Gov_Report/index.aspx. 

74   Id. at 1.

75   Jacqueline J. Stutts, Domestic Violence in Later 
Life, 53 The Judges’ Journal 2, 20 (2014), http://www.
americanbar.org/publications/judges_journal/2014/
spring/domestic_violence_in_later_life.html. 

76	 	Kathy	Greenlee,	Let’s Talk about Elder Abuse 
Prevention, Administration for Community Living 
Blog, U.S. Department of Health and Human 
Services (June 5, 2014), http://acl.gov/NewsRoom/
blog/2014/2014_06_05.aspx.

77   Marie-Therese Connolly et al., U.S. Department 
of Justice, Department of Health and Human Services, 
The Elder Justice Roadmap: A Stakeholder Initiative to 
Respond to an Emerging Health, Justice, Financial and 
Social Crisis, 3, n.3 (citing studies) (2014), http://ncea.
acl.gov/Library/Gov_Report/index.aspx.

78   Id. at 3, n.4. 

79   National Center on Elder Abuse, Red Flags of 
Abuse, http://ncea.aoa.gov/Resources/Publication/
docs/NCEA_RedFlags_web508.pdf.

80   Marie-Therese Connolly et al., U.S. Department 
of Justice, Department of Health and Human Service, 
The Elder Justice Roadmap: A Stakeholder Initiative 
to Respond to an Emerging Health, Justice, Financial 
and Social Crisis, 3, n.7-9 (2014), http://ncea.acl.gov/
Library/Gov_Report/index.aspx.

81   National Center on Elder Abuse, Statistics/Data, 
http://www.ncea.aoa.gov/Library/Data/ (citing National 
Center on Elder Abuse & Westat, Inc., The National 
Elder Abuse Incidence Study: Final Report (1998)).

82   National Center on Elder Abuse, Statistics/Data, 
http://www.ncea.aoa.gov/Library/Data/. 

83   Id.	(citing	K.	Broyles,	The Silenced Voice Speaks 
Out: A Study of Abuse and Neglect of Nursing Home 
Residents, Atlanta Long Term Care Ombudsman 
Program & Atlanta Legal Aid Society to the National 
Citizens Coalition for Nursing Home Reform (2000)).

84   Id. & id. at n.28.

85   Id. & id. at n.30.

86	 	U.S.	Government	Accountability	Office,	Elder 
Justice National Strategy Needed to Effectively Combat 
Elder Financial Exploitation, (GAO-13-110), (Nov. 
2012), http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/650074.pdf.

87   MetLife Mature Market Institute, The MetLife 
Study of Elder Financial Abuse, Crimes of Occasion, 
Desperation, and Predation Against America’s Elders, 2 
(June 2011), https://www.metlife.com/assets/cao/mmi/
publications/studies/2011/mmi-elder-financial-abuse.
pdf.

88   American Bar Association Resolution 100 A, 3 
(Aug. 12-13, 2013).

89   National Center on Elder Abuse, Elder Abuse 
and Its Impact: What You Must Know, (July 2013), 
http://www.ncea.aoa.gov/Resources/Publication/docs/
NCEA_WhatYouMustKnow2013_508.pdf. 

90   Temple’s study was a variation of the 2011 study 
conducted by Jilenne Gunther, MSW, JD, “The Utah 
Cost of Financial Exploitation,” Utah Division of Aging 
and Adult Services. The information from the three 
county case survey is from a non-published survey 
conducted by Temple University’s Research Section for 
the Department of Aging in 2013.

115  Id.

118  Id.

119  Id.

120  Id.

121  Id.

122  Id.

91   Marcia Z. Siegal, Task Force Tackles Elder Abuse, 
Philadelphia Corporation for Aging, Milestones E-News, 
http://www.pcacares.org/Milestones_Main_Web_
Details.aspx?story=150M46G15M29. 

92   National Adult Protective Services Association, 
Policy & Advocacy, Elder Financial Exploitation, http://
www.napsa-now.org/policy-advocacy/world-elder-
abuse-awareness-day/. 

93   Id.

94   “Elder Abuse” Often Involves Finances, Fox 
29 News Philadelphia, (Aug. 7, 2014), http://www.
myfoxphilly.com/story/26214498/elder-abuse-often-
involves-finances-study-finds.

95   Pennsylvania Department of Aging, The Older 
Adults Protective Services Annual Report, FY 2012-
2013, 16, http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/
community/agency_publications/17894.

112  Conference of State Court Administrators and 
the National Center for State Courts, Court Statistics 
Project, State Court Guide to Statistical Reporting, 22, 
http://www.courtstatistics.org/~/media/microsites/files/
csp/data%20pdf/csp%20statisticsguide%20v1%203.
ashx. 

113		Brenda	K.	Uekert	&	Denise	Dancy,	State 
Courts and Elder Abuse: Ensuring Justice for Older 
Americans, 3 (2007), http://cdm16501.contentdm.oclc.
org/cdm/ref/collection/famct/id/198.

114  Center for Elders and the Courts, Basics, http://
www.eldersandcourts.org/elder-abuse/basics/
jurisdiction-and-case-types.aspx.

116  Center for Elders and the Courts, Key Issues, 
http://www.eldersandcourts.org/elder-abuse/key-issues/
mandatory-reporting.aspx. 

117  Older Adults Protective Services Act, 35 P.S. § 
10225.103.

ENDNOTES

96   Id. at 6.

97   Id. 

98   Id. 

100  Id. at 7.

101  Id. at 8.

102  Id. 

103  Id. 

106  Id.

107  Id.

99   Pennsylvania Department of Aging, The Older 
Adults	Protective	Services	Annual	Report,	FY	2012-
2013, 6 http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/
community/agency_publications/17894. 

104  Id. (citing The 2004 Survey of Adult Protective 
Services: Abuse of Adults 60 Years and Older, National 
Committee for Prevention of Elder Abuse and the 
National Adult Protective Services Association prepared 
for the National Center on Elder Abuse (Feb. 2006)).

105  National Center on Elder Abuse, Abuse of 
Residents of Long Term Care Facilities, 1, (2013), 
http://www.ncea.aoa.gov/Resources/Publication/docs/
NCEA_LTCF_ResearchBrief_2013.pdf.

108  Center for Elders and the Courts, Basics, http://
www.eldersandcourts.org/elder-abuse/basics/
jurisdiction-and-case-types.aspx.

109  Conference of Chief Justices and Conference of 
State Court Administrators, In Support of the NCSC 
Concept Paper, State Courts and Elder Abuse: 
Ensuring Justice for Older Americans, Resolution 5 
(2008), http://ccj.ncsc.org/~/media/Microsites/Files/
CCJ/Resolutions/07302008-In-Support-of-the-NCSC-
Concept-Paper-State-Courts-and-Elder-Abuse.ashx.

110  Letter from the Honorable Myron T. Steele, 
Conference	of	Chief	Justices	President,	to	Kathy	
Greenlee, Assistant Secretary for Aging (July 23, 2013).

111  Center for Elders and the Courts, Basics, http://
www.eldersandcourts.org/elder-abuse/basics/
jurisdiction-and-case-types.aspx. 

123  Pennsylvania Department of Aging, The Older 
Adults Protective Services Annual Report, FY 2012-
2013, 3, http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/
community/agency_publications/17894. 

124  Id. at 3.

125  Id. at 3.

126  Pennsylvania Department of Aging, State Plan on 
Aging (2012-16), 6, http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/
server.pt/community/department_of_aging_home_
new/19366/hide_plan_on_aging_2012/1070778.

