U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

31–448 PDF 2007

S. HRG. 109–753

EXPLOITATION OF SENIORS: AMERICA’S AILING

GUARDIANSHIP SYSTEM

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON AGING 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

WASHINGTON, DC

SEPTEMBER 7, 2006

Serial No. 109–30

Printed for the use of the Special Committee on Aging

(

SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON AGING 

GORDON SMITH, Oregon, Chairman 

RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama 

SUSAN COLLINS, Maine 

JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri 

ELIZABETH DOLE, North Carolina 

MEL MARTINEZ, Florida 

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho 

RICK SANTORUM, Pennsylvania 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

JAMES M. JEFFORDS, Vermont 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas 

EVAN BAYH, Indiana 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York 

KEN SALAZAR, Colorado 

CATHERINE FINLEY, Staff Director 

JULIE COHEN, Ranking Member Staff Director 

(II) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Opening Statement of Senator Gordon Smith ....................................................... 1

Statement of Senator Jim Talent ........................................................................... 16

Statement of Senator Ken Salazar ......................................................................... 41

PANEL OF WITNESSES

Ira Salzman, New York, NY ................................................................................... 3

Carol J. Scott, Missouri Long-Term Care ombudsman, Jefferson City, MO ...... 16

Terry W. Hammond, executive director, National Guardianship Association, 

El Paso, TX ........................................................................................................... 30

Barbara B. Bovbjerg, director, Education, Workforce and Income Security, 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, Washington, DC ................................ 47

Hon. Mel Grossman, administrative judge, Florida 17h Judicial Circuit Court, 

Fort Lauderdale, FL ............................................................................................ 66

APPENDIX 

Written Testimony of Ellen J. Henningsen, J.D., Coalition of Wisconsin Aging 

Groups ................................................................................................................... 73

Prepared Statement of Elaine Renoire .................................................................. 81

(III) 

(1)

EXPLOITATION OF SENIORS: AMERICA’S 

AILING GUARDIANSHIP SYSTEM 

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 2006 

U.S. SENATE, 

SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON AGING, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room SD–

562, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Gordon H. Smith, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Smith, Burns, Talent, Carper and Salazar. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR GORDON H. SMITH, 

CHAIRMAN 

The CHAIRMAN. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. The hour 

of 10 has arrived, so take your seats, be at home. We appreciate 

each of you taking the time to join us in what I believe is a topic 

that needs both light and heat. We have entitled this hearing ‘‘Exploitation of Seniors: America’s Ailing Guardianship System.’’ 

I recently learned of an interstate guardianship dispute that has 

tied up the courts, conservators, attorneys, hospitals, police, ambulances, nursing homes, adult protective services, family and friends 

in three different States, all because a native New Yorker fell ill 

while at the Connecticut home of his daughter. The ensuing yearlong battle over his guardianship, which continues today, has cost 

thousands of dollars, torn apart the family, drained taxpayer dollars and administrative resources, and illustrates how ill-equipped 

the courts are to handle such disputes. 

Regrettably, this situation is far from unique. Horror stories 

abound in the press regarding the plundering of assets, physical 

neglect, and the indignity with which elderly wards have been 

treated by their guardians. As we have learned from the highly 

publicized Brooke Astor case, no 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. 

We are here today because, sadly, after 20 years of congressional 

hearings on elder abuse, most State guardianship systems are still 

failing vulnerable seniors. Every State in the country requires a license to practice medicine, law, or even to drive. Unfortunately, the 

same cannot be said for guardians, who in most States remain 

largely unregulated and unsupervised. 

According to a recent L.A. Times series, there are approximately 

500 professional conservators in California overseeing more than 

2

$1.5 billion in assets, and these conservators are subject to less regulation and oversight than a hairdresser or a guide dog trainer. 

Although States have made recent legislative strides to reform 

guardianship laws and ensure better oversight, experts feel there 

has been little progress when it comes to actual court practice. 

What has become clear is that Federal leadership is needed. 

Now, Senator Kohl, who is tied up in another hearing—he is our 

ranking member, but he and I, along with members of the Aging 

Committee, are cosponsors of the Elder Justice Act, a critical and 

necessary step in guardianship reform. The Act funds public education, data collection, and training for law enforcement and elder 

care professionals. So I urge my Senate colleagues and those in the 

House to very quickly pass this important legislation. 

However, States must also step forward and provide courts with 

the necessary staff and resources. Family law, after all, is primarily a State law issue. We are not trying to circumvent them or 

overtake them or preempt them, but clearly we need the States to 

do more when it comes to this very important area. Individuals 

also have a responsibility. They must plan ahead to ensure that 

someone they trust is in control of their financial and personal decisionmaking, should help be needed. 

This morning, we will hear from guardianship experts, including 

Ira Salzman, an attorney in the Brooke Astor case; a long-term 

care ombudsman, and also a probate judge has joined us, and the 

National Guardianship Association. I hope we all leave here today 

with a better understanding of the protections needed by the elderly to grow old simply, with dignity, while also keeping their fundamental freedoms intact. 

So let me introduce our witnesses: first, Mr. Ira Salzman. Welcome, sir. He is an elder law attorney in New York City and currently represents Philip Marshall, the grandson of Brooke Astor. 

Mr. Salzman will share with us the expertise he has gained in representing clients with cases involving guardianships and 

conservatorships. 

He will be followed by Ms. Barbara Bovbjerg, who is the director 

of Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues for the U.S. 

Government Accountability Office. She will provide an update on 

the status of guardianships and conservatorships in the United 

States. 

Then we will hear from Mr. Terry Hammond, who is the executive director of the National Guardianship Association. Mr. Hammond’s testimony will offer input and insight into the current state 

of guardianship in America, as well as the NGA’s recommendations 

for guardianship standards. 

We will then hear from the Honorable Judge Mel Grossman. He 

is the administrative judge for the Florida 17th Judicial Circuit 

Court’s Probate Division. In 2004, Judge Grossman’s circuit court 

was recognized as one of only four exemplary guardianship programs in the Nation by the U.S. Government Accountability Office. 

Judge Grossman will offer this Committee insight from his years 

of court experience with guardianships. 

Finally, and certainly not least, Carol Scott, who is the Missouri 

Long-Term Care State Ombudsman, and has been so since 1989. 

3

From 2000 to 2004, Ms. Scott served as the president of the National Association of Long-Term Care Ombudsman Programs. 

Carol, you may wonder why you are seated in the middle and I 

read your name last. Senator Talent is between two committee 

meetings and wants very much to be here to hear your testimony. 

So when he arrives, which we estimate at about 10:20, we will just 

go to you next in line. So if everybody is OK with that, we will proceed in that order. 

So, Ira Salzman, the mike is yours. 

STATEMENT OF IRA SALZMAN, NEW YORK, NY 

Mr. SALZMAN. Thank you, Senator, and thank you very much for 

the opportunity to testify before you. 

As you said, I am the attorney for Philip Marshall, who is the 

grandson of Brooke Astor, and who has brought the petition to 

have a guardian appointed for his grandmother. But I think in 

terms of understanding where my testimony is coming from this 

morning, I think it is also important for you to know that I also 

represent a number of not-for-profit corporations in New York City 

that serve as guardian where there is no one else available to 

serve. These are publicly funded not-for-profits and are essentially 

New York City’s equivalent of a public guardian program. 

Now, a lot of people have read a lot of the allegations that have 

been made in the Brooke Astor case in the newspapers, and many, 

many people have walked up to me and told me they have found 

these allegations to be shocking. I believe that the sense of outrage 

that this case has engendered is fully justified. 

But having said that, I think there is a really important point 

that needs to be made, and you made it in your opening statement, 

Senator. The Astor case is not unique. In the Astor case, my client 

is alleging that a power of attorney has been misused to misappropriate money. My firm has been involved in a lot of cases like this. 

This is not uncommon. 

Similarly, in the Astor case it is alleged that money has been 

misspent or not spent for needed care. Again, this is not an uncommon situation. My firm has been involved in a lot of cases where 

this has happened. In the Astor case, we were lucky enough to be 

able to document the allegations of abuse so well that the court in 

New York was able to determine that the immediate appointment 

of temporary guardians was necessary. 

There is an important lesson from this. Guardianship can be a 

powerful weapon in the battle to stop elder abuse, and when we 

talk about the regulation of guardianship, it is important not to 

lose track of the fact that it is an important tool to stop elder 

abuse, to prevent financial exploitation, to assist people who otherwise cannot manage for themselves. 

The goal should be regulation with an appropriate balance. In 

terms of looking at that, I think one has to look at this also from 

not only the point of view of the regulator, but from the point of 

view of the guardian because the truth of the matter is being a 

guardian is hard work for which you are rarely adequately compensated. Supervising the care of an incapacitated person can be 

very time-consuming. 

