Protective Services for the Elderly - Benefit of Threat (From Abuse and Maltreatment of the Elderly, P 279-291, 1983, Jordan I Kosberg, ed. See NCJ-91500)

• NCJ Number: 92592
• Author(s): J J Regan
• Date Published: 1983
• Length: 13 pages
• Sale Source: John Wright, PSG Inc
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

Most current State laws on guardianship are inappropriate for many cases of abused, neglected, and exploited adults, but other legal remedies for deterring or incapacitating the abuser or exploiter should be pursued vigorously.

Abstract

The origins of legal authority for involuntary intervention were established in English law and transported to colonial America. The scandalous treatment of the mentally disordered led to the creation of State hospitals in the late 18th century, and procedures for commitment to these institutions were frighteningly simple. Under commitment laws which evolved during the 19th century, the State mental hospital became the end of the road for the elderly until deinstitutionalization in the 1960's released many elderly patients into the community. To meet the needs of these persons as well as those of elderly individuals abused by their families, State protective service programs grew rapidly in the 1970's. One of their major tools, the traditional guardianship procedure, has several problem areas. Courts overemphasize mental incapacity, proceedings are often characterized by unseemly informality, the legal consequences of appointing a guardian are drastic, and the procedure is costly. Moreover, this heavy handed method of authorizing involuntary intervention is useless in crisis situations which require swift action. Reformers in protective services believe involuntary intervention is essential, but wish to correct the procedure's faults by requiring client consent for protective services and permitting the least needed restriction on a person's liberty and other civil rights. Specifically, they suggest that criteria for determining incompetency emphasize specific functional disabilities, that proceedings be adversarial, and that courts be authorized to appoint limited guardians and review guardianships periodically. These principles have encountered a mixed reception; only a few States -- such as Maryland -- have enacted integrated protective service/intervention systems and improved guardianship laws. The paper includes nine footnotes.