127  Pennsylvania Department of Aging, Self Study 
Course – Unit 2: Reporting Abuse Process and 
Responsible Parties, http://www.aging.state.pa.us/
portal/server.pt/community/self_study_course/18031/
unit_2__reporting_abuse/616740.

128  Pennsylvania Department of Aging, The Older 
Adults Protective Services Annual Report, FY 2012-
2013, 5, http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/
community/agency_publications/17894.

129  Id. at 9.

130  71 P.S. §§ 732-204, 205.

131		Pennsylvania	Office	of	Attorney	General,	Elder	
Abuse Unit, Protecting Older Pennsylvanians, https://
www.attorneygeneral.gov/Education/Elder_Abuse_Unit/.

132  Pennsylvania Department of Aging, The Older 
Adults Protective Services Annual Report, FY 2012-
2013, 9, http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/
community/agency_publications/17894.

133		Brenda	K.	Uekert	&	Denise	Dancy,	State 
Courts and Elder Abuse: Ensuring Justice for Older 

258

ENDNOTES

Americans, 3 (2007), http://cdm16501.contentdm.oclc.
org/cdm/ref/collection/famct/id/198.

134  Center for Elders and the Courts, Assessment 
Resources and Coordination, http://www.
eldersandcourts.org/elder-abuse/assessment-resources-
and-coordination/assessment-resources.aspx.

135  American Bar Association, Criminal Justice 
Section, Senior Lawyer Division, Commission 
on Domestic Violence, Commission on Law and 
Aging, Report to House of Delegates, 9, http://
www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/
criminal_justice_section_newsletter/crimjust_policy_
crimeselderly.authcheckdam.pdf.

136		Brenda	K.	Uekert	&	Denise	Dancy,	State 
Courts and Elder Abuse: Ensuring Justice for Older 
Americans, 4 (2007), http://cdm16501.contentdm.oclc.
org/cdm/ref/collection/famct/id/198.

137  Marie-Therese Connolly et al., U.S. Department 
of Justice, Department of Health and Human Services, 
The Elder Justice Roadmap: A Stakeholder Initiative 
to Respond to an Emerging Health, Justice, Financial 
and Social Crisis, 5 (2014), http://ncea.acl.gov/Library/
Gov_Report/index.aspx.

138  Center for Elders and the Courts, Assessment 
Resources and Coordination, http://www.
eldersandcourts.org/elder-abuse/assessment-
resources-and-coordination/assessment-resources.
aspx. 

139		Richard	Van	Duizend	&	Brenda	K.	Uekert,	
Elder Abuse and Exploitation: How Courts Can Take 
Leadership in Developing Effective Responses, 24 
Experience 1, 25 (2014).

140  Center for Elders and the Courts, Assessment 
Resources and Coordination, http://www.
eldersandcourts.org/elder-abuse/assessment-
resources-and-coordination.aspx. 

141  The Federalist No. 51 (James Madison) (1788).

142  Conference of Chief Justices and Conference 
of State Court Administrators, In Support of Efforts 
to Increase Access to Justice, Resolution 2 (July 30, 
2008).

143		Judicial	Council	of	California,	Administrative	Office	
of the Courts, Effective Court Practice for Abused 
Elders, A Report to the Archstone Foundation, 9-10 
(Feb. 2008), http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/
courtabused-eldersreport.pdf (quoting Rothman, M., 
Judicial Responses to the Growing Incidence of Crime 
Among Elders With Dementia and Mental Illness, 
Statement for the U.S. Senate Special Committee on 
Aging (2004)).

146  Lori A. Stiegel, White Paper on the Judicial System 
for the Elder Justice Coordinating Council, American 
Bar Association Commission on Law and Aging, 1, 
http://www.aoa.gov/AoA_programs/Elder_Rights/EJCC/
docs/Stiegel_White_Paper-Judicial_System.pdf. 

147  Pennsylvania Department of Aging, State Plan on 
Aging (2012-16), 8, http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/
server.pt/community/departmern_of_aging_home_
new/19366/hide_plan_on_aging_2012/1070778.

148  Id. at 2.

149  Lori A. Stiegel, Final Technical Report to 
the National Institute of Justice on “A Multi-Site 
Assessment of Five Court-Focused Elder Abuse 
Initiatives,” American Bar Association Commission 
on Law and Aging, 5 (June 30, 2010), http://www.
americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/
law_aging/2011/2011_aging_ea_multi_assess.
authcheckdam.pdf. 

150		Brenda	K.	Uekert	&	Denise	Dancy,	State 
Courts and Elder Abuse: Ensuring Justice for Older 
Americans, 4 (2007), http://cdm16501.contentdm.oclc.
org/cdm/ref/collection/famct/id/198.

151  Joint State Government Commission, 
Guardianship Law in Pennsylvania, Report of the 
Working Group on Guardianships, 1 (May 2007), 
http://jsg.legis.state.pa.us/resources/documents/ftp/
publications/2007-30-Guardianship%20Law%20in%20
PA.pdf. 

152  Id. at 11.

153  Conference of Chief Justices and Conference of 
State Court Administrators, In Support of the NCSC 
Concept Paper, State Courts and Elder Abuse: 
Ensuring Justice for Older Americans, Resolution 5 
(2008), http://ccj.ncsc.org/~/media/Microsites/Files /
CCJ/Resolutions/07302008-In-Support-of-the-NCSC-
Concept-Paper-State-Courts-and-Elder-Abuse.ashx.

154  Conference of Chief Justices and Conferences of 
State Court Administrators, In Support of the Uniform 
Adult Guardianship and Protective Proceedings 
Jurisdiction Act, Resolution 5 (2008), https://nacmnet.
org/CCCG/images/Resolution5-UAGPPJA.rtf. 

155		Brenda	K.	Uekert	&	Thomas	Dibble,	Guardianship	
of the Elderly, Past Performance and Future Promises, 
23 The Court Manager 4, 12 (2008),  
http://www.guardianship.org/reports/Guardianship_of_
the_Elderly.pdf.

156  Conference of State Court Administrators, 
The Demographic Imperative: Guardianships and 
Conservatorships, 1 (2010), http://cosca.ncsc.org/~/
media/Microsites/Files/COSCA/Policy%20Papers/
COSCA%20White%20Paper%20-2010.ashx.

144		Brenda	K.	Uekert	&	Denise	Dancy,	State 
Courts and Elder Abuse: Ensuring Justice for Older 
Americans, 3 (2007), http://cdm16501.contentdm.oclc.
org/cdm/ref/collection/famct/id/198.

157  Id. 

158  Id. 

145		Judicial	Council	of	California/Administrative	Office	
of the Courts, Effective Court Practice for Abused 
Elders, A Report to the Archstone Foundation, 11 
(Feb. 2008), http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/
courtabused-eldersreport.pdf. 

159  Id. at 12-13.

160  Sally Hurme & Erica Wood, Introduction, Third 
National Guardianship Summit Standards and 
Recommendations, 2012 Utah L. Rev. 1157, 1157 
(2012), http://epubs.utah.edu/index.php/ulr/article/
viewFile/844/652.

259

161  Pennsylvania Department of Aging, State Plan 
on Aging, (2012-16), 27, http://www.portal.state.pa.us/
portal/server.pt/community/departmern_of_aging_
home_new/19366/hide_plan_on_aging_2012/1070778.

171		Richard	Van	Duizend	&	Brenda	K.	Uekert,	
Elder Abuse and Exploitation How Courts Can Take 
Leadership in Developing Effective Responses, 24 
Experience 1, 25 (2014).

162  Joint State Government Commission, The 
Proposed Pennsylvania Uniform Trust Act and 
Amendments to the Probate, Estates and Fiduciaries 
Code (Apr. 2005), http://jsg.legis.state.pa.us/resources/
documents/ftp/publications/2005-41-UTC%204%20
2005.pdf. 