4

As I was outside, in front of this building this morning, my cell 

phone rang and it turned out that my mother-in-law’s Lifeline alert 

system had gone off and it was the Lifeline people calling me to 

tell me there might be something wrong with my mother-in-law. 

Now, it turned everything was fine. There was a glitch in the 

phone system, but if you are a guardian, you may have a whole 

number of these systems. There may be a lot of Lifeline calls that 

you are going to get. If you get this kind of thing, you have stop 

what you are doing—it doesn’t matter what it is—and you have to 

fix it. It takes an extraordinary kind of person to be willing to do 

this and to do it right. 

You are not only managing personal affairs; you are also managing money, and you have to manage money with the knowledge 

that the court may come to you after the fact and says challenge 

you did, which means you have to be unafraid of being secondguessed by the court. 

Being a guardian can be difficult particularly in abuse cases because sometimes abused elderly people oppose the elimination of 

the abuser from their lives. Therefore, those who want to intercede 

in abuse cases frequently have an extraordinarily difficult decision 

to make. What is going to cause more harm: allowing the abuse to 

continue or separating the incapacitated person who is being 

abused from his or her loved one? 

If there is no one available who is willing to serve as a guardian 

without receiving the fair market value of the services that need 

to be rendered, then even the simplest of guardian cases can be expensive. Under New York law, for example, a guardian has to visit 

a ward at least four times a year. 

Let’s assume that a person is in a residential care facility and 

in stable condition. This is the simplest of simple care plans. Let’s 

assume a visit takes 3 hours, including transportation. Let’s assume further that the guardian only has to spend an hour a month 

paying bills and filing insurance claims, and another 3 hours a 

year filing reports for the courts. That means at a minimum, in the 

simplest of cases, you are talking about 27 hours a year, and that 

assumes nothing has gone wrong. 

If someone is living at home, then the amount of time that a 

guardian has to spend is always going to be substantially more 

than that because especially when you are using a guardianship to 

manage a care plan at home, what you are doing is you are buying 

family, and family doesn’t come cheap. 

This is a particular problem for lower-middle-class and poor people who are incapacitated and therefore need guardians, because 

guardianship for the lower middle class and the poor can be critical 

in order to prevent homelessness or unnecessary institutionalization. Guardianship, as time-consuming and as expensive as it may 

be, is often a crucial part of the equation that allows people to live 

out their lives at home. 

In the context of what I have said so far, I would like to make 

six points. First, guardianship is a really important tool that can 

be used to implement a care plan for incapacitated persons, stop 

elder abuse, and prevent self-neglect. 

Second, being a guardian and doing it right is time-consuming, 

hard work. Third, if there is family involved and enough money to 

5

pay for the care plan, plus legal and accounting expenses, a guardianship can work well. 

Fourth, even committed and caring people can be scared off by 

having to be involved in a legal system and being required to file 

what appear to them to be complicated reports when there isn’t 

enough money to pay for legal and accounting assistance and the 

guardian can’t afford to pay for this assistance with his or her own 

funds. 

Five, oversight is important, but oversight of guardians is expensive. The more oversight you have, the more complex the system 

becomes. By expensive, I don’t just mean the cost of the people 

doing the oversight; I also mean the cost of the professionals necessary to help the guardians deal with the oversight. People don’t 

like to go to court for a compliance conference in front of a judge 

without a lawyer. This is not an unreasonable position. How does 

that lawyer get paid? 

Now, I am certainly not saying there shouldn’t be oversight. 

What I am saying is the system needs to be user-friendly. Oversight should not just mean supervision; it should also mean technical assistance to help guardians so they don’t trouble with the 

people doing the oversight. 

Last, as baby-boomers age and find that their children do not 

live near them, there is going to be an increased need for public 

guardianship. Poor people needs guardians, too, and as I said, 

guardianship done well is expensive. But in many cases, public 

guardianship will be the only alternative for some people if society 

wants to avoid having them become homeless or being unnecessarily institutionalized. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify before you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Ira. As I listen to your 

testimony and I consider this whole category of guardianship and 

I think of the baby-boom generation that is going to double the size 

of the elder population in the next few years, I wonder if there isn’t 

some level of increased professionalization that ought to take place 

in the whole category of being a guardian. 

We don’t set fees in government for lawyers, except as to public 

defense and things like that, but I am just troubled by anybody can 

be a guardian. There is no standard, apparently. There is no 

schooling, there is no level of qualification that can prepare a 

guardian for dealing with all the things you have just cited. 

In your view, are there sufficient standards for guardianship in 

this country? 

Mr. SALZMAN. Well, I can only speak for New York, and in New 

York guardians are required to go through training before they are 

permitted to serve. I actually chair one of the training programs in 

New York. 

The CHAIRMAN. So New York is, but how about other States? 

Through your own knowledge, do they have such systems? 

Mr. SALZMAN. I don’t know, but I think there is a further point, 

if I can make it, Senator. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. 

Mr. SALZMAN. You first have to distinguish between lay guardians and professional guardians. I think that there has to be a bias 

in the system in favor of letting family members take care of their 

6

own, and the goal there should have them not only go through 

training, but have available technical assistance for them. 

The CHAIRMAN. For lay guardians? 

Mr. SALZMAN. For lay guardians, for family members. 

The CHAIRMAN. Does that exist adequately, in your view? 

Mr. SALZMAN. No, it does not. We have one experimental program going on in Brooklyn, which I understand is going very well, 

but it is specially funded and it is only in Brooklyn. 

I think that in New York, we have two kinds of professional 

guardians. We have not-for-profits who serve as community guardian programs or their equivalent. They are not licensed, per se, but 

they serve under contract with government agencies and are audited by the government agencies and supervised directly by the 

government agencies as part of the contract process. 

In addition, the courts will appoint lawyers who serve as guardians from time to time or social workers who will serve as guardians from time to time. They are required to go through 6 hours 

of training in order to serve. In addition, they are required to file 

accounts which are reviewed annually. 

The CHAIRMAN. Do they take an examination? Do they get a license? 

Mr. SALZMAN. There is no examination, there is no license. 

The CHAIRMAN. You spoke about how costly it is to be a guardian. Whether you are a professional or a lay guardian, there are 

fiduciary responsibilities attendant to that position, and taking 

time costs money. Yet, I am wondering if the lack of standards 

doesn’t incentivize some of the financial malfeasance that seems to 

be reported with such regularity; that someone might feel justified 

in raiding the corpus of an elder’s estate feeling like, well, they are 

entitled to it. That creates all kinds of litigation, I am sure, because some would regard it as excessive or in some cases even 

criminal. 

Mr. SALZMAN. I have been involved in some of these cases, and 

you look at the financial records after the fact and you can see all 

kinds of different stories that pop up. I remember one of the first 

ones I saw was there was a guardian who was short of money. He 

took $200 out and then he put it back, and you could see it in the 

records; he put it back. Then a month later, he was short and he 

took another $300 and he put it back, and he repeated this half a 

dozen times. Then there was the first time that he didn’t have the 

money and he couldn’t put it back. 

When people run into hard times, then the great quote from 

‘‘Lady Windermere’s Fan’’ becomes applicable: ‘‘I can resist anything except temptation.’’ So, certainly, you want guardians who 

are financially stable. People get into trouble and they look at this 

pot of money and say, ‘‘Oh, it is only going to be a loan, no one 

is ever going to notice, I will take it and I will put it back.’’ That 

is a common story, that is a common story. 

There are some people who are just plain dishonest and do it immediately. There are lot of people who are just sloppy. There are 

a lot of people who think, well, it is just a little bit, nobody is going 

to notice. I just finished an audit of a guardianship account where 

they just ran up credit card bills to go out to dinner. There was 

a few million dollars involved and they ran up, over 3 years, $40, 

7

$50,000 worth of really odd credit card bills. They figure, you know, 

I am doing the work, it is really for her benefit, we are talking 

about here. It would be deductible in the income tax, so I am going 

to take it under the same rule. There are varying levels of venality. 

The CHAIRMAN. Should it be more formalized either in regulation 

or statute at the State level? 

Mr. SALZMAN. Well, I think the laws are pretty clear. The issue 

is what do people do about it. 

The CHAIRMAN. People are afraid to break the law. I mean, you 

are right. 

Mr. SALZMAN. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. But I guess I am just wondering if, in your view, 

in your experience, a lot of this goes away if someone does sufficient estate planning and provides for reasonable compensation for 

a guardian. 

Mr. SALZMAN. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yet a lot of people die intestate with no planning. 

You speak of the poor who need guardianship, just as someone who 

is wealthy, and I am just wondering if the difference between 

someone who is prepared—I mean, I have to believe Brooke Astor 

was prepared, and I don’t want to ask you any details on a case. 

I know you have a responsibility there not to do that. 

But it does seem to me that such a range of financial abilities, 

such a range of financial planning for one’s later years—maybe 

there ought to be some general sorts of statutes in every State, and 

perhaps even the Federal Government, to give some guidance, 

some legal structure to this relationship. 

