WHO CAN OR SHOULD BE A GUARDIAN? STEVEN D. FIELDS Court Administrator/Senior Attorney Tarrant County Probate Court Two 100 W. Weatherford, Rm. 220A Fort Worth, TX 76196 State Bar of Texas ADVANCED GUARDIANSHIP COURSE April 8, 2011 Houston CHAPTER 8
WHO CAN OR SHOULD BE A GUARDIAN?
STEVEN D. FIELDS
Court Administrator/Senior Attorney
Tarrant County Probate Court Two
100 W. Weatherford, Rm. 220A
Fort Worth, TX 76196
State Bar of Texas
ADVANCED GUARDIANSHIP COURSE
April 8, 2011
Houston
CHAPTER 8
STEVEN D. FIELDS
Tarrant County Probate Court Two
100 W. Weatherford, Rm. 220A
Fort Worth, TX 76196
817-884-1049 phone
817-884-1807 fax
EDUCATION
BA in English, magna cum laude, Oklahoma Christian University, OKC, OK - 1981
JD with distinction, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK – 1986
State Bar of Texas law license – 5/8/1987
PROFESSIONAL
Court Administrator/Senior Attorney for Judge Pat Ferchill from 10/99 to present
Guardianship Director, Texas Health & Human Services Commission, Austin, TX - 2/98 to 10/99
Court Investigator for Tarrant County Probate Court No. Two - 9/93 to 2/98
Solo legal practitioner, Fields' Wills & Probate - 2/92 to 9/93
Associate in Guardianship, Estate Planning and Probate Sections of:
Kelly, Hart & Hallman, Fort Worth, TX – 2/90 to 2/92
Strasburger & Price, Dallas, TX – 3/88 to 2/90
Fulbright & Jaworski, Houston, TX – 8/86 to 3/88
APPOINTMENTS & HONORS
Adjunct Professor, Texas Wesleyan School of Law, 2010-11
President, National Guardianship Association (NGA), 2008, Board Member 2000-09
Board member for Alternatives to Guardianship, Inc., 2008 to present
Chair, Texas Senior Advocacy Coalition, 2006-07, Board Member since 2001
President, Texas Guardianship Association (TGA), 2004-05, Board Member 2000-06
PUBLICATIONS & PRESENTATIONS
- 2000-2010 NGA Legal Review, editor & presenter, various US locations at NGA Conferences
- “Guardianship of Loyce Juanita Parker: The Case for Adoption of UAGPJJA in Texas” – 25th Annual Wills &
Probate Institute – South Texas College of Law – 09/10
- “Assuring Quality Guardianship Practices: The Texas Certification Experience” keynote address for Indiana
Guardianship Symposium, Indianapolis, IN, 5/09
- “A State of Neglect: A Handbook on Guardianship and Protective Service Reform in Texas and Beyond” Canadian
Elder Law Conference, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 11/08
- “Emerging Trends in Guardianship Practice as Shown in the Media and Case Law” Minnesota
Association of Guardians and Conservators, Bloomington, MN, 8/08
- “Guardianship and End of Life Care” National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization Annual
Conference, Minneapolis, MN, 8/08
- “Emerging Trends in Guardianship Case Law and Capacity Planning” National Academy of Elder Law
Attorneys Spring Symposium, Maui, HI, 5/08
- “Texas Guardianship Case Law Update” State Bar of Texas, Advanced Guardianship Practice Seminar,
Dallas, TX 3/08
Who Can or Should Be a Guardian Chapter 8
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
THE PERFECT BEAST ................................................................................................................................................. 1
WHO DOES THE WARD WANT AS GUARDIAN? ................................................................................................... 1
DECLARATION OF GUARDIAN PRIOR TO NEED ................................................................................................. 1
WHO DOES THE WARD NOT WANT TO BE GUARDIAN? ................................................................................... 1
WHO CAN BE A GUARDIAN? .................................................................................................................................... 2
CHECK DISQUALIFICATION ..................................................................................................................................... 2 (1) Incapacitated ................................................................................................................................................. 2 (2) Unsuitable ..................................................................................................................................................... 2 (3) Conflicted ..................................................................................................................................................... 2 (4) Inexperience ................................................................................................................................................. 3
WHO SHOULD BE GUARDIAN? IS ANYONE LEFT? ............................................................................................ 3
CAN ANYONE BE REHABILITATED? ...................................................................................................................... 3
WHY DOES EACH PERSON WANT TO SERVE AS GUARDIAN? ......................................................................... 3
BAD MOTIVATIONS OR ATTITUDES OF BAD GUARDIANS .............................................................................. 4
GOOD MOTIVATIONS OF GOOD GUARDIANS ..................................................................................................... 4
COMMON ATTRIBUTES OF GOOD GUARDIANS .................................................................................................. 5
DECIDING BETWEEN EQUALLY QUALIFIED GUARDIANS ............................................................................... 5 Has the proposed guardian’s inactivity contributed to the incapacitated person’s situation? ............................ 5 Who would you want as guardian? .................................................................................................................... 5
HHSC LIST OF LOCAL GUARDIANSHIP AND MONEY MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS IN TEXAS
FEBRUARY 2011 .......................................................................................................................................................... 7
Who Can or Should Be a Guardian Chapter 8
1
WHO CAN OR SHOULD BE A
GUARDIAN?
