IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/eldpol/v1y2020i1p155-174.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Public Guardianship: Policy and Practice

Author

Listed:
  • Pamela B. Teaster
  • Stephanie Chamberlain

Abstract

Guardianship is a process by which a court delegates to a person or entity the duty and power to make personal, property, or both person and property decisions for another individual based upon a determination that he or she is unable able to make decisions for him‐ or herself. Guardianship has at its foundation the protection and care of individuals unable to make decisions about their person, their property, or both; however, far too little is known about this creature of the court system. Public guardianship, or guardianship of last resort, refers to the appointment and responsibility of a public official or publicly funded entity who serves as a legal guardian in the absence of willing, able, and responsible family members or friends to serve as, or without resources to employ, a private guardian. Problems with the guardianship system include prolonged delays for an appointment, a far‐too‐close relationship between judges and guardians, guardians' lack of familiarity with the individuals they serve, their limited expertise in medical decision‐making, and their unconscionably large caseloads. The purpose of this article is to provide a description of the guardianship system, explain what is known in the available research, and identify recommendations for policy and practice. La tutela es un proceso mediante el cual un tribunal delega en una persona o entidad el deber y el poder de tomar decisiones personales, de propiedad o de persona y propiedad para otra persona en función de la determinación de que él o ella no puede tomar decisiones por él. o ella misma. La tutela tiene como fundamento la protección y el cuidado de las personas que no pueden tomar decisiones sobre su persona, su propiedad o ambos; sin embargo, se sabe muy poco sobre esta criatura del sistema judicial. La tutela pública, o la tutela de último recurso, se refiere al nombramiento y la responsabilidad de un funcionario público o entidad financiada con fondos públicos que sirve como tutor legal en ausencia de familiares o amigos dispuestos, capaces y responsables para servir como, o sin recursos emplear, un tutor privado. Los problemas con el sistema de tutela incluyen demoras prolongadas para una cita, una relación demasiado estrecha entre jueces y tutores, la falta de familiaridad de los tutores con las personas a las que sirven, su experiencia limitada en la toma de decisiones médicas y su gran cantidad de casos. El propósito de este artículo es proporcionar una descripción del sistema de tutela, explicar lo que se conoce en la investigación disponible e identificar recomendaciones para políticas y prácticas. 监护是一个过程,法院通过该过程赋予个人或实体职责与权力,替另一个无法为自身做决定的个体做有关个人、财产、或二者兼有的决定。监护最根本的是为那些无法就自身、财产或二者兼有做决定的个人提供保护和关爱;然而,关于这种法律体系者的了解知之甚少。公共监护,或被称为最后手段的监护,指的是对一名公共官员或公立实体赋予责任,在缺少有意愿、有实力、有责任的家庭成员或朋友作为私人监护人,或后者没有资源雇佣一名私人监护人的情况下充当法定监护人。监护体系的问题包括预约延期的时间更长,法官与监护人之间的关系过于密切,监护人对其监护对象的不熟悉,监护人在医疗决策方面的经验有限,以及监护人过多的工作量。本文目的是对监护体系提供一个描述,解释现有研究中的已知部分,并为政策与实践提供相关建议。

Suggested Citation

  • Pamela B. Teaster & Stephanie Chamberlain, 2020. "Public Guardianship: Policy and Practice," Journal of Elder Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 1(1), pages 155-174, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:eldpol:v:1:y:2020:i:1:p:155-174
    DOI: 10.18278/jep.1.1.8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.18278/jep.1.1.8
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.18278/jep.1.1.8?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stephanie A. Chamberlain & Wendy Duggleby & Janet Fast & Pamela B. Teaster & Carole A. Estabrooks, 2019. "Incapacitated and Alone: Prevalence of Unbefriended Residents in Alberta Long-Term Care Homes," SAGE Open, , vol. 9(4), pages 21582440198, October.
    2. Sandra Thaggard & Jed Montayre, 2019. "Elder Orphans’ Experiences of Advance Planning and Informal Support Network," SAGE Open, , vol. 9(3), pages 21582440198, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      More about this item

      Statistics

      Access and download statistics

      Corrections

      All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:eldpol:v:1:y:2020:i:1:p:155-174. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

      If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

      If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

      For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

      Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

      IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.