Mr. SALZMAN. I think that in terms of cases where there are assets, when there is money around, there is always going to be 

somebody there who is going to complain. Ultimately it is going to 

pop up because ultimately the heirs are going to take a look at it 

and they are going to say what happened here. 

My concern in terms of guardianship and in terms of where 

guardianship is going down the road is what happens with the people who don’t have money and still need guardians. My clients 

have had extraordinary successes in keeping people home simply 

by virtue of the fact that the guardianship was in place and homes 

were preserved. 

What I would hope that the Federal Government would do would 

be to look toward establishing best practices for guardianships, in 

general, and funding for public guardianship, in particular. I guess 

that leads me to the Elder Justice Act, which I think is an important first step by the Federal Government—should it pass, would 

be an important first step by the Federal Government to establish 

a national platform for the discussion of these issues, to establish 

funding for best practices, to deal with the data collection issues, 

because one of the things that I believe was pointed out in the 

GAO report is that we are really not sure as to what the nature 

and extent of the abuse is. 

I don’t think we want to regulate to the point where we squeeze 

family members out of the system and we don’t want to regulate 

to the point where doing the job becomes prohibitively expensive. 

8

The CHAIRMAN. Those three things you mention—data collection—well, it escapes me the other points you just made, but they 

are on the record. You are familiar with the Elder Justice Act? 

Mr. SALZMAN. I am. 

The CHAIRMAN. Do you think we have sufficiently addressed 

those concerns? 

Mr. SALZMAN. I do. 

The CHAIRMAN. So you would suggest we get it through? 

Mr. SALZMAN. Without question, without question. 

The CHAIRMAN. But you would add dollars for best practices to 

incentivize States? 

Mr. SALZMAN. Absolutely. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, thank you very, very much. It has been 

very helpful to have your comments on the record. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Salzman follows:]

9


31448.001
10


31448.002
11


31448.003
12


31448.004
13


31448.005
14


31448.006
15


31448.007
16

The CHAIRMAN. I see Senator Talent has just arrived. So as I 

mentioned in the beginning, what we will do is jump now to Carol 

Scott, who is from Missouri, and depending on where you are from 

in Missouri, you might say Missoura. 

How do you say it, Senator Talent? 

Senator TALENT. Well, that is a question I never answer. [Laughter.] 

Either pronunciation is commonly used by fine Missourians all 

over our State. Am I recognized for my statement? 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, you are recognized for your statement and 

then we will go to your witness. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JIM TALENT 

Senator TALENT. Speaking of fine Missourians, Carol Scott is 

with us today. I want to thank you first, Mr. Chairman, for calling 

this hearing. There is just no question that we as a society need 

to commit ourselves, and I think we are committed, to helping our 

most vulnerable citizens. This certainly includes seniors who are 

subject to physical or financial threats, in some cases from those 

who ought to be close to them, who ought to be looking out the 

most for them. Guardianship is a great legal tool. It has benefited 

many, many people. It is an important tool, but if it is not carefully 

used and administered, it can hurt people as well. 

So I am glad you are holding this hearing and I am pleased that 

my old friend, Carol, is with us today. Carol Scott and I met when 

I served in the Missouri legislature. She has served as the Missouri 

Long-Term Care Ombudsman for almost 20 years. She is the past 

president of the National Association of Long-Term Care Ombudsman Programs. Her service also includes the Medicare Fraud Prevention Program and the Missouri End-of-Life Coalition. 

I will just say, Mr. Chairman, she really knows her stuff, so you 

picked a good witness. I am looking forward to hearing her testimony and the testimony of the other witnesses as well, and their 

recommendations about what we can do to help educate seniors 

and their communities about guardianship and how to use it in the 

right way to preserve seniors’ physical and financial integrity. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Talent. 

Carol Scott. 

STATEMENT OF CAROL J. SCOTT, MISSOURI STATE LONGTERM CARE OMBUDSMAN, JEFFERSON CITY, MO 

Ms. SCOTT. Senator Smith, Senator Talent, good morning. In 

Jenny Joseph’s poem ‘‘Warning,’’ she writes ‘‘When I am an old 

woman, I shall wear purple, with a red hat which doesn’t go and 

doesn’t suit me.’’ At the end, she ends with, ‘‘But maybe I ought 

to start now so people who know me are not too shocked and surprised when I am suddenly old and start to wear purple.’’ It seems 

that there is a never-ending battle to debunk stereotypic notions of 

older and disabled adults. Often, the labeling of an individual is 

tantamount to presumption of the need for guardianship. Finding 

yourself under a court-appointed guardian can happen quickly. 

There was a gentlemen in Missouri who was driving his pickup 

down the street and, within 2 weeks, was in a nursing home with 

17

a guardian. Within 6 weeks, all of his belongings were thrown 

away and all his real estate was sold. Within that time, he got better, and with the help of the ombudsman’s program, the nursing 

home and the physician he asked the court to overturn his guardianship and the request was denied. 

In another Missouri case, the guardian of seven residents of one 

nursing home moved these individuals because the guardian was 

mad that the nursing home was requesting payment. One of these 

residents had lived in that nursing home for over 25 years. 

From across the country, ombudsman stories remain the same 

that the system is not working as it should in all cases. It is far 

too easy to take advantage of people. There is a lack of training 

and there are few standards in place to protect these vulnerable 

people. 

In Ohio, the ombudsman learned that an agency planned to move 

all their wards from their nursing home without even talking to 

them. The ombudsman visited and notified the court, but they were 

moved anyway. One resident died after that move. The agency then 

wrote a letter to the new nursing facility telling them not to allow 

the ombudsman to visit their residents without the guardian being 

present. Well, this is against Federal law, so the ombudsman program is not complying with that request. 

In New Jersey, a case of an attorney who was appointed guardian. The guardian applied for Medicaid when the ward had 

$49,000, or should have had $49,000 in the bank. This case is now 

under investigation. In Michigan, two cases where the wards were 

placed in locked Alzheimer’s units in the nursing home. Neither 

had dementia and in both cases the facility and physicians felt the 

individuals did not need a guardian. 

While family members and friends assume the role of guardian 

or conservator, in Missouri there are no training requirements and 

only a yearly accounting of finances which is sent to the local probate court. Low-income family members face difficulties because of 

the cost of establishing a guardianship. In these situations, family 

members who are willing to be guardians should be encouraged, 

not discouraged and punished by the cost of becoming a guardian. 

The CHAIRMAN. Should they be compensated, Carol? 

Ms. SCOTT. That is a hard question. I don’t know. I don’t know 

where the money would come from. 

The CHAIRMAN. I just ask that question because it leads back to 

this whole incentive for abuse. I am sorry to interrupt you. 

Ms. SCOTT. No, that is OK. That is a tough question because I 

mean as Mr. Salzman says, there is a lot of time and energy put 

in. So I am not sure that paying is the right thing, but some incentive—in Missouri, it costs about $1,000 to get a guardianship established and that is what the beginning issue is, is just the cost of 

doing it. 

There are many best practices across the States and I think 

States need to look at and make appropriate changes. As far as the 

role of the Federal Government, I have four ideas. 

One is there is a need for coordination between the Social Security Administration, the VA representative payment programs and 

State courts handling guardianships. This issue is described in the 

2004 GAO report. In the Older Americans Act, there is a need for 

18

beefing up the legal services program. In many States, this program is floundering due to lack of attention and funding. 

The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State 

Laws has convened a committee to address interstate issues. It 

would be great if Congress could somehow promote the portability 

of guardianships created in other States. 

Fourth, the Federal Government could conduct a study of the 

connection between guardianship and the inappropriate institutionalization of individuals in nursing homes. When guardianship 

works well, it is fine to have control at the local probate court level. 

When it is not working, there is a need for some other type of oversight. There may be a need for someone to have oversight to review 

the financial dealings, the living arrangements of the ward, and 

other quality-of-life issues. Training, education and oversight are 

solutions that can happen, but will take time and money. 

In addition to my testimony, I have submitted some other ideas 

for recommendations for actions. I look forward to going back to my 

State, and I hope everyone in this room does to their own States, 

to see if we can’t make some changes. 

Thank you very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Carol. This question is not a criticism of Missouri, but just a question. Is the State legislature there 

taking this issue up? 

Ms. SCOTT. We are identifying State legislators that are very interested in this case. We have a situation right now where in Missouri we have public administrators that are elected within each 

county, and we currently have in the news one of those that is 

under investigation for possible financial dealings. I think that case 

will result in there being a lot of interest in this topic in the next 

legislative session. 

The CHAIRMAN. In Missouri, do public guardians get training? 

Are they licensed? 

Ms. SCOTT. No, they are not licensed. They do have a requirement to receive training, but it is less than 30 hours. I mean, they 

have written it themselves and so it is information that is kind of 

passed on. It is not any kind of a certified training. 

