Talk:Legal guardian

Conservatorship Merger Proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was keep separate. -- Debate 木 00:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It would be a big mistake to merge "conservatorship" with "legal guardian. The use of conservatorship to manage the financial services industry in its crisis means that a separate article is justified. The article would be improved by discussion of this issue in detail. Angie Y. 00:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

German law

The section seems to be rather tendentious. Apparently the Werner Fuss Zentrum appears to be a group opposed to involuntary commitment. Fair enough, but I believe the section should be rewritten nonetheless, to comply with NPOV policy and be somewhat more informative. The Werner Fuss Zentrum would serve it's cause better by choosing a less alarmist tone and reporting some specific facts. 86.56.109.195 (talk) 06:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

German Law

I think this section should be deleted entirely, as it doesn't speak to the overall tone or information of the article. I feel as though the article can be complete without it.207.180.32.26 (talk) 19:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Estates

I don't think the heading "estates" accurately describes the content of this section. How about "Estates and Financial Decision-making" to indicate that it's a little broader (for the non-lawyer)? Most laypeople think of the "estate" as being the person's property after they've died, so I suggest making the header a little more inclusive, since the section deals with the distinction between financial decision-making and other decision-making about the person. Drvestone (talk) 14:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I have questions about this sentence: "A guardian is a fiduciary and is held to a very high standard of care in exercising his or her powers." In particular, that word "held." The standard is very high, but many states in the US do not provide for real oversight over guardianships to enforce those standards. A guardian report may be filed annually, but most states don't have the resources to review those reports in detail, and many reports never get looked at by a state official unless a complaint comes up. (Don't know how it works in other countries.) Then the penalties may be severe if the guardian has acted unethically, but if there is no other person besides the guardian looking out for the protected person, abuse of guardianship may never come to light. It is not clear that in reality states have the resources to "hold" anyone to a standard. Maybe if the article could clarify how standards are enforced, that there are reporting requirements for guardians, that there is a professional guardianship association with strict ethical standards, then this issue would be clearer. Drvestone (talk) 15:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Ward

"Ward" is still used in many jurisdictions, but there is a move towards using "the protected person" instead of "the ward," because it is considered a more respectful term (e.g., Minnesota statutes, Guardianship Alliance of CO). I suggest that where "ward" is first introduced, that this article note that fact: "A legal guardian is a person who has the legal authority (and the corresponding duty) to care for the personal and property interests of another person, called a ward or protected person." Drvestone (talk) 14:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Capitalization Rule for the Term Guardian ad Litem?

This is a minor issue, and I only noticed it because I came to this article to see how the term was capitalized by the author(s). The rule surely varies by context, but it seems to me that "Guardian ad Litem" and "guardian ad litem" are used interchangeably throughout this article. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.102.117.84 (talk) 16:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Along with Capitalization of Guardian ad Litem, attention also needs to be paid to the plural as Guardians ad Litem and the possessive Guardian's ad Litem.Wikiyaldah (talk) 19:35, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

POV

Just an observation - the article as currently constituted is pretty heavy POV (uncomfortably so). At least to my eye, much of the entry reads as a slightly breathless condemnation of legal guardians. 173.210.65.42 (talk) 01:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I concur with the observation above. In particular, the section on GALs seems almost entirely negative. --50.198.121.235 (talk) 12:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed; it reads like it was written by someone with an axe to grind. We work with GALs in my office, so I don't want to tilt it too far the other way, but I may have a go at a rewrite m'self after the holidays when I have time to think again. The Rev (talk) 00:28, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

POV 2

I would like to make changes to this article, and would like some input. As it stands, the article makes it seem as though GALs are volunteers, that they are always qualified for the job, that their pay and actions are overseen by the court, and that they always have the child's best interest at heart. This needs to be changed. There is a support group here in Montana for parents who have to repeatedly send their children to an abuser because the GAL did not believe them or the child. A GAL can charge as they wish, has no oversight, and can make decisions based on their own opinion with no qualifications or other professional consultation. This article does not let parents know this, and they may inadvertently appoint one to protect their child only to find they have done the opposite. So parents are informed of the truth, this article needs to be updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ForChildJustice (talk • contribs) 19:09, 29 June 2014‎

My advice for you is to find the most gold-plated, non-activist/non-support-group, academic sources that you can on this subject, and write a very concise summary of what the sources say. Articles written by professors of law or psychology would probably be good. Make sure that you're being fair to all sides, and not just cherry-picking sources that agree with your own views or experiences. If, for example, only 5% of GALs are underqualified or overpaid, then one would not want to smear all 100% of them with allegations of incompetence and profiteering.