163  Joint State Government Commission, The 
Probate, Estates and Fiduciaries Code: Proposed 
Amendments to Title 20 of the Pennsylvania 
Consolidated Statutes (Oct. 2007), http://jsg.legis.state.
pa.us/resources/documents/ftp/publications/2007-28-
DEL%20Report%202007.pdf. 

164  Joint State Government Commission, Powers 
of Attorney: Proposed Amendments to the Probate, 
Estates and Fiduciaries Code, Report of the Advisory 
Committee on Decedent’s Estates Laws (Mar. 2010), 
http://jsg.legis.state.pa.us/resources/documents/ftp/
documents/POWERS%20OF%20ATTORNEY%20
March%2023%2020101.pdf. 

165  Joint State Government Commission, The 
Probate, Estates and Fiduciaries Code: Proposed 
Amendments to Title 20 of the Pennsylvania 
Consolidated Statutes (June 2010), http://jsg.legis.
state.pa.us/resources/documents/ftp/documents/
DEL%20Report%20June%202010.pdf.

166  Joint State Government Commission, Powers of 
Attorney and Health Care Decision-Making, Proposed 
Amendments to the Probate, Estates and Fiduciaries 
Code (June 2011), http://jsg.legis.state.pa.us/
resources/documents/ftp/documents/DEL%20-%20
Report%206-13-11.pdf. 

167  Joint State Government Commission, 
Guardianship Law: Proposed Amendments to the 
Probate, Estates and Fiduciaries Code (Oct. 2012), 
http://jsg.legis.state.pa.us/resources/documents/ftp/
documents/2012-guardianship%20report%2010.4.12.
pdf. 

168  Joint State Government Commission, 
Guardianship Law in Pennsylvania, Report of the 
Working Group on Guardianships (May 2007), http://
jsg.legis.state.pa.us/resources/documents/ftp/
publications/2007-30-Guardianship%20Law%20in%20
PA.pdf.

169  Conference of State Court Administrators, 
The Demographic Imperative: Guardianships and 
Conservatorships, 18 (2010), http://cosca.ncsc.org/~/
media/Microsites/Files/COSCA/Policy%20Papers/
COSCA%20White%20Paper%20-2010.ashx.

170  Conference of Chief Justices and Conference of 
State Court Administrators, In Support of the NCSC 
Concept Paper, State Courts and Elder Abuse: 
Ensuring Justice for Older Americans, Resolution 5 
(2008), http://ccj.ncsc.org/~/media/Microsites/Files/
CCJ/Resolutions/07302008-In-Support-of-the-NCSC-
Concept-Paper-State-Courts-and-Elder-Abuse.ashx.

172  Pennsylvania Orphans’ Court Procedural 
Rules Committee, Proposed New Orphans’ Court 
Procedural Rule 1.6 (2013), http://www.pacourts.
us/assets/uploads/Resources/Documents/
Published%20Draft%20of%20proposed%20new%20
OC%20Rules%204%202%2013%20-%20002558.
pdf?cb=50586.

173  Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare, Long 
Term Care Handbook: Forms, Operations Memoranda, 
and Policy Clarifications, § 468.31, http://services.dpw.
state.pa.us/oimpolicymanuals/manuals/bop/lt/index.
htm?_ga=1.197525103.1778040081.1400170279.

174  55 Pa. Code §181.134. 

175  See Pennsylvania	Office	of	the	Budget,	
Governor’s Executive Budget 2014-2015, General 
Fund/Tobacco Settlement Fund prepared for 
Appropriations Committee Hearings by the Department 
of Public Welfare, 220 (Feb. 2014) (providing daily cost 
figure	used	to	calculate	yearly	cost).	

176  See id.	at	228	(providing	monthly	cost	figure	used	
to calculate yearly cost).

177  Center for Advocacy for the Rights and Interests of 
the Elderly, The State of Guardianship in Pennsylvania: 
Results from the 2012 CARIE Study of Guardianships 
in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 71 (2013), 
http://www.aging.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/
community/pennsylvania%27s_aging_initiatives/17891.

178  See	Pennsylvania	Office	of	the	Budget,	
Governor’s Executive Budget 2014-2015. General 
Fund/Tobacco Settlement Fund prepared for 
Appropriations Committee Hearings by the Department 
of Public Welfare (Feb. 2014). 

179  American Bar Association, Resolution 100A, 
14 (Aug. 12-13, 2013), http://www.americanbar.
org/content/dam/aba/images/mental_physical_
disability/2013_100A.pdf.

180  Id.

181		U.S.	Government	Accountability	Office,	
Guardianships: Collaboration Needed to Protect 
Incapacitated Elderly People, (GAO-04-655), 22 (July 
2004), http://www.gao.gov/assets/250/243297.pdf. 

182  American Bar Association, Resolution 100A, 
5 (Aug. 12-13, 2013), http://www.americanbar.
org/content/dam/aba/images/mental_physical_
disability/2013_100A.pdf.

183  20 Pa.C.S. § 8411.

184  American Bar Association, Resolution 100A, 
1 (Aug. 12-13, 2013), http://www.americanbar.
org/content/dam/aba/images/mental_physical_
disability/2013_100A.pdf.

185  Id. at 14.

186  Id. at 6.

ENDNOTES

260

ENDNOTES

261

187  Conference of Chief Justices and Conference of 
State Court Administrators, Encouraging Collaboration 
Between State Courts and Federal and State 
Representative Payee Programs, Resolution 4 (2014), 
http://ccj.ncsc.org/~/media/Microsites/Files/CCJ/
Resolutions/01292014-Encouraging-Collaboration-
State-Courts-Federal-State-Representative-Payee-
Programs.ashx. 

188  Letter from Zygmont Pines, Conference of State 
Court Administrators President, and Mary McQueen, 
National Center for State Courts President, to members 
of Conference of State Court Administrators (June 17, 
2014).

189  Joint State Government Commission, 
Guardianship Law in Pennsylvania, Report of the 
Working Group on Guardianships, 9 (May 2007), 
http://jsg.legis.state.pa.us/resources/documents/ftp/
publications/2007-30-Guardianship%20Law%20in%20
PA.pdf. 

190  Id.

191  Id. at 13.

192		Richard	Van	Duizend	&	Brenda	K.	Uekert,	
Elder Abuse and Exploitation: How Courts can take 
Leadership in Developing Effective Responses, 24 
Experience 1, 25 (2014).

193		NYC	Elder	Abuse	Center,	Elder Justice Advocacy: 
Where We Have Been & Where We Are Going (July 
31, 2014), http://nyceac.com/elder-justice-dispatch-
elder-justice-advocacy-where-we-have-been-where-
we-are-going/. 

194		U.S.	Government	Accountability	Office, Elder 
Justice, Stronger Federal Leadership Could Enhance 
National Response to Elder Abuse, (GAO-11-208), 18 
(Mar. 2011), http://www.gao.gov/assets/320/316224.
pdf. 

195  Id.

196  National Criminal Justice Association, Webinar: 
Strengthening Court Systems: Understanding State 
and Federal Resources, Slide 6 (Nov. 21, 2013).

197		Richard	Van	Duizend	&	Brenda	K.	Uekert,	
Elder Abuse and Exploitation: How Courts Can Take 
Leadership in Developing Effective Responses, 24 
Experience 1, 25 (2014).

198  Conference of Chief Justices and Conference 
of State Court Administrators, In Support of The 
Court-Appointed Guardian Accountability and 
Senior Protection Act, Resolution 6 (2013), http://
ccj.ncsc.org/~/media/Microsites/Files/CCJ/
Resolutions/07312013-Support-Court-Appointed-
Guardian-Accountability-Senior-Protection-Act-CCJ-
COSCA.ashx.