The CHAIRMAN. How about private guardians? If the public ones 

don’t have any more than that, the private guardians have nothing? 

Ms. SCOTT. It depends on the court as to how much information 

is even given on what the job is. From court to court, it is very 

much a good old—what is that called, the buddy system, so depending on the county and the judge on how much oversight is given. 

It could be that the paperwork is sent in and it is just filed in a 

filing cabinet and not ever even reviewed. 

Senator TALENT. Mr. Chairman, can I ask——

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, Senator Talent. 

Senator TALENT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, because as is often 

the case, as you know, we have a lot of different things going on 

at the same time and I am not going to be able to stay for the 

whole thing. 

I wanted to ask Carol—and with your permission, Mr. Chairman, 

if anybody else wants to chime in. To me, the guardian is one offiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:15 Jan 17, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\DOCS\31448.TXT SAGING1 PsN: JOYCE
19

cer who is supposed to be looking out for seniors. The other person 

who is always supposed to be doing this is the judge. 

Now, in my limited experience, because I never practiced in this 

field, judges are not just supposed to accept representations that 

are made to them when somebody seeks guardianship. I mean, you 

are supposed to ask questions particularly if the person has no attorney representing them, if it is an ex parte proceeding. 

Is it your experience that people will falsify, say, affidavits to 

judges or testimony to judges about the mental state or condition 

of the senior in order to get guardianship rights? I am reading your 

anecdotes and I know this happens where people are treated as if 

they have Alzheimer’s when they don’t. Well, this is a factual question. I mean, you can’t just go in to a judge and say, you know, my 

aunt has Alzheimer’s, when she doesn’t. 

Is anybody holding these judges accountable for their decisions, 

or what is fouling up at this point? 

Ms. SCOTT. Somebody else here might be able to answer. 

Senator TALENT. I notice Mr. Grossman reacting to my question, 

so if he would like to add something. 

Ms. SCOTT. I will tell you that my experience in Missouri is, 

again, in my counties there is that good old buddy system. We see 

instances where the ward is not even notified that there is a court 

hearing. We see instances where the family member is not even notified that this is happening. We see where the judge and the 

guardian, whether it be public or private—I don’t know what the 

reason is. 

The gentleman that was driving down the street and ended up—

the only explanation we have is that he happened to own some lake 

property that some people wanted to get a hold of to do a development, and unfortunately this was a 70-some-year-old sailor who 

talked like he was still out on the sea and they absolutely took advantage of him. I have no understanding why the judge didn’t do 

something different, other than didn’t want to rock the boat, didn’t 

look at it. 

We actually did some training with The Missouri Bar to get the 

attorneys to do something, because we have attorneys who aren’t 

even visiting their wards before they represent them in court. 

Senator TALENT. Does anybody else want to comment on that? 

Judge GROSSMAN. If I could respond? 

The CHAIRMAN. Please, yes, go ahead. 

Judge GROSSMAN. Florida is a little different because Florida for 

about 40 years has seen an influx of retirees whose children are 

up north, and a lot of them in Mr. Salzman’s neck of the woods, 

and so we do have some history. 

In 1989, the Florida legislature enacted some comprehensive 

statutes on guardianship, and then just this past session, as a result of recommendations from the State legislature, created a 

guardianship task force, on which I served representing the circuit 

court of the State. We had a bunch of recommendations and they 

were successfully passed this last session. 

There is also, Senator Talent, a line of cases principally out of 

Maryland that takes the position—and it is a position I am comfortable with—that says that the person that we call a guardian is 

not really the guardian. Ultimately, the guardian is the judge and 

20

the court, and the person we appoint as a guardian is, in fact, acting as an agent for the court. 

We have in my circuit especially—and there are disagreements 

even among my colleagues in Florida, but every time there is a petition for incapacity in Florida, the first thing that happens is I 

enter an order appointing an attorney to represent that alleged incapacitated person and I appoint a guardianship examining committee composed of three people who go out and make a report 

back, and then there is an evidentiary hearing. 

Ms. Scott, I will be happy to give you the cites that are here so 

that you can put some of those together with the State of Missouri. 

But once you get past the appointment process, I have to tell you 

all that we have a requirement that professional guardians, and if 

they are corporate guardians, that any employee that has a fiduciary duty to a ward have a background investigation done. In my 

circuit, we do it annually. It has to be done every 2 years under 

the statute, and we check for criminal, we check for credit, and we 

check with our Department of Children and Families for any reports of exploitation, abuse, or neglect before anybody is appointed. 

Once they are appointed, there are educational requirements. We 

require 8 hours for family, generally, in terms of the elderly for a 

family member. Our bar association puts those on. For professionals, they have to be registered with the statewide public guardianship office, and if they are not on the registry, they can’t be appointed and they can’t get paid. 

Then we have codified in State legislative provisions—we have 

the ability to appoint court monitors. In my circuit and in one other 

circuit, we have actually an in-house capability. In my circuit, we 

have a full-time in-house court monitor with a clerical staff, and we 

have probably the most robust set-up of any circuit in Florida. If 

there is any indication that comes to a judge or a magistrate that 

there is something that is not quite right, or even if we get a letter 

in the mail and even if it is anonymous, the first thing we will do 

is we will send out that in-house court monitor to check. 

Now, 90 percent of the time——

Senator TALENT. No problem. 

Judge GROSSMAN [continuing]. There is no problem, but it is that 

troublesome 10 percent. So we decided, after some negative newspaper series—nothing gets the attention of the judiciary more than 

a 5-day mini-series in a major newspaper in the area that appears 

at the top of 1A, and above the fold, as well, are the recommendations that say Broward judges do a poor job of oversight. So we 

took that very seriously and basically we default to worst-case scenario in terms of our operating procedures. Now, does that cost 

money? Mr. Salzman, you are absolutely right; it costs money, but 

we have been fortunate enough to get some resources. 

The other thing, and it is really not directly related to this, but 

let me just touch on it anyway is we have an Office of Public 

Guardian. It is modestly funded, but what we did was I created a 

public-private partnership with Barry University, which is in south 

Florida, which has an excellent school of social work. Essentially, 

the university provides for our public guardian operation. So you 

don’t have any education with that, but I do think education and 

I do think that there needs to be some funding. 

21

Senator TALENT. Thank you, Mr. Grossman. Can I just make a 

final point for the record? 

The CHAIRMAN. Of course. 

Senator TALENT. I am glad you mentioned, Mr. Grossman, and 

I am sure you probably did also, Mr. Chairman, that there are 

thousands and thousands of devoted children and relatives out 

there caring everyday. I have staff members in this situation with 

an aged relative, and we should say that. I mean, the love that you 

see in this kind of a setting is just—you just never see it repeated. 

We do have these abuses, and I congratulate you and Senator 

Kohl because this is one of the things this Committee is for. I suspect that if the Committee just issued a paper with some recommendations to some State supreme courts and some county public administrators, that publicity alone probably would light a fire 

under people to do what they are already supposed to be doing a 

little bit better. I would suggest that the Chairman consider that. 

The CHAIRMAN. I am encouraged, Judge. I forget the Justice of 

the Supreme Court that made the comment in one of his opinions 

that judges read newspapers, too. 

Senator TALENT. Not that we ever do, of course. 

The CHAIRMAN. There is nothing like the court of public opinion 

to make modifications. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Scott follows:]

22


31448.008
23


31448.009
24


31448.010
25


31448.011
26


31448.012
27


31448.013
28


31448.014
29

The CHAIRMAN. We are also joined by Senator Burns, of Montana. Senator, if you have an opening statement or a question of 

any of the witnesses——

Senator BURNS. Well, no, and I just want to thank you. Just listening to this discussion this morning, whenever you appoint a 

guardian, do they also have the power of attorney? 

Judge GROSSMAN. In Florida, there are different degrees in terms 

of guardianship. We have, pursuant to statute, a laundry list of 

rights and powers that an individual is free to enjoy in our society 

and which ones can be taken away and which can be delegated to 

a guardian and which cannot be delegated to a guardian. 

If you are talking about a durable power of attorney for financial 

things, a durable power of attorney, if it did exist, would cease in 

Florida when a guardian is appointed and the guardian would be 

taking over the financial aspects of the ward. I am not sure that 

that answers your question. 

Senator BURNS. Is that unique to Florida or are there other 

States——

Judge GROSSMAN. My understanding is it is not necessarily 

unique to Florida, but again more than any other State we have 

been out there a whole lot longer, although you are going to see 

the same situations as they sweep across the Sun Belt and this is 

just the beginning. 

One of the problems with this particular area is that, No. 1, nobody likes to face their own mortality. No child likes to recognize 

the fact that their parents are in need of assistance, and no parent 

relishes the idea of any kind of even limited role reversal. So this 

becomes a really difficult deal for families to work out. 