Speaking of "statements that are true for all of them", it would be very helpful if you could find information about how this is handled in multiple countries, or at least multiple US states, because the regulations may vary significantly. I realize that this might be difficult, but please give it a try. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:22, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks WhatamI doing! Before I read this I added my comments and put in references (maybe I need to delete now?).

You mentioned that I can't say 'all' for only 5%, but I'm not sure the article should say 'all' for 95% either.

I'm not sure what the percentage is, but the fact they have absolute power, no matter how many bad ones are out there needs to be known. I don't want to smear the good ones, but I also don't want children to have to go through what some of them do because the page is biased. Parents who are wondering if they should appoint one read this and think it's a great idea. They need both sides. It might be a great idea, or it might be the worst thing that ever happened to their child.

ForChildJustice (talk) 20:33, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello again, WhatamIdoing...I've undid the changes, so they are there for anyone to review, change and add, but they don't show up on the page. That way, you or StrikeEagle can delete what you don't find relevant, look up the reference to the Montana statute, and ask questions if you have them before it's changed in the article. I really think this info needs to be out there. Let me know what you think. Thanks ForChildJustice (talk) 21:30, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Legal guardian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140102193826/http://www.txcourts.gov/gcb/pdf/localguardianshipprograms.pdf to http://www.txcourts.gov/gcb/pdf/localguardianshipprograms.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Improving our section on "Guardianship for incapacitated seniors"

Column: With U.S. elder abuse in spotlight, a look at guardians, Reuters, Mark Miller, Oct. 20, 2017:
' . . . a 2010 report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) identified hundreds of allegations of abuse, neglect, and exploitation by guardians in 45 states and the District of Columbia between 1990 and 2010. . . '

Okay, so allegations, and what kind of follow-up was there? FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:26, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

HOW THE ELDERLY LOSE THEIR RIGHTS, Guardians can sell the assets and control the lives of senior citizens without their consent—and reap a profit from it, The New Yorker, Rachel Aviv, Oct. 9, 2017.

This New Yorker article discusses at some length the situation in Nevada. Some guardians have multiple clients and make a living off the system. The article also presents the case that some persons are placed under guardianship when they do not need to be, and then it is quite difficult to reverse this mistake.

The Guardianship for incapacitated seniors of our article has a first paragraph of plain vanilla of how the system should ideally work, with no references whatsoever. The second paragraph has three references, but none for the last two sentences in which it's acknowledged that family members may at times contest with each other through the court system. And nowhere do we acknowledge that, like any human institution, there may be problems with the court system itself.

The above two references easily pass the threshold of good enough, and will help to improve this section. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:26, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

---

Guardianships: Cases of Financial Exploitation, Neglect, and Abuse of Seniors, Highlights, U.S. Government Accountability Office, Published: Sep 30, 2010. Publicly Released: Oct 27, 2010.
' . . . examine the facts in selected closed cases; . . '
' . . . In 6 of 20 cases, the courts failed to adequately screen potential guardians, appointing individuals with criminal convictions or significant financial problems to manage high-dollar estates. In 12 of 20 cases, the courts failed to oversee guardians once they were appointed, allowing the abuse of vulnerable seniors and their assets to continue. Lastly, in 11 of 20 cases, courts and federal agencies did not communicate effectively or at all with each other about abusive guardians, allowing the guardian to continue the abuse of the victim and/or others. . . '

Now, this whole report is 58 pages. I think it's good to supplement longish sources with journalistic sources. That is, instead of simply counting on ourselves as Wiki readers and editors to summarize the source, we can rely on solid news sources such as Reuters column above.FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:46, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Italicization

This article uses:

• Guardian(s) ad litem
• Guardian(s) ad litem
• Guardian(s) ad litem

Is there consensus on what should be in italics?

Guardian ad Litem Rules & Practices - Ohio

In Ohio, according to Ohio Supreme Court - Rules of Superintendence 48(D) - there are a minimum of 17 requirements that a Guardian ad Litem needs to complete short of a written order by the court and agreement of the parties. Also according to ORC 3109.04, there are 11 factors of Best Interest (singular term)that are considered by the Domestic relations and for the juvenile court to incorporate when the Judge or magistrate is making a placement or custodial determination.Wikiyaldah (talk) 18:48, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was merge into Legal guardian. Delasse (talk) 14:44, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

---

I propose to merge Legal custody into Legal guardian. I think that the content in the Legal custody article can easily be explained in the context of Legal guardian, and the Legal guardian article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Legal custody will not cause any problems as far as article size is concerned. Delasse (talk) 14:37, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.