199  Third National Guardianship Summit Standards 
and Recommendations, 2012 Utah L. Rev. 1191, 1202 
(2012), http://www.epubs.utah.edu/index.php/ulr/article/
view/833/642.

200  Catherine Seal & Spencer Crona, Third National 
Guardianship Summit, Standards for Guardians’ Fees, 
2012 Utah L. Rev. 1575, 1596, 1602 (2012).

201  David J. Remondini, Courts and Volunteer Adult 
Guardianship Programs and Projects, The Indiana 
Courttimes, Feb. 7, 2014, http://indianacourts.us/
times/2014/02/courts-and-volunteer-adult-guardianship-
programs-and-projects/.

202  Jonathan Oosting, Gov. Rick Snyder Pushes to 
Make Michigan a ‘No-Wait State’ for In-Home Senior 
Services, MLive (June 2, 2014), http://www.mlive.com/
lansing-news/index.ssf/2014/06/snyder_looks_to_
make_michigan.html.

203		Richard	Van	Duizend	&	Brenda	K.	Uekert,	
Elder Abuse and Exploitation: How Courts Can Take 
Leadership in Developing Effective Responses, 24 
Experience 1, 25 (2014).

204  National Association of VOCA Assistance 
Administrators, VOCA Funding, http://www.navaa.org/
budget/index.html. 

205  Id.

206  Letter from the Honorable Jim Costa, United 
States House of Representatives et al., to the 
Honorable Hal Rodgers, Chairman U.S. House 
Appropriations Committee, et al. (Mar. 31, 2014).

207  Letter from the Honorable Patrick Leahy, United 
States Senate et al., to the Honorable Barbara 
Mikulski, Chairwoman, and the Honorable Richard 
Shelby, Ranking Member of the Senate Appropriations 
Committee’s Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice and 
Science (Apr. 11, 2014).

208  Letter from the Honorable Myron T. Steele, 
Conference	of	Chief	Justices	President,	to	Kathy	
Greenlee, Assistant Secretary for Aging (July 23, 2013).

209  Conference of Chief Justices and Conference 
of State Court Administrators, In Support of The 
Court-Appointed Guardian Accountability and 
Senior Protection Act, Resolution 6 (2013), http://
ccj.ncsc.org/~/media/Microsites/Files/CCJ/
Resolutions/07312013-Support-Court-Appointed-
Guardian-Accountability-Senior-Protection-Act-CCJ-
COSCA.ashx.

210  Marie-Therese Connolly et al., U.S. Department 
of Justice, Department of Health and Human Services, 
The Elder Justice Roadmap: A Stakeholder Initiative 
to Respond to an Emerging Health, Justice, Financial 
and Social Crisis, 6 (2014), http://ncea.acl.gov/Library/
Gov_Report/index.aspx.

211  United States Department of Health and 
Human Services, Administration for Community 
Living, DOJ and HHS call for action to address 
abuse of older Americans, ACL News (July 9, 2014), 
http://www.acl.gov/NewsRoom/Press_Releases/
archive_ACL/2014/2014_07_09.aspx	(quoting	Kathy	
Greenlee, Department of Health and Human Services, 
Assistant Secretary for Aging and Administrator of the 
Administration for Community Living).

212  Pennsylvania Department of Aging, Press 
Release, Department of Aging Urges Pennsylvanians 
to Be Aware of Elder Abuse (June 17, 2014),  
http://www.pa.gov/Pages/NewsDetails.
aspx?agency=Aging&item=15745#.VFuLKrUo75I

Pennsylvania	Office	of	Attorney	General,	Elder	Abuse	
Unit, https://www.attorneygeneral.gov/Education/Elder_
Abuse_Unit/.

214  David Shallcross, Testimony on Behalf of 
Attorney General Before Pennsylvania House of 
Representatives Aging and Older Adult Services 
Committee, Public Hearing (Dec. 9, 2013), 
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/TR/
transcripts/2013_0213_0002_TSTMNY.pdf.

ENDNOTES

262

BIBLIOGRAPHY

263

Bibliography

Administrative	Office	of	Pennsylvania	Courts,	Department	of	Research	and	Statistics,	Clerks and Judges of the 
Orphans’ Court Survey (2014). 

Administrative	Office	of	Pennsylvania	Courts,	Department	of	Research	and	Statistics,	2013 Caseload Statistics of 
the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania, http://www.pacourts.us/news-and-statistics/research-and-statistics/
caseload-statistics.

American Bar Association, Commission on Law and Aging and American Psychological Association, Judicial 
Determination of Capacity of Older Adults in Guardianship Proceedings (2006), http://www.apa.org/pi/aging/
resources/guides/judges-diminished.pdf.

American Bar Association, Commission on Law and Aging, Section on Real Property, Trust and Estate 
Law, Report to the House of Delegates, http://social.un.org/ageing-working-group/documents/egm/
AmericanBarAssociation-CommissiononLawandAging-ReporttotheHouseofDelegates.pdf.

American Bar Association, Criminal Justice Section, Senior Lawyers Division, Commission on Domestic Violence, 
Commission on Law and Aging, Report to the House of Delegates, http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/
publishing/criminal_justice_section_newsletter/crimjust_policy_crimeselderly.authcheckdam.pdf.

American Bar Association, Resolution 100A (adopted by the House of Delegates) (Aug. 12-13, 2013),  
http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/images/mental_physical_disability /2013_100A.pdf.

American Bar Association, Model Rules of Professional Conduct, http://www.americanbar.org/groups/
professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct.html.

Arizona Supreme Court, Committee on Improving Judicial Oversight and Processing of Probate Court Matters, 
Final Report to the Arizona Judicial Council  (2011), http://www.eldersandcourts.org/~/media/Microsites/Files/cec/
FinalReport.ashx.

Belluck, Pam, Dementia Care Cost Is Projected to Double by 2040,	New	York	Times	(April	3,	2013),	http://www.
nytimes.com/2013/04/04/health/dementia-care-costs-are-soaring-study-finds.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0.

Black, Jane A., The Not-so-Golden Years: Power of Attorney, Elder Abuse, and Why Our Laws Are Failing a 
Vulnerable Population, 82 St. John’s L. Rev. 289 (2008), http://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/lawreview/vol82/iss1/7.

Boxx,	Karen	E.,	and	Terry	W.	Hammond,	A Call for Standards: An Overview of the Current Status and Need for 
Guardianship Standards of Conduct and Code of Ethics, 2012 Utah L. Rev. 1207 (2012).

Callaway, Leslie, Stopping the Financial Abuse of Seniors, ABA Bank Compliance, July-August 2011, 14-15, 
https://www.aba.com/Products/bankcompliance/Documents/JulyAug11CoverStory.pdf.

Casasanto, Michael D., Simon, Mitchell and Roman, Judith, National Guardianship Association, Model Code of 
Ethics for Guardians (1988), http://www.guardianship.org/documents/Code_of_Ethics.pdf.  

Center for Advocacy for the Rights and Interests of the Elderly, The State of Guardianship in Pennsylvania: 
Results from the 2012 CARIE Study of Guardianships in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (2013), http://www.
aging.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/pennsylvania%27s_aging_initiatives/17891. 

Center for Elders and the Courts, Home http://eldersandcourts.org/.

Center for Elders and the Courts, Guardianship, http://www.eldersandcourts.org/Guardianship.aspx.