I agree with what Senator Talent said and, Senator Smith, what 

you said, as well as Mr. Salzman. I mean, most families really care 

about their families and really do everything they can to help 

them. Most professional guardians do the same way. But in answer 

specifically to your question about durable power of attorney, that 

would cease in Florida when a guardian was appointed. 

Senator BURNS. Do you have the attorneys—do they sort of pull 

back on that? 

Judge GROSSMAN. Well, you see, another difference between Missouri and many other States is every guardian, unless they are an 

attorney, has to be represented by an attorney. Originally, that was 

designed as best I can tell to provide a backup system for the court. 

For a good 10 years now, the general policy of the State of Florida 

has been that while the guardian is the representative, the attorney who has been selected by the guardian to represent the guardian has also a third-party beneficiary relationship with the ward, 

which brings on certain obligations. 

In July, the Alaska Supreme Court just ruled in a guardianship 

case where the attorney knew or should have known that something wrong was happening as a result of what the guardian was 

doing with the ward’s assets that the attorney was potentially liable for the losses and the injuries incurred by the ward by virtue 

of his or her not stepping forward and essentially blowing the whistle. 

Senator BURNS. Well, I can see where there would be a little conflict there. I have been through this with my parents. Of course, 

30

the toughest thing in the whole family deal is when you take the 

car keys away from them. That is the toughest part of managing 

your parents, so to speak, when everybody knows they shouldn’t be 

driving. Now, once you make it over that hill, everything else falls 

in place, you know, but the toughest part is getting those car keys. 

Judge GROSSMAN. You are braver than I. I told my father, may 

he rest in peace, that the car had been stolen. [Laughter.] 

Senator BURNS. Well, my father was fortunate, or however you 

would term it. The first time he had a pain in his whole life, he 

was 86 and then they found there was cancer in his liver and they 

told him he only had 90 days to live. He looked at my mother and 

said, ‘‘Now, ain’t that something?’’ But my mother was a very 

strong-willed lady and getting the car keys from her was a little 

bit tougher. 

I just want to know the difference because are we saying here—

and by the way, both of those people that I was talking about are 

buried in Davies County, MO. You know where Davies County is? 

Ms. SCOTT. Yes. 

Senator BURNS. This is where Frank James stood trial. 

Are we saying here that we are suggesting guidelines should be 

passed on the Federal level to unify the laws across the land, because sometimes caring children are not residents of the States in 

which their parents reside? Are we suggesting that? 

Mr. HAMMOND. Mr. Chair, is it my turn? I will go ahead and answer that question and make my comments, if that would be appropriate at this time, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Sure. 

STATEMENT OF TERRY W. HAMMOND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

NATIONAL GUARDIANSHIP ASSOCIATION, EL PASO, TX 

Mr. HAMMOND. Thank you. My name is Terry Hammond. I am 

the executive director of the National Guardianship Association. I 

am a practicing attorney in El Paso, TX. El Paso County, TX, is 

one of the poorest communities in this country, and so we see a lot 

of indigent guardianship issues where I practice. On behalf of the 

National Guardianship Association, I would like to thank Chairman Smith and the Special Committee for allowing the NGA to testify on the incidence of guardianship in the aging and disabled population in America. 

The NGA was created in 1988 in response to a withering report 

by the Associated Press that exposed inadequacies in State guardianship systems. I will note that the theme of that report in 1987 

was Guardians of the Elderly: An Ailing System. Today, in 2006, 

the theme of this hearing is Exploitation of Seniors: America’s Ailing Guardianship System—almost exactly the same theme 20 years 

apart. 

NGA membership is comprised of guardians and professionals 

from all walks of life. The mission of the NGA is to establish and 

promote a recognized standard of excellence in the guardianship 

practice. Honored Members, I must tell you that despite the best 

efforts of hundreds of committed guardians, judges and attorneys, 

at this time we have elderly and disabled Americans suffering in 

their homes and in our streets. 

31

As more Americans age, Federal, State and county governments 

look to each other to meet the needs of a generation that has given 

its all and now is in need of support of governmental services to 

survive. The lack of a coordinated response at all levels of government too often leaves our elderly to live their final days penniless 

and in unspeakable pain. Simply put, we are not doing senior 

Americans justice. At a minimum, the Federal Government should 

create an environment conducive to successful judicial intervention 

for those in need of a guardian. 

This is a challenging time to be engaged in the guardianship 

process in America. In recent years, we have had such high-profile 

cases as Rosa Parks, Brooke Astor, Molly Orshansky and Lillian 

Glasser, the numbers of which are eclipsed by scores of Americans 

in each of our hometowns. The national spotlight has been directed 

on guardianship often in an unflattering manner. The American 

guardianship system is far from perfect. 

Americans may find themselves before a guardianship court with 

a loved one or third party seeking appointment as guardian. If the 

physician indicates there is a medical necessity for guardianship, 

the court may appoint a guardian even over the objection of the elderly person. Often, there is evidence of abuse, neglect or exploitation necessitating the appointment of the guardian. 

The courts are increasingly turning to third-party professional 

guardians where there are family members who are not appropriate or not available, or even where distance separated loved 

ones. At this time, no one knows how many guardianships there 

are in America. This is because guardianship is a uniquely local 

process governed by State law and administered on a local level, 

often county by county. 

For example, in Texas alone there are 254 counties, each of 

which administers guardianship slightly differently. There are no 

national standards for guardianship other than the standards of 

practice for guardians adopted by the National Guardianship Association. There is no national certification process for guardians—

and this is, Senator, following up on your comments—other than 

the registered guardian and master guardian certification testing 

process adopted and promoted by the NGA’s sister entity, the National Guardianship Foundation. 

A recent study on guardianship by the ABA Commission on Law 

and Aging concluded basic data on guardianship is scant, offering 

courts, policymakers and practitioners little guidance for improving 

the system. The 2004 report by the GAO confirms these findings. 

Only a handful of State court systems are equipped or even interested in collecting data on guardianships. Although guardianships 

are local in nature, there are a number of areas in which the Federal Government’s policies impact on guardianship. I would like to 

highlight a few of these areas. 

First, the designations of representative payees by the Social Security Administration and the Department of Veterans Affairs 

often impede the administration of guardianships. It is like you 

have parallel tracks. You have the Federal Government’s representative payee system and the guardianship system in a State 

and the two never cross, and so there is very little dialog or comVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:15 Jan 17, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\DOCS\31448.TXT SAGING1 PsN: JOYCE
32

munication between the Federal agencies administering Federal 

funds to payees and the courts that are considering these cases. 

For example, in the court I practice in the probate judge has 

banned the Social Security representatives and the VA representatives from testifying in his court because they will typically tell 

him, we are the Feds, we don’t have to come to your court unless 

you go through an extensive subpoena process, we are not going to 

participate. In response, our county judge has said, fine, I am never 

going to let you come at all. So that is the level of dialog we have 

in this area. 

Social Security and the VA routinely appoint housing providers 

or other persons with potential conflicts of interest as representative payees, sometimes warranting intervention by guardianship 

courts. Adult protective services agencies which are funded with 

Federal block grants are part of the guardianship continuum. 

When APS systems fail, immense pressure can be placed on guardianship systems to step in on an emergency basis. 

I have cited to you perhaps the most thorough analysis of a failed 

APS system which occurred in Texas in 2004 and 2005 because the 

guardianship process highlighted a number of cases where the elderly and disabled were left to live in squalor and to be exploited 

while adult protective services came in and investigated them. The 

report by the Texas Office of Inspector General revealed a total 

breakdown of that system, despite tens of millions of dollars of taxpayer money being appropriated for elderly protection. 

State and local governments often continue to struggle to find 

funding for indigent guardianship services. There may be a role for 

the Federal Government in this area. Courts administering guardianship cases often do not properly monitor the cases. There may 

be a role for Federal funding in this area. 

Finally, Federal funding to promote the use of alternatives to 

guardianship, properly drafted powers of attorney, money management services and other less restrictive alternatives to guardianship is essential. The failure of Americans to plan for incapacity is 

the primary cause for intervention in guardianship cases. 

Again, the National Guardian Association appreciates the opportunity to present testimony before the Committee today. We hope 

that this will be the beginning of a national dialog that will lead 

to the assurance that each and every elderly or disabled person 

subjected to a guardianship proceeding, regardless of which State 

or county that person may live in, will be afforded the dignity, respect and civil rights to which all Americans are entitled. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hammond follows:]

33


31448.015
34


31448.016
35


31448.017
36


31448.018
37


31448.019
38


31448.020
39


31448.021
40


31448.022
41

The CHAIRMAN. That was excellent testimony, Terry. Thank you 

so much. 

I want to assure Barbara Bovbjerg we are not ignoring you; we 

are going to get to you. Judge Grossman, in your full testimony we 

will want to hear anything that you would like to add to your comments already. But I do want to acknowledge the presence of Senator Salazar, of Colorado, who was formerly the State attorney general and probably has a lot of insight into these types of issues. 

Senator, if you have an opening statement or want to make a 

comment or question at this point, we would welcome that. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR KEN SALAZAR 

Senator SALAZAR. Thank you very much, Chairman Smith, and 

thank you for holding this hearing on what is a very important 

topic. It may not be the sexiest topic in the world when people talk 

about guardianships, but it certainly is one of the most important 

questions that faces many people across our country. 

During the time that I was the attorney general, one of the 

things that we did in Colorado was we held a summit on the financial exploitation of seniors and out of that came a number of recommendations, including a no-call telemarketing law and a whole 

host of other things. One of the items that was focused on also was 

needed changes with respect to the guardianship laws in Colorado, 

and as a result of that, in 2001, we in Colorado adopted the Uniform Guardianship and Protective Proceedings Act and were one of 

the first States to do that. 

I am very interested in learning some more from the panel in 

terms of what you think we might be able to do at the Federal level 

to address the issues across the Nation and perhaps try to bring 

some uniformity, if that is desirable. I am pleased to be a cosponsor 

with Senator Smith, Senator Hatch, and Senator Lincoln, as well, 

with respect to the Elder Justice Act which we have introduced. So 

your recommendations to us on this issue are very important recommendations. 

Mr. Chairman, I have a much longer statement for the record. 

The CHAIRMAN. We will include it for the record, and thank you. 

We have been getting some tremendous ideas on just what you are 

asking for, as well, on what can we do at the Federal level to shore 

up this growing and emerging problematic area. Thank you for 

your presence here, Senator. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Salazar follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR KEN SALAZAR

I would like to thank Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Kohl for holding this 

important hearing. Abuse of senior citizens by their guardians is a problem facing 

many seniors today. I welcome our panel of witnesses who have come to share their 

knowledge and provide guidance in addressing this problem. 

When entering into a court appointed guardianship relationship, the financial, 

physical and emotional well-being of seniors is placed in the hands of an individual. 

Under the law, that guardian has a legal obligation to act in the best interests of 

their trustee. 

And because many fundamental rights are lost due to the guardian’s appointment, significant trust is placed in our state courts and social service agencies to 

ensure that seniors are protected. 

While I am certain that many court appointed guardians act in good faith to further the best interests of the trustee, the system for monitoring these arrangements 

42

to identify guardians acting in bad faith is severely under funded, and lacks the resources necessary to appropriately monitor guardian transactions. 

My home state has a record of proactively addressing these problems. 

In 2001, Colorado became one of the first states to pass the Colorado Uniform 

Guardianship and Protective Proceedings Act. This law codifies procedures, background checks, and the oversight responsibility to ensure that seniors are not taken 

advantage of by unscrupulous guardians. 

This law—and other enacted in others states in recent years—is a step in the 

right direction to protect seniors against guardian abuse. 

However, unless abuse is detected and reported by the Senior or third party, who 

subsequently brings a complaint, there is virtually no way to monitor and prevent 

abuse. 

Oftentimes, impropriety is difficult to prove since many seniors are unaware that 

guardians are stealing from them and do not have family available to help them 

monitor their finances. 

In addition, in many instances, the guardian that commits the abuse is a family 

member or close friend of the guardian—and seniors are reluctant to be removed 

from abusive environment caused by loved ones. 

The qualification of guardians is also an important aspect of this relationship. In 

Colorado, there is currently no system of training and licensing for senior guardians. 

However, my state and others can learn from those who have implemented annual 

training requirements and licensing programs. 

As senior citizens place their trust in the hands of court appointed guardians, 

they should expect that their financial matters and personal affairs are being handled by someone with a degree of competence and training. 

Hearing the testimony of today’s panel of witnesses and experts will help to frame 

the problem of guardian abuse, and provide some starting points as to what we at 

the federal level can do to help states and senior citizens to actively address this 

problem. 

While the guardianship program is largely regulated by the state, there is one 

step we can take at the federal level to protect seniors from abuse. I believe that 

Congress should enact the Elder Justice Act. 

I am proud to have recently joined the bipartisan group supporting this measure—which was unanimously passed out of the Senate Finance Committee in July. 

As the findings in this proposal suggest, the estimated number of seniors who are 

abused each year greatly varies. Regardless of the figure, any abuse should not be 

tolerated. By creating a federally coordinated effort to prevent abuse and to support 

research and prevention service, passage of the Elder Justice Act would allow our 

federal government to take greater steps to eliminate abuse. 

I look forward to today’s testimony, and working with the members of this Committee to bring creative and lasting solutions to this problem.

The CHAIRMAN. We have also been joined by the great Senator 

from Delaware, former Governor of Delaware, Senator Carper. 

Tom, if you have a comment or an opening statement you want to 

make, we welcome that. 

Senator CARPER. Just a question or two, if I could. 

The CHAIRMAN. Sure. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Our thanks to all of 

you. As my colleagues know, we are all on a multitude of different 

committees and we have got a bunch of different committees and 

subcommittees meeting this morning, so I apologize for not being 

here for your testimony. 

I tell people I am a recovering Governor. Senator Salazar is a recovering attorney general for his State. This is an issue we thought 

about in Delaware, in State government. But in our role as Federal 

legislators, let me just ask each of you to just briefly go down the 

line, if you will, and just share with us maybe your one best piece 

of advice for us at the Federal level as to what should be on the 

top of our to-do list as we consider these guardianship issues. 

Mr. Salzman, can I start with you? 

Mr. SALZMAN. I think the top of the to-do list is make sure that 

public guardianship throughout the country is adequately funded 

43

because that is the only way poor people who need guardians in 

order to prevent institutionalization and homelessness are going to 

get the care and treatment that they need and be able to live out 

their lives in their homes. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

Would you pronounce your name for me? 

Mr. SALZMAN. Ira Salzman. 

Senator CARPER. No, no, I am sorry. Barbara——

Ms. BOVBJERG. Barbara Bovbjerg. Actually, Delaware is my 

home State. 

Senator CARPER. You are kidding. Do you live there? 

Ms. BOVBJERG. I grew up in Wilmington. 

Senator CARPER. Really? As a kid? 

Ms. BOVBJERG. Yes. 

Senator CARPER. Where did you go to high school? 

Ms. BOVBJERG. Wilmington Friends. 

Senator CARPER. Friends School. Great school. All right, well, it 

is nice to see you. Welcome. 

Ms. BOVBJERG. It is nice to be here. I think the most important 

thing the Federal Government can do—and I am from the Government Accountability Office—I think the most important thing the 

Federal Government can do is demonstrate leadership, which is already happening from this Committee’s work, the proposal of the 

Elder Justice Act, some actions that have been taken in the Department of Health and Human Services in response to some of our 

recommendations. 

But I think that the idea that the Federal Government can foster 

and model collaboration among the States and the courts and can 

get the Federal agencies who have the representative payee programs to devise ways to communicate not only with each other, 

which is an important step, but also with the States and the 

courts, is very important. I think that those steps are starting in 

Congress, but certainly the Federal agencies need more of a push. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, and welcome. 

Ms. Scott. 

Ms. SCOTT. Carol Scott, from the State of—it is Missoura, by the 

way. Senator Talent was a little afraid to pick a side. I think a very 

important thing that the Federal Government could do is be supportive of the aging network and the Older Americans Act. There 

is a provision in there about having a legal services program that 

would be set up so that there would be opportunities for pro bono 

work and other networks to provide services for the elderly and disabled. So I think looking at the Older Americans Act and making 

sure that the Title VII elder rights section was beefed up under the 

legal services section. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

Mr. Grossman. 

Judge GROSSMAN. I think that one of the recommendations that 

you all ought to seriously consider is something that has been 

touched on before, which is data collection. If you look at, for example, Senator Salazar’s State of Colorado, all the probate and guardianship matters are now conducted essentially by e-filing electronically. 

44

My circuit actually is putting together a back-end system headed 

toward e-filing where, in addition to the document that is filed as 

a PDF document, there is going to be an envelope of XML data so 

that you can tag certain things. The beauty of the Federal Government supporting that—and I am not asking for money personally 

because we have dumped $500,000 in it and we will have the system and we are going to make it available to every circuit in my 

State. 

You know, most every decision in the area of guardianship tends 

to be done on the basis of anecdotal information. I have stories, 

these folks have stories, you all have stories. One of the things we 

are looking to do is to tag important data that will dump into a 

database and will provide some real quantitative, accurate information as to what is going on there. I think that that will be of great 

benefit to the States and to local courts. 

I also think it would be of great benefit to the Congress and to 

the Federal agencies to get a handle on what we are dealing with, 

because again we take anecdotal information and we extrapolate 

from that. But this more than any other thing that you all could 

do would provide a soundly based source of data that would provide 

us all with the information that all of us are looking to have. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

Mr. Hammond, the last word. 