THE PERFECT BEAST
If I were Judge Frankenstein and could create the
perfect guardian, what would that guardian look like?
How tall would he be? How often would he visit the
ward? What color plugs would he have in his neck?
Would he be afraid of fire? Unfortunately, neither
judges nor attorneys are able to create the perfect
guardian. They basically have to choose among the
limited options that are available in each unique case.
Even if the judge could create or appoint the perfect
guardian, Texas law does not allow him to do so.
WHO DOES THE WARD WANT AS
GUARDIAN?
The judge must first consider the preference of the
proposed ward. It is a primary duty of the attorney ad
litem appointed to represent the proposed ward
pursuant to TPC 646 to make sure that the judge is
very familiar with whom the proposed ward prefers to
serve as guardian if the court finds that a guardianship
is necessary. The attorney ad litem should ask the
proposed ward if he has ever signed a declaration of
guardian prior to need. A declaration can be entirely in
the handwriting of the proposed ward, or it must be
attested by two witnesses. One benefit of the statutory
declaration form in TPC 679(i) is that the witnesses
swear that they believe that the declarant was of sound
mind when the declaration was signed. However, that
oath by witnesses is not necessary as long as the
declaration is either wholly in the declarant’s
handwriting or subscribed by two witnesses.
Declarations of Guardian signed just after or just
before a guardianship application is filed may have
limited value due to capacity concerns of the declarant.
DECLARATION OF GUARDIAN PRIOR TO
NEED
If the proposed ward, in a written declaration, has
named a person to serve as guardian, the attorney ad
litem, guardian ad litem, or applicant’s attorney should
file the declaration with the court. If the person named
in the declaration is willing to serve, TPC 679(f) states
that the court shall appoint that person as guardian in
preference to those otherwise entitled to serve as
guardian unless the court finds the named person to be
disqualified or finds that the named person would not
serve the best interests of the ward.
Even if the proposed ward has not executed a
declaration of guardian, TPC 689 states that “before
appointing a guardian, the court shall make a
reasonable effort to consider the incapacitated person’s
preference of the person to be appointed guardian and,
to the extent not inconsistent with the other provisions
of this chapter, shall give due consideration to the
preference indicated by the incapacitated person.”
Therefore, if the court is presented with a
declaration of guardian prior to need, the court has to
find that the named guardian is either disqualified or
would not serve the best interests of the proposed
ward. If the court is not presented with a declaration,
the court must only give due consideration to the
preference stated by the ward and no specific findings
or disqualification or best interests are necessary to
rule out the proposed ward’s guardianship preference
as orally stated to the court or as stated by the proposed
ward’s attorney ad litem or court visitor in a report
filed with the court.
WHO DOES THE WARD NOT WANT TO BE
GUARDIAN?
he court and attorneys must also check to see if
the proposed ward has signed any written declaration
disqualifying named persons from serving as guardian
of either the person or estate. TPC 679b states that
persons so named “may not be appointed guardian
under any circumstances.”
Although not required by TPC 679 or 689, judges
also give “due consideration” to oral statements by
proposed wards concerning people who proposed
wards don’t want to serve as guardian. This is due to
the fact that a guardianship is a court-imposed
relationship, and relationships are always smoother if
both parties consent to them.
The issue then becomes whether an attorney ad
litem who represents a proposed ward who either does
or does not want a specific person to serve as guardian
should get the proposed ward to sign a written
declaration before need arises. It would seem that the
proposed ward might stand a better chance
disqualifying someone from being appointed using this
method than he would designating someone as
guardian.
This theory, however, is not supported by the case
of Guardianship of Loyce Juanita Parker, 275 S.W.3d
623 (TX App. 7th Dist., 2008) where Ms. Parker signed
a written declaration on the day of trial specifically
disqualifying her daughter. The appellate court found
that the evidence indicated that Ms. Parker was
incapacitated the day before the trial. Ms. Parker was
not at the trial, but witnesses for the son indicated that
Ms. Parker wanted her son as guardian. At trial, the
daughter testified that Ms. Parker told her that she
wanted her to serve as guardian. According to the ad
litem in the matter, “you get one answer now and a
different answer 15 minutes or a day later.”