Center for Elders and the Courts, Assessment Resources and Coordination, http://www.eldersandcourts.org/
elder-abuse/assessment-resources-and-coordination/assessment-resources.aspx.

Center for Elders and the Courts, Basics, http://www.eldersandcourts.org/Guardianship/Guardianship-Basics/
Guardianship-Data.aspx.

Center for Elders and the Courts, Interagency Coordination, http://www.eldersandcourts.org/Elder-Abuse/
Assessment-Resources-and-Coordination.aspx.

Center for Elders and the Courts, Key Issues, http://www.eldersandcourts.org/elder-abuse/key-issues/mandatory-
reporting.aspx. 

Center for Elders and the Courts, Programs and Guidelines, http://www.eldersandcourts.org/Elder-Abuse/
Programs-and-Guidelines.aspx.

Conference of Chief Justices and Conference of State Court Administrators, Encouraging Collaboration Between 
State Courts and Federal and State Representative Payee Programs, Resolution 4 (2014), http://ccj.ncsc.org/~/
media/Microsites/Files/CCJ/Resolutions/01292014-Encouraging-Collaboration-State-Courts-Federal-State-
Representative-Payee-Programs.ashx.

Conference of Chief Justices and Conference of State Court Administrators, Encouraging Collection of Data on 
Adult Guardianship, Adult Conservatorship, and Elder Abuse Cases by All States, Resolution 14 (2009), http://
ccj.ncsc.org/~/media/Microsites/Files/CCJ/Resolutions/08012009-Encouraging-Collection-of-Data-on-Adult-
Guardianship-Adult-Conservatorship.ashx.

Conference of Chief Justices and Conference of State Court Administrators, In Support of the NCSC Concept 
Paper, State Courts and Elder Abuse:  Ensuring Justice for Older Americans, Resolution 5 (2008), http://ccj.ncsc.
org/~/media/Microsites/Files/CCJ/Resolutions/07302008-In-Support-of-the-NCSC-Concept-Paper-State-Courts-
and-Elder-Abuse.ashx.

Conference of Chief Justices and Conference of State Court Administrators, In Support of the Uniform Adult 
Guardianship and Protective Proceedings Jurisdiction Act, Resolution 5 (2008), https://nacmnet.org/CCCG/
images/Resolution5-UAGPPJA.rtf.

Conference of Chief Justices and Conference of State Court Administrators, In Support of Efforts to Increase 
Access to Justice, Resolution 2 (2008), http://ccj.ncsc.org/~/media/Microsites/Files/CCJ/Resolutions/07302008-In-
Support-of-Efforts-to-Increase-Access-to-Justice.ashx.

Conference of Chief Justices and Conference of State Court Administrators, In Support of The Court-Appointed 
Guardian Accountability and Senior Protection Act, Resolution 6 (2013), http://ccj.ncsc.org/~/media/Microsites/
Files/CCJ/Resolutions/07312013-Support-Court-Appointed-Guardian-Accountability-Senior-Protection-Act-CCJ-
COSCA.ashx.

Conference of State Court Administrators and the National Center for State Courts, Court Statistics Project, State 
Court Guide to Statistical Reporting (2003), http://www.courtstatistics.org/~/media/microsites/files/csp/data%20
pdf/csp%20statisticsguide%20v1%203.ashx.

Conference of State Court Administrators, The Demographic Imperative: Guardianships and Conservatorships 
(2010), http://cosca.ncsc.org/~/media/Microsites/Files/COSCA/Policy%20Papers/COSCA%20White%20
Paper%20-2010.ashx.

Connolly, Marie-Therese et al., U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, The Elder Justice Roadmap: A 
Stakeholder Initiative to Respond to an Emerging Health, Justice, Financial and Social Crisis (2014), http://ncea.
acl.gov/Library/Gov_Report/index.aspx.

Delaware County Bar Association, Elder Law Handbook and Resource Guide (2012), http://www.delcosa.org/
Portals/_AgencySite/Elder%20Law%20Handbook%202012%20with%202014%20update.pdf.

Dumond, Lisa C., The Undeserving Heir: Domestic Elder Abuser’s Right to Inherit, 23 Quinnipiac Prob. L.J. 214 
(2010).

Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council, Bank Secrecy Act/Anti-Money Laundering InfoBase, 
Suspicious Activity Reporting—Overview, http://www.ffiec.gov/bsa_aml_infobase/pages_manual/OLM_015.htm.

Fox 29 News Philadelphia, “Elder abuse” often involves finances (Aug. 7, 2014), http://www.myfoxphilly.com/
story/26214498/elder-abuse-often-involves-finances-study-finds.

Garlicki, Debbi, Guardian Angels: Agency Aids Those Who Have No One Else to Turn to for Assistance, The 
Morning Call (Oct. 29, 2006), http://articles.mcall.com/2006-10-29/news/3703059_1_guardianship-guardian-
angels-agency-aids.

Greenlee,	Kathy,	U.S.	Department	of	Health	and	Human	Services,	Administration	for	Community	Living,	Let’s Talk 
about Elder Abuse Prevention, ACL Blog (June 5, 2014), http://acl.gov/NewsRoom/blog/2014/2014_06_05.aspx.

Herald-Tribune, What you need to know about guardianship (July 21, 2013), http://www.heraldtribune.com/
article/20130721/ARTICLE/130729968.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

264

BIBLIOGRAPHY

265

Hurme, Sally Balch and Erica Wood, Guardian Accountability Then and Now: Tracing Tenets for an Active Court 
Role, 31 Stetson L. Rev. 867 (2002), http://www.stetson.edu/law/lawreview/media/guardian-accountability-then-
and-now-tracing-tenets-for-an-active-court-role.pdf.

Hurme, Sally and Erica Wood, Introduction, Third National Guardianship Summit Standards and 
Recommendations, 2012 Utah L. Rev. 1157 (2012), http://epubs.utah.edu/index.php/ulr/article/viewFile/844/652.

Joint State Government Commission, Guardianship Law in Pennsylvania, Report of the Working Group 
on Guardianships (2007), http://jsg.legis.state.pa.us/resources/documents/ftp/publications/2007-30-
Guardianship%20Law%20in%20PA.pdf. 

Joint State Government Commission. Guardianship Law: Proposed Amendments to the Probate, Estates and 
Fiduciaries Code (2012), http://jsg.legis.state.pa.us/resources/documents/ftp/documents/2012-guardianship%20
report%2010.4.12.pdf.

Joint State Government Commission, Report of the Advisory Committee on Decedents’ Estates Laws, Powers of 
Attorney and Health Care Decision-Making, Proposed Amendments to the Probate, Estates and Fiduciaries Code 
(2011), http://jsg.legis.state.pa.us/resources/documents/ftp/documents/DEL%20-%20Report%206-13-11.pdf.

Joint State Government Commission, Report of the Advisory Committee on Decedents’ Estates Laws, Powers of 
Attorney: Proposed Amendments to the Probate, Estates and Fiduciaries Code (2010), http://jsg.legis.state.pa.us/
resources/documents/ftp/documents/POWERS%20OF%20ATTORNEY%20March%2023%2020101.pdf.

Joint State Government Commission. The Probate, Estates and Fiduciaries Code: Proposed Amendments to 
Title 20 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes (2007), http://jsg.legis.state.pa.us/resources/documents/ftp/
publications/2007-28-DEL%20Report%202007.pdf.

Joint State Government Commission. The Probate, Estates and Fiduciaries Code: Proposed Amendments to 
Title 20 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes (2010), http://jsg.legis.state.pa.us/resources/documents/ftp/
documents/DEL%20Report%20June%202010.pdf.

Joint State Government Commission, The Proposed Pennsylvania Uniform Trust Act and Amendments 
to the Probate, Estates and Fiduciaries Code (2005), http://jsg.legis.state.pa.us/resources/documents/ftp/
publications/2005-41-UTC%204%202005.pdf.

Judicial	Council	of	California,	Administrative	Office	of	the	Courts,	Effective Court Practice for Abused Elders: A 
Report to the Archstone Foundation (2008), http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/courtabused-eldersreport.pdf.

Keilitz,	Susan	and	Hannaford-Agor,	Paula,	National	Center	for	State	Courts,	Addressing Power of Attorney 
Abuse: What Courts Can Do to Enhance the Justice System Response, http://www.eldersandcourts.org/~/media/
Microsites/Files/cec/POA%20White%20Paper%20Final%209_3_2013.ashx.

Korpus,	Kymberleigh	N.,	Extinguishing Inheritance Rights: California Breaks New Ground in the Fight Against 
Elder Abuse But Fails to Build an Effective Foundation, 52 Hastings L. J. 537 (2001).

Legal Services Corporation, Documenting the Justice Gap In America: The Current Unmet Civil Legal Needs of 
Low-Income Americans (2009), http://www.lsc.gov/sites/default/files/LSC/pdfs/documenting_the_justice_gap_in_
america_2009.pdf.

Letter from the Honorable Jim Costa, United States House of Representatives et. al, to the Honorable Hal 
Rodgers, Chairman U.S. House Appropriations Committee, et al. (March 31, 2014).

Letter from the Honorable Patrick Leahy, United States Senate et al., to the Honorable Barbara Mikulski, 
Chairwoman and the Honorable Richard Shelby, Ranking Member of the Senate Appropriations Committee’s 
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice and Science (Apr. 11, 2014).

Letter from Zygmont Pines, Conference of State Court Administrators President, and Mary McQueen, National 
Center for State Courts President, to members of Conference of State Court Administrators (June 17, 2014).

Letter	from	the	Honorable	Myron	T.	Steele,	Conference	of	Chief	Justices	President,	to	Kathy	Greenlee,	Assistant	
Secretary for Aging (July 23, 2013).

Letter	from	Kathleen	Murphy,	President,	Maryland	Bankers	Association	to	members	of	Maryland	Bankers	
Association (Sept. 14, 2012), http://www.mdbankers.com/External/WCPages/WCWebContent/WebContentPage.
aspx?ContentID=1695.

Lubrano, Alfred, Steep Rise Seen in Deep Poverty Among Elderly, Philadelphia Inquirer (Oct. 11, 2013), http://
articles.philly.com/2013-10-11/news/42904099_1_deep-poverty-north-philadelphia-law-center.

Madison, James, The Federalist No. 51.

Matherly, Adam D., The Washington State Slayer and Abuser Statute Expanded, The ADM, esq. Blog Site (May 
19, 2011), http://admesq.wordpress.com/2011/05/19/washington-state-slayer-and-abuser-statute-expanded.

MetLife Mature Market Institute, The MetLife Study of Elder Financial Abuse, Crimes of Occasion, Desperation, 
and Predation Against America’s Elders (2011), https://www.metlife.com/assets/cao/mmi/publications/
studies/2011/mmi-elder-financial-abuse.pdf.

National Adult Protective Services Association, Policy & Advocacy, Elder Financial Exploitation, http://www.napsa-
now.org/policy-advocacy/world-elder-abuse-awareness-day/.

National Association of Court Management, Adult Guardianship Guide: A Guide to Plan, Develop, and Sustain a 
Comprehensive Court Guardianship and Conservatorship Program, 2013-2014 Guide (2013), https://nacmnet.org/
sites/default/files/publications/AdultGuardianshipGuide.pdf.

National Association of VOCA Assistance Administrators, VOCA Funding, http://www.navaa.org/budget/index.html.

National Center for State Courts, Elder Abuse Resource Guide, http://www.ncsc.org/topics/children-families-and-
elders/elder-abuse/resource-guide.aspx.

National College of Probate Court Judges, National Probate Court Standards (2013).

National Center on Elder Abuse, Abuse of Residents of Long Term Care Facilities (2013), http://www.ncea.aoa.
gov/Resources/Publication/docs/NCEA_LTCF_ResearchBrief_2013.pdf.

National Center on Elder Abuse, Elder Abuse and Its Impact: What You Must Know (2013),  
http://www.ncea.aoa.gov/Resources/Publication/docs/NCEA_WhatYouMustKnow	2013_508.pdf.

National Center on Elder Abuse, Red Flags of Abuse, http://ncea.aoa.gov/Resources/Publication/docs/NCEA_
RedFlags_web508.pdf.

National Center on Elder Abuse, Statistics/Data, http://www.ncea.aoa.gov/Library/Data/.

National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, Uniform Guardianship and Protective Procedures 
Act (1997/1998) (1997), http://www.uniformlaws.org/shared/docs/guardianship%20and%20protective%20
proceedings/UGPPA_2011_Final%20Act_2014sep9.pdf.

National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, Uniform Power of Attorney Act (2006) (2006), 
http://www.uniformlaws.org/shared/docs/power of attorney/UPOAA_2011_Final Act_2014sep9.pdf

National Conference of State Legislatures, Financial Crimes Against the Elderly 2012 Legislation, http://www.ncsl.
org/research/financial-services-and-commerce/financial-crimes-against-the-elderly-2012-legis.aspx.

National Criminal Justice Association, Webinar:  Strengthening Court Systems:  Understanding State and Federal 
Resources (2013), http://ncja.org/webinars-events/ncjabja-webinar-series/webinar-archives#strengtheningcourtsy
stems.

National Guardianship Association, Standards of Practice (2013), http://www.guardianship.org/documents/
Standards_of_Practice.pdf.

National Women’s Law Center, National Snapshot: Poverty among Women & Families, 2012 (2013), http://www.
nwlc.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/povertysnapshot2012.pdf.

Nationwide SAR Initiative, The Nationwide SAR Initiative, http://nsi.ncirc.gov/?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1.

New	York	City	Elder	Abuse	Center,	Elder Justice Advocacy: Where We Have Been & Where We Are Going, (July 
31, 2014). http://nyceac.com/elder-justice-dispatch-elder-justice-advocacy-where-we-have-been-where-we-are-
going/.

New	York	Times,	Broken Trust, Mar. 16, 2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/17/opinion/17thu2.html?_r=0.

O’Brien, Elizabeth, Power of attorney: It’s easily abused. How to protect ailing relatives from fraud and abuse, Wall 
Street Journal, Market Watch (March 19, 2013), http://www.marketwatch.com/story/power-of-attorney-its-easily-
abused-2013-03-19.

Oosting, Jonathan, Gov. Rick Snyder Pushes to Make Michigan a ‘No-Wait State’ for In-Home Senior Services, 
MLive (June 2, 2014), http://www.mlive.com/lansing-news/index.ssf/2014/06/snyder_looks_to_make_michigan.
html.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

266

BIBLIOGRAPHY

267

Pearson,	Katherine	C.,	Should “Elder Abuse” Trigger Disinheritance?, Elder Law Prof Blog (Nov. 10, 2013), http://
lawprofessors.typepad.com/elder_law/2013/11/should-elder-abuse-trigger-disinheritance-.html.

Pearson,	Katherine	C.,	and	Cowart,	Trisha,	The Law of Financial Abuse and Exploitation: A Pennsylvania Guide 
for Older Adults, Families, Counsel and Courts (Bisel 2011).

Pennsylvania Department of Aging, Older Adult Protective Services Annual Report, FY 2012-2013, http://www.
aging.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/agency_publications/17894.

Pennsylvania Department of Aging, Press Release, Department of Aging Urges Pennsylvanians to Be Aware 
of Elder Abuse (June 17, 2014), http://www.pa.gov/Pages/NewsDetails.aspx?agency=Aging&item=15745#.
VA4mA7XD8kc.

Pennsylvania Department of Aging, Self Study Course, Older Adults Protective Services Act, http://www.portal.
state.pa.us/portal/server.pt?open=514&objID=616729&mode=2.

Pennsylvania Department of Aging, Self Study Course, Unit 2: Reporting Abuse Process and Responsible 
Parties, http://www.aging.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/self_study_course/18031/unit_2__reporting_
abuse/616740.

Pennsylvania Department of Aging, State Plan on Aging (2012-16) (2012), http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/
server.pt/community/department_of_aging_home_new/19366/hide_plan_on_aging_2012/1070778.

Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare, Governor’s Executive Budget 2014-15, General Fund/Tobacco 
Settlement Fund prepared for Appropriations Committee Hearings (2014), http://www.dpw.state.pa.us/cs/groups/
webcontent/documents/report/p_012081.pdf.

Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare, Long Term Care Handbook, http://services.dpw.state.pa.us/
oimpolicymanuals/manuals/bop/lt/index.htm?_ga=1.197525103.1778040081.1400170279.

Pennsylvania Interest on Lawyers Trust Account Board, The Economic Impact of Outcomes Obtained for Legal 
Aid Clients Benefits Everyone in Pennsylvania (2012), https://www.paiolta.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/
Economic-Impact-of-Legal-Aid.pdf.

Pennsylvania Legal Justice Coalition, Toward Justice For All: Report of the Civil Legal Justice Coalition to the 
Pennsylvania State Judiciary Committee (2014), http://www.philadelphiabar.org/WebObjects/PBA.woa/Contents/
WebServerResources/CMSResources/ReportoftheCivilLegalJusticeCoalition.pdf.

Pennsylvania Legal Aid Network, Statewide Coalition Report Details Growing Crisis in Meeting Critical Legal 
Needs Of Low-Income Pennsylvanians, http://www.palegalaid.net/news/news-releases/statewide-coalition-report-
details-growing-crisis-meeting-critical-legal-needs-lo.

Pennsylvania	Office	of	Attorney	General,	Elder Abuse Unit, https://www.attorneygeneral.gov/Education/Elder_
Abuse_Unit/.

Pennsylvania	Office	of	the	Budget,	Governor’s Executive Budget 2014-2015. General Fund/Tobacco Settlement 
Fund prepared for Appropriations Committee Hearings by the Department of Public Welfare (Feb. 2014).

Pennsylvania Orphans’ Court Procedural Rules Committee, Proposed New Orphans’ Court Rules (2013), http://
www.pacourts.us/assets/uploads/Resources/Documents/Published%20Draft%20of%20proposed%20new%20
OC%20Rules%204%202%2013%20-%20002558.pdf?cb=50586.

Pennsylvania State Data Center, Detailed State and County Population Estimates Released for Pennsylvania: 
Commonwealth’s Population Continues to Grow Increasingly Diverse (2014), http://pasdc.hbg.psu.edu/sdc/
pasdc_files/researchbriefs/2013_Detailed_County_Est.pdf.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Interest on Lawyers Trust Account Board, The Economic Impact of Outcomes 
Obtained for Legal Aid Clients Benefits Everyone in Pennsylvania (2012), https://www.paiolta.org/wp-content/
uploads/2014/05/Economic-Impact-of-Legal-Aid.pdf.

Quinn, Mary Joy, Guardianships of Adults, Achieving Justice, Autonomy, and Safety (Springer Publishing 
Company 2005).

Remondini, David J., Courts and Volunteer Adult Guardianship Programs and Projects, The Indiana Courttimes, 
Feb. 7, 2014, http://indianacourts.us/times/2014/02/courts-and-volunteer-adult-guardianship-programs-and-
projects/.

The Resource for Great Programs, Inc., Report on Pennsylvania’s Access to Justice Act, FY 2004-2011 (2012), 
https://www.pabar.org/public/probono/Full%20Report.pdf.

Rhein, J., No One in Charge: Durable Powers of Attorney and the Failure to Protect Incapacitated Principals, 17 
Elder Law Journal 165 (2009).

Rothman, Max B. and Burton D. Dunlop. Judicial Responses to an Aging America, 42 Ct. Rev. 8 (2005), http://aja.
ncsc.dni.us/courtrv/cr42-1/CR%2042-1Rothman.pdf.

Seal, Catherine and Spencer Crona, Third National Guardianship Summit, Standards for Guardians’ Fees, 2012 
Utah L. Rev. 1575 (2012), http://epubs.utah.edu/index.php/ulr/article/view/845/653.

Shallcross, David, Testimony on Behalf of Attorney General Before Pennsylvania House of Representatives Aging 
and Older Adult Services Committee, Public Hearing (Dec. 9, 2013), http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/TR/
transcripts/2013_0213_0002_TSTMNY.pdf.

Stiegel, Lori A., American Bar Association, Final Technical Report to the National Institute of Justice on ‘A Multi-
Site Assessment of Five Court-Focused Elder Abuse Initiatives,’ (2010), http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/
aba/uncategorized/2011/2011_aging_ea_fin_rep_ct_fcus.authcheckdam.pdf.

Siegal, Marcia Z., Philadelphia Corporation for Aging, Task Force tackles elder abuse, Milestones e-news (Aug. 
22, 2012), http://www.pcacares.org/Milestones_Main_Web_Details.aspx?story=150M46G15M29.

Smith, Senator Gordon H., Exploitation of Seniors: America’s Ailing Guardianship System, Opening Statement, 
Hearing Before the Special Committee on Aging, United States Senate, Washington, DC (Sept. 7, 2006), http://
www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-109shrg31448/html/CHRG-109shrg31448.htm.

Social	Security	Administration,	Office	of	Retirement	and	Disability	Policy,	Office	of	Research,	Evaluation,	and	
Statistics, Annual Statistical Supplement to the Social Security Bulletin, 2012 (Feb. 2013), http://www.ssa.gov/
policy/docs/statcomps/supplement/2012/supplement12.pdf.

Southwestern Pennsylvania Partnership for Aging, The Guide for Guardians (2008).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Statutes/Rules/Regulations

Code of Alabama, 1975 (West).

District	of	Columbia	Official	Code	(West).

Idaho Code Annotated.

Kansas	Statutes	Annotated.

Montana Code Annotated.

Page’s Ohio Revised Code Annotated.

Pennsylvania Code

6 Pa. Code §§ 15.62, 15.63.

55 Pa. Code §181.134.

204 Pa. Code § 303.1-303.18.

Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes

18 Pa.C.S. §§ 2702, 3121, 3123, 3922.

23 Pa.C.S. §§ 6101-6122.

35 Pa.C.S. § 10225.103.

42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9717, 9728.

Pennsylvania General Assembly 

Senate Bill 117 of 2013.

Senate Bill 620 of 2013.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

20 Pa.C.S. §§ 5461, 5501, 5511, 5512.1, 5513, 5521, 5551-5555, 5601-5612, 8411.

268

House Bill 1429 of 2013, enacted, Act 95 of 2014 (Act of July 2, 2014, P.L. 855, No. 95).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

269

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

House Bill 2007 of 2014. 

House Bill 2014 of 2014.

House Bill 2057 of 2014. 

Pennsylvania Orphans’ Court Rules 

Pa. Orphans Ct. R. 14.1–14.5.

Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure

Pa. R.C.P. 1905(b).

Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure

Pa.R.Crim.P. 403, 500, 504, 541. 

Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct 

Pennsylvania Statutes

18 P.S. § 11.201.

35 P.S. §§ 10225.101—10225.5102.

62 P.S. § 403(b).

71 P.S. § 732-204, 205.

73 P.S. § 517.7. 

Revised Statutes of Nebraska Annotated.

United States Code of Federal Regulations 

12 C.F.R  § 12.11.

West’s Annotated California Codes.

West’s Annotated Code of Maryland.

West’s Annotated Code of Virginia.

West’s Annotated Code of West Virginia.

West’s Arkansas Code Annotated.

West’s Code of Georgia Annotated.

West’s Colorado Revised Statutes Annotated.

West’s Florida Statutes Annotated.

West’s Hawai’i Revised Statutes.

West’s Iowa Code Annotated.

West’s Maine Revised Statutes.

West’s New Mexico Statutes Annotated.

West’s Revised Code of Washington Annotated.

West’s Wisconsin Statutes Annotated.

Stiegel, Lori A., American Bar Association Commission on Law and Aging, Final Technical Report to the National 
Institute of Justice on A Multi-Site Assessment of Five Court-Focused Elder Abuse Initiatives (2010), http://www.
americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/uncategorized/2011/2011_aging_ea_fin_rep_ct_fcus.authcheckdam.pdf.

Stiegel, Lori A., American Bar Association Commission on Law and Aging, White Paper on the Judicial System 
for the Elder Justice Coordinating Council, http://www.aoa.gov/AoA_programs/Elder_Rights/EJCC/docs/Stiegel_
White_Paper-Judicial_System.pdf.

Stutts, Jacqueline J., Domestic Violence in Later Life, 53 The Judges’ J. 2 (2014). http://www.americanbar.org/
publications/judges_journal/2014/spring/domestic_violence_in_later_life.html.

Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, Uniform Local Rules of Court (2014), http://www.
sfsuperiorcourt.org/sites/default/files/images/SF%20Local%20Rules%207-1-2014%20FINAL.pdf.

Supreme	Court	of	Pennsylvania,	Office	of	Children	and	Families	in	the	Courts,	Mission and Guiding Principles for 
Pennsylvania’s Child Dependency System (2009).

Third National Guardianship Summit, Third National Guardianship Summit Standards and Recommendations, 
2012 Utah L. Rev. 1191, 1200 (2012), http://epubs.utah.edu/index.php/ulr/article/view/833/642.

Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, State of Florida, Guardian Fee Workgroup, Final Report (2009). http://www.fljud13.org/
Portals/0/Forms/pdfs/ejc/fee%20packet-guidelines.pdf.

Uekert,	Brenda	K.,	Center	for	Elders	and	the	Courts,	Adult Guardianship Court Data and Issues Results from an 
Online Survey (2010), http://www.guardianship.org/reports/Guardianship_Survey_Report.pdf.

Uekert,	Brenda	K.	and	Denise	Dancy,	National	Center	for	State	Courts,	State Courts and Elder Abuse: Ensuring 
Justice for Older Americans, (2007), http://cdm16501.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/famct/id/198.

Uekert,	Brenda	K.	and	Thomas	Dibble,	Guardianship of the Elderly: Past Performance and Future Promises, 23 
The Court Manager 9 (2008), http://www.guardianship.org/reports/Guardianship_of_the_Elderly.pdf.

Uekert,	Brenda	K.,	Zygmont	A.	Pines	and	David	Slayton,	Trends in State Courts 2014, Addressing the Needs of 
Older Americans in the Pennsylvania and Texas Courts (2014), http://www.ncsc.org/~/media/Microsites/Files/
Future%20Trends%202014/Addressing%20the%20Need%20of%20Older%20Americans%20in%20the%20
PA%20and%20TX%20Courts_Pines-Slayton.ashx.

United States Census Bureau, United States Census 2010.

United States Census Bureau, Profile America Facts for Features (2012), https://www.census.gov/newsroom/
releases/archives/facts_for_features_special_editions/cb12-ff07.html.

United States Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Community Living, DOJ and HHS 
call for action to address abuse of older Americans, ACL News (July 9, 2014), http://www.acl.gov/NewsRoom/
Press_Releases/archive_ACL/2014/2014_07_09.aspx. 

United States Department of Health and Human Services, The Elder Justice Roadmap A Stakeholder Initiative 
to Respond to an Emerging Health, Justice, Financial and Social Crisis, http://ncea.acl.gov/Library/Gov_Report/
docs/EJRP_Roadmap.pdf.

United	States	Department	of	Justice,	Office	of	Justice	Programs,	National	Institute	of	Justice,	Financial 
Exploitation of the Elderly (2011), http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/elder-abuse/Pages/financial-exploitation.aspx.

United	States	Government	Accountability	Office,	Elder Justice National Strategy Needed to Effectively Combat 
Elder Financial Exploitation, (2012), http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/650074.pdf.

United	States	Government	Accountability	Office,	Elder Justice, Stronger Federal Leadership Could Enhance 
National Response to Elder Abuse (2011), http://www.gao.gov/assets/320/316224.pdf.

United	States	Government	Accountability	Office.	Guardianships: Cases of Financial Exploitation, Neglect and 
Abuse of Seniors (2010), http://www.globalaging.org/elderrights/us/2010/Finance_Neglect.pdf.

United	States	Government	Accountability	Office,	National Strategy Needed to Effectively Combat Elder Financial 
Exploitation, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-110.

United	States	Government	Accountability	Office,	Guardianships: Collaboration Needed to Protect Incapacitated 
Elderly People (2004), http://www.gao.gov/assets/250/243297.pdf.

United States Social Security Administration, Program Operations Manual System,   https://secure.ssa.gov/
apps10/poms.nsf/subchapterlist!openview&restricttocategory=02005.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

270

271

BIBLIOGRAPHY

United	States	Social	Security	Administration,	Office	of	Retirement	and	Disability	Policy,	Annual	Statistical	
Supplement to the Social Security Bulletin, 2012, http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/supplement/2012/
supplement12.pdf.

National College of Probate Judges, National Probate Court Standards (2013), http://ncsc.contentdm.oclc.org/
cdm/ref/collection/spcts/id/240.

Van	Duizend,	Richard	and	Brenda	K.	Uekert,	Elder Abuse and Exploitation: How Courts Can Take Leadership in 
Developing Effective Responses, 24 Experience 1 (2014). 

Volunteer Center of the Lehigh Valley, Home, http://volunteer.truist.com/lehigh/org/10298948938.html.

Washington	State	Courts	Certified	Professional	Guardian	Program,	Home, http://www.courts.wa.gov/programs_
orgs/guardian/.

APPENDIX A

272

APPENDIX A

273

APPENDIX A

274

APPENDIX A

275

APPENDIX A

276

APPENDIX A

277

APPENDIX A

278

APPENDIX A

279

APPENDIX B

280

APPENDIX B

281

APPENDIX B

282

APPENDIX C

283

APPENDIX C

284

APPENDIX D

285

The Elder Law Task Force

Explanatory Statement

While we recognize that many adults live long, healthy and productive lives well beyond the 
age of 60, for the purposes of this Report, the Elder Law Task Force defines 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 is on elders. 

Disclaimer Statement

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

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

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

or

Office of Attorney General Elder Abuse Hotline:  1-866-623-2137

The Supreme Court

o f   P e n n s y l v a n i a

http://www.pacourts.us/courts/supreme-court/committees/supreme-court-boards/elder-law-task-force

601 Commonwealth Avenue
P.O. Box 61260
Suite 1500
Harrisburg, PA 17106

Report and Recommendations 
of the Elder law task force

NOVEMBER 2014