Mr. HAMMOND. Thank you, Senator. You know, I think that 

there has to be a rethinking from the ground up of the way that 

the Federal agencies and the State agencies and the local courts 

are interacting and communicating and cooperating or not cooperating on guardianship issues. 

In Texas, I referenced the APS investigation over the last couple 

of years. It was found that in 71 percent of the cases where mental 

illness was identified, no capacity questions were asked and no 

clinical assessment was done of the elderly or disabled person. It 

seems to me that the Federal Government is devoting resources to 

elderly protection, but I think with the National Guardianship Association there is a question as to whether those resources are really reaching the maximum benefit to the elderly people they are designed to protect. 

Senator CARPER. Let me just say, Mr. Chairman, thanks for pulling this hearing together and for our witnesses for being here. My 

mom passed away about a year ago. She had Alzheimer’s disease 

and it progressed, as we know it does. My sister and I were able 

to take care of her and make sure she had the help and support 

that she needed. We have probably all have had folks like that in 

our own families and experiences like that. But as we know, too 

often there aren’t those supportive members of the family to be 

there when someone needs them. I just applaud your efforts to try 

to make sure that in those instances there is a helping hand and 

someone to provide the care and attention that we all deserve. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Terry, you heard Judge Grossman speak about 

data collection and what we could do at the Federal level to enhance that and nationalize it. I am wondering, in your experience, 

what data we ought to be collecting. 

45

Mr. HAMMOND. Good question, Chairman Smith. You know, the 

American Bar Association just came out with this study a few 

months ago, and I have included it in my materials, where each 

State is doing it somewhat differently and many States are not 

doing it at all. I think that if this Committee and the appropriate 

entities could put together a group to work with the National 

Guardianship Association and other stakeholders, we could identify 

that information. 

Certainly, the age of the person, the nature of the disability that 

may cause them to have a guardianship, whether there is an indication of elder abuse of some kind—those are some of the very key, 

basic questions that need to be asked. But as the GAO report indicated and the ABA report as well, in order to even begin to address 

the issues, we need to know what the numbers are, and the NGA 

is seeking private funding. 

I referenced the Associated Press series earlier. The landscape in 

some ways has not changed in the last 20 years. One of the ways 

that it has changed is that you have had an increase in private efforts to shore up where the public efforts are failing. So you have 

the National Guardianship Association, you have 20 State guardianship organizations that have sprung up in the last 20 years. 

So I think privately we are doing what we can to fill in those 

gaps, but if the private stakeholders could work with the Federal 

Government and the State governments to really devote resources 

and develop the criteria and mandate these statistic-gathering efforts, that is going to be a prerequisite in order to taking the next 

step further. 

The CHAIRMAN. Are you familiar with the Elder Justice Act that 

is before the Congress? 

Mr. HAMMOND. I am, Senator. 

The CHAIRMAN. Do you think it does this sufficiently, or ought 

we to amend it and enhance it? 

Mr. HAMMOND. I think that it comes close. I think that in light 

of these hearings and recent public scrutiny of guardianship systems, perhaps there needs to be a bit more emphasis in this area. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. You have given me some work to do and we 

will get on it and get that included because we want to make sure 

that when we pass this, it meets current needs and we are identifying a very real need. 

Judge, he made some comments on the data we should be collecting. Do you want to add to things that ought to be——

Judge GROSSMAN. What I wanted to offer you is a few years back 

the Florida Supreme Court created a judicial applications development process, and as a result of that process we put together in 

guardianship, as well as probate and every other area that the trial 

courts deal with, a list of items that as a consensus we wanted to 

tag to go into the database. I would be more than happy to forward 

you all that information for your consideration. 

The CHAIRMAN. We would be very appreciative if we could receive that. It would improve the work we do with the Elder Justice 

Act. 

Yes? 

Mr. HAMMOND. Senator, if I may add, in our reform effort in 

Texas the past couple of years, we had put into the bill that ended 

46

up being Senate bill 6 an extensive data collection effort that would 

have mandated the 254 counties to report to the State information 

on guardianships. A significant part of that legislation was cut 

from the bill because it was considered to be too time-consuming, 

too expensive. So I think that our efforts on a State level, although 

well-intentioned, may not be very successful here and this may be 

something that has to be mandated at a higher level. 

Ms. BOVBJERG. May I jump in, Mr. Chairman? 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, please, Barbara. 

Ms. BOVBJERG. When we did this work for the Committee a couple of years ago on guardianship, I was completely amazed by how 

little information is out there, how data are not uniformly collected. 

Even within a single State, there will be differences among courts 

when data are collected. So we couldn’t tell how many guardianship arrangements there were. We couldn’t tell how many of them 

were specifically for elderly people, and certainly we couldn’t tell to 

what extent guardians are involved in some of these cases of abuse. 

I certainly agree with Mr. Salzman that we hear these high-profile cases, and there are certainly a lot more things going on under 

the radar. It is therefore very difficult for the Federal Government 

or national organizations to devise effective approaches to preventing and detecting abuse when we don’t know much in any kind 

of comprehensive way about the circumstances of that abuse, or the 

incidence of that abuse. 

We had suggested that HHS take the leading role in looking at 

how you could compile data, and what kind of data you should compile. But another way to think about it is to consider some of the 

databases we have on the criminal justice side and look at whether 

there isn’t some way to get the crimes that involved guardians 

uniquely coded. There are different ways to think about it and we 

were hoping that perhaps HHS could take the lead. 

The CHAIRMAN. Very good, and I have only one other question for 

you, Terry, because you related the experience with this one judge 

and how he doesn’t involve the Federal agencies. Obviously, there 

are some competence issues that we ought to pursue with some of 

the Federal agencies, but in your experience how competent are the 

judges that you deal with in guardianship matters? 

Mr. HAMMOND. With all due respect to Judge Grossman, I think 

that by and large the judges are pretty competent to adjudicate 

these cases. The challenge really is when you have courts of general jurisdiction deciding guardianship cases. Those judges are not 

well-trained on life-and-death issues, on capacity issues. So the 

Wingspan report from the year 2000 where there was a national 

conference of guardianship practitioners and experts recommended 

specialization of judges who adjudicate guardianship cases. Unfortunately, sir, that is still not very often the case. 

I think where we have Judge Grossman here, any jurisdiction in 

this country would be honored and pleased to have him presiding 

over their cases. It is not very often we see a judge with this kind 

of expertise. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I think we should stipulate for the Senate 

record the competence of Judge Grossman. [Laughter.] 

Mr. SALZMAN. If I may say——

The CHAIRMAN. Please, Ira. 

47

Mr. SALZMAN. I couldn’t agree with that more. We had a similar 

problem in New York for many years where we had guardianships 

in some counties being dealt with in general parts and, you know, 

the judges moving from a negligence case to a contracts case to a 

guardianship case, and it was an unmitigated disaster. The improvement that we have had since we finally persuaded the court 

system to set up a specialized part is astronomic. It is a really, 

really important point, which is why I asked to cut in here. 

The CHAIRMAN. That is very appreciated. I hope you see that the 

Aging Committee—I like to manage these sort of conversationally, 

and I find I and my colleagues usually get the most out of it in that 

way. So as I said to Barbara, we are not ignoring you. Let’s go to 

your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF BARBARA D. BOVBJERG, DIRECTOR, 

EDUCATION, WORKFORCE, AND INCOME SECURITY, U.S. 

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Ms. BOVBJERG. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. I swear I won’t 

take my whole 5 minutes because we have had an opportunity——

The CHAIRMAN. We have discussed a lot of it and we will include 

your full testimony in the record, but you may want to cover some 

points that perhaps we have not already done. 

Ms. BOVBJERG. Well, I appreciate that. I just wanted to remind 

everyone that we did this work 2 years ago, that we discovered 

that 50 States and the District of Columbia all have laws pertaining to guardianships, but the laws vary dramatically. Even 

within States, the way the courts implement these laws vary considerably. We also noticed that data are scarce on guardianships, 

something we already talked about today. 

We also talked about what we call the exemplary guardianship 

programs, of which Broward County and Judge Grossman’s was 

one, not chosen by us, but chosen by organizations that we spoke 

to who deal with guardianship issues. We asked them, if you needed a guardian, where do you wish you lived, and they told us that 

Broward County was one of those places. So we reported on what 

we thought were good practices among courts. 

Then, finally, we observed that there is little cooperation between Federal agencies who have rep payee programs and between 

the Federal agencies and the courts. 

The CHAIRMAN. So the comment from Texas wasn’t surprising to 

you that they don’t even ask the Federal people to come in anymore? 

Ms. BOVBJERG. Actually, I was surprised by the comments about 

SSA and VA. I am not surprised by the variability, however. 

The CHAIRMAN. Just encouragement on the part of this Senator 

if there is something you can do to alert SSA and VA to be cooperative and not stand on their prerogatives or priorities as a Federal 

official. 