The ad litem’s statement in the Parker bears out
the difficulty in depending upon the oral statements of
an incapacitated person as to whom they want to serve
as guardian. They may agree with whoever is asking,
Who Can or Should Be a Guardian Chapter 8
2
or they may disagree with whoever is asking.
Therefore, the guardian ad litem and the court need to
consider many factors in addition to the proposed
ward’s preference.
WHO CAN BE A GUARDIAN?
It’s much easier to determine who can be a
guardian than it is to determine who should be a
guardian. Therefore, I’ll start with the issue of who
can be a guardian by first addressing who cannot be a
guardian. That will leave us with a list of those
persons or entities that can be guardian. Then I’ll
discuss a few strategies to help you sift through eligible
guardians to make an educated guess at who should be
the guardian in some common situations.
CHECK DISQUALIFICATION
Whether you are serving as attorney ad litem,
guardian ad litem, or the guardianship applicant’s
attorney, you must be aware of those individuals and
entities who are disqualified to serve as guardian.
Every guardianship attorney must be familiar with
Section 681 of the Texas Probate Code (“TPC”) which
lists persons disqualified to serve as guardian. This
section lists eleven events that will disqualify a person
or entity from serving as guardian. However, they can
be lumped into the following four categories.
(1) Incapacitated
First, an incapacitated person, whether by
minority (sub 1) or medical disability (sub 3), cannot
serve as a guardian for an incapacitated person. Not
many minors want to be guardians, but often a spouse
with diminished capacity may wish to serve as
guardian for an incapacitated spouse. An
“incapacitated person” as used in sub 3 is defined in
TPC 601(14)(b) and probably requires an adjudication
of incapacity by a court prior to absolute
disqualification. However, if a proposed guardian is
on the brink of becoming an incapacitated person and
still insists of being appointed as guardian, you might
want to warn them about the court’s ability to instigate
a guardianship on them under TPC 683 if given
probable cause that they are a person who is
incapacitated and resides in the county without the
assistance of a guardian. If they have any capacity at
all, they may reconsider whether they wish to continue
their pursuit of guardianship.
(2) Unsuitable
The next category of disqualification involves a
person whose conduct is notoriously bad (sub 2) and a
person, institution, or corporation found unsuitable by
the court (sub 8). These two adjectives “notoriously
bad” and “unsuitable” are vague and leave a lot of
room for the attorneys to argue and for the judge to
disqualify someone who the judge believes would not
be the best guardian. It is interesting to note that TPC
681 does not automatically disqualify felons from
serving as guardians in the same manner that TPC 78b
disqualifies felons from serving as executor or
administrator of a decedent’s estate. This discrepancy
could be due to the fact that a felon may still be the
best choice to serve as guardian of the person for an
incapacitated relative. However, I doubt any judge
would appoint a felon as a guardian of the estate, and it
is also unlikely that a felon could be bonded. Inability
to be bonded may also prevent a felon from being
guardian of the person in courts that require more than
a personal surety bond for guardians of the person.
Therefore, it is highly recommended that you
specifically ask all of your proposed guardians, prior to
the guardianship hearing, whether they have been
convicted of any felonies. Don’t let the judge be the
first one to ask this question of your proposed
guardian.
TPC 678 also provides some guidance here by
stating that “it is presumed not to be in the best
interests of a ward to appoint a person as guardian of
the ward if the person has been finally convicted of any
sexual offense, sexual assault, aggravated assault,
aggravated sexual assault, injury to a child, injury to an
elderly individual, or to a disabled individual,
abandoning or endangering a child, or incest.” It may
be a bit embarrassing going through this list with
prospective guardians, but as mentioned before, it is
best if the attorneys involved ask these questions of the
potential guardian rather than the judge.
(3) Conflicted
The third category of disqualification presupposes
that the proposed guardian has a conflict that might
prevent him from protecting the best interests of the
ward. Therefore, you should ask guardian candidates
if they or their parents are parties to lawsuits involving
the ward (sub 4), or whether they are indebted to the
ward (sub 5), or whether they are asserting any claims
that are adverse to the ward (sub 6). If the proposed
guardian (or his parent) is a party to a lawsuit
involving the ward, this conflict can be cured by asking
the court to declare that the guardian’s claim and the
ward’s claim are not in conflict, or to ask the court to
appoint a guardian ad litem to represent the interests of
the ward throughout the litigation of the ward’s lawsuit
claim. If a proposed guardian is indebted to the ward,
the conflict can be cured by having the proposed
guardian repay the debt prior to being appointed. The
law does not provide any ways to cure an adverse
claim that the proposed guardian has against a
proposed ward or the proposed ward’s property.
Who Can or Should Be a Guardian Chapter 8
3
(4) Inexperience
The final category of disqualification is also
vague and will allow the court to use its discretion to
decide whether a proