Regarding the editorial “Revamp laws for legal guardians” (April 24, TribLIVE): Much as the desperately flawed and often harmful Pennsylvania guardianship system itself, Senate Bill 506, while presumably well-intended, falls short of its purported goal of protecting our precious elderly and disabled populations. I’m glad to learn it is not moving forward.
“Guardianship” has been disastrous for my mother. Abruptly removing someone from their familiar surroundings and loved ones, to come immediately under the control of uninvolved strangers, does nothing but disrupt their dignity, sense of security and any level of autonomy they previously enjoyed.
A sufficient bill would, at minimum:
• Ensure transparency in our courts, preferably with a jury. Currently, victims and their families are not able to properly present evidence.
• Provide remedy for bad guardianships. There is no exit ramp for those in detrimental arrangements — one can only attempt “out” by spending money pleading with the same judge and lawyers who created such.
• Require robust, documented review of less restrictive alternatives as already required by Pennsylvania law, before fast-tracking into facilities. Impose penalties for not doing so.
• Provide legal representation that truly represents. Our court-appointed attorney has clearly, vehemently and unpleasantly protected the ineffective and uninvolved court-assigned guardian, creating an income stream for both of them.
• Seriously curtail the number of individuals owned by one guardian. These alleged professionals are perpetually excused for inaction, due to being “overwhelmed.” No one can adequately “guard” the lives of over 50 people.
Whereas I appreciate that there has been movement toward reform, we need a bill less woefully insufficient.
Jenny Reimenschneider
Norristown