Ms. BOVBJERG. Well, I would certainly follow up with them. I 

know that the Social Security Administration, which has the biggest representative payee program in the Federal Government, has 

focused a lot of effort on that program in the last 2 years. In 2004, 

Congress passed the Social Security Protection Act and many of the 

provisions in that Act were focused on assuring that representative 

48

payees were doing what they were supposed to do and not stealing 

money from the people that they were supposed to represent. So 

Social Security is on the case to a much greater extent than in the 

past, but I will make them aware of what has been happening in 

Texas. 

I do want to provide a little update of our work for you, and certainly some progress has been made. About half the States in the 

country have amended their guardianship laws in some way since 

then, some in small ways, others in larger ways. New Jersey is now 

requiring guardians, both public and private, to be registered. California has new education requirements for guardians and continuing education requirements, which I think you were interested 

in, Senator. Wisconsin requires that guardians visit the incapacitated person regularly. This has increased attention to strengthening these programs, and so these are positive steps, we thought. 

There are other steps that have been taken. The National Conference of Commissions on Uniform State Laws recently issued a 

discussion draft containing provisions that would allow 

guardianships to be recognized across States. It is model legislation. The National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys, the National 

Guardianship Association and others have a joint action plan on 

guardianships. They have 45 steps that could be taken at the national, State and local levels to accomplish the recommendations 

made in 2001 at the Wingspan conference on guardianship. This 

was a high-level effort by the professionals in this field, and they 

are important groups for the Federal Government and States to 

collaborate with; we hope for continued progress there. 

We do see areas, however, where much remains to be done. I already touched on these. The Department of Health and Human 

Services—we recommended they develop cost-effective approaches 

for compiling consistent national data. They have supported a 

study by the ABA on guardianship practices in the States. They 

also supported including questions about guardians in the National 

Center on Elder Abuse’s survey of adult protective services. 

Although these actions represent progress, we still, as you have 

heard, do not have nationwide data on guardians and those under 

their care. As I think I may already have stated, the cross-agency 

cooperation needs attention. As you may be aware, the Social Security Administration did not agree with our recommendation that 

they form an interagency study group with VA and OPM to look 

at how they might share information with each other on rep payees. 

The CHAIRMAN. Why? 

Ms. BOVBJERG. Because they don’t believe that such action is 

within their purview and they thought it was quite complex. Now, 

they share data regularly with other Federal agencies within the 

confines of the Privacy Act. I think their primary concern, honestly, 

was less with VA and OPM than that we also suggested they sit 

down with representatives of States and the courts and try to develop some way the three agencies and these other entities could 

share data. 

They felt that this would not only be out of their purview, but 

that it would also be complicated, and that is true. It is complicated if you envision sharing information with the many courts 

49

there are in the United States. They felt that such action would 

violate the Privacy Act. We did not agree with that. We felt that 

nothing prevents them from considering how they might do this. 

There must be other ways than matching data with each individual 

court. They do have authority to develop what are called ‘‘statements of routine use’’ that allow them to share data with States, 

for example, which they do for detecting prisoners who should not 

be receiving Social Security payments because they are in jail, 

things like that. They have agreements that do that. So we felt 

that even though it might require some time and attention on their 

part, and take them away perhaps from something else, that it was 

worth exploring, and so we are hopeful that we can encourage 

them to think about it. 

I just wanted to say in the end that the number of elderly Americans is going to grow dramatically in the future. Clearly, guardianship arrangements for the elderly will rise dramatically in response. If we are not going to ensure now that these arrangements 

are safe and effective, such actions will be much more difficult in 

the next decade. 

Progress is being made in the States and the courts in part because they are emulating strong programs and developing and deploying model legislation. But we believe that more must also be 

done to collect meaningful data and to foster continued coordination across the States and the Federal agencies. 

The CHAIRMAN. Do you feel like if the Social Security Administration doesn’t have the statutory authority to do this that we 

ought to include that in the Elder Justice Act? 

Ms. BOVBJERG. We believe they have the statutory authority to 

do it, but any encouragement you could provide would probably be 

helpful. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, like a statute? [Laughter.] 

Ms. BOVBJERG. Perhaps. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. Thank you so very much, Barbara. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Bovbjerg follows:]

50


31448.023
51


31448.024
52


31448.025
53


31448.026
54


31448.027
55


31448.028
56


31448.029
57


31448.030
58


31448.031
59


31448.032
60


31448.033
61


31448.034
62


31448.035
63


31448.036
64


31448.037
65


31448.038
66

The CHAIRMAN. Judge Grossman, we have probably overused you 

already this morning, but we never actually got to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MEL GROSSMAN, ADMINISTRATIVE 

JUDGE, FLORIDA 17TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT, FORT 

LAUDERDALE, FL 

Judge GROSSMAN. Well, let me just say two things. The statement that I prepared is going to be part of the record anyway. I 

think the only thing that I would really like to indicate is a profound belief that when the court takes away rights of an individual, 

the kinds of rights that all of us in this room enjoy, and appoints 

somebody as a guardian to make sure that that person is protected, 

we have got not only in Florida a statutory duty and a case law 

duty, but actually a moral duty to ensure that we have done the 

right thing and that that person is, in fact, protected. Otherwise, 

we should be out of the business completely. 

Being out of the business completely is not an option, especially 

as the baby-boomers hit. So the kinds of resources that are necessary both in terms of data collection and in terms of staffing and 

in terms of education of judges, too—the comment was made by 

Terry that there are some judges that it is only part of general jurisdiction and they don’t understand it. Then Ira had indicated that 

that had changed now in New York. 

In Florida, 80 percent of the cases in Florida come with the 5 

most populace circuits. Everywhere else, although that is now 

starting to change, it is only part of general jurisdiction of the 

court. What happens is we do an educational program twice a year 

at conferences, but if 90 percent of their workload is doing something else, they never show up for the education programs that involve guardianship. It is my belief that the new chief justice of the 

Florida Supreme Court will be remedying that. 

But you are absolutely right, and I am prepared to take full responsibility for the fact that judges don’t always—when we did the 

guardianship task force, the testimony of some of the lawyers that 

were filling out these forms and just having the judge rubberstamp them was, well, we know better than the judge does. In 

some cases, they were probably right, but there are certainly serious due process implications to the person. 

I mean, it is very efficient. I file a petition to determine Carol 

Scott’s incapacity. I appoint her lawyer and I appoint the people examining her. There are some due process concerns that really need 

to be addressed, and I agree with these other folks here that part 

of it is developing specialized courts so that you have an in-house 

understanding of the issues and an understanding of what to look 

out for and provide better services than we frequently provide 

today. 

The CHAIRMAN. Very good. 

[The prepared statement of Judge Grossman follows:]

67


31448.039
68


31448.040
69


31448.041
70


31448.042
71

Mr. SALZMAN. Senator, may I add one particular point on the 

specialized courts? What we are finding in New York is having a 

specialized court for guardianship alone may not, in fact, be enough 

because, for example, one of the important things you need to do 

in an emergency is sometimes get an order of protection. Now, in 

New York that is normally not done in the same court that the 

guardianship is done in. There may be criminal issues involved. 

That is another court. So under a lot of cases, even with a specialized guardianship part, you can have the same case in three different courts or two different courts. 

Again, we have an experimental program going on just in one 

county in New York now where we have one State court judge who 

is sitting simultaneously criminal, family, and what most other 

States would call superior and we call supreme, who can do all 

three things simultaneously. I don’t practice there because it is a 

county that is some distance from where I am, but everybody I 

know is very enthusiastic about it and it is the kind of thing that 

I mention just because it is the kind that I think other places 

should be thinking about as well. 

The CHAIRMAN. Do you find that these different courts of jurisdiction are open to that or are there turf battles over it, because 

it does make a ton of sense for some consolidation? 

Mr. SALZMAN. It requires the involvement of the administrative 

judges. So, for example, in a case we had recently where we wanted 

to start a guardianship and simultaneously get an order of protection, since at least in New York you can’t go in and get an order 

of protection for somebody else—you can only get an order of protection for yourself—we had to go into court, into the supreme 

court, get a temporary guardian appointed who would have the authority to apply for an order of protection, and then that temporary 

guardian had to go to family court to then make a separate application for the order of protection. With the experimental part in Suffolk County, that could all get done in front of one judge. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, thank you all so very much. We value your 

time and want to assure you that your testimony today and your 

contribution has added immeasurably to our doing our work at the 

Federal level and in the U.S. Senate. I know some of you have 

come a long way, but whether long or short, thank you for sharing 

your time and your expertise with us. It has made an immeasurable contribution and we heartily thank you. 

With that, we adjourn this hearing with our appreciation. 

[Whereupon, at 11:36 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(73)

A P P E N D I X 


31448.043
74


31448.044
75


31448.045
76


31448.046
77


31448.047
78


31448.048
79


31448.049
80


31448.050
81


31448.051
82


31448.052
83

Æ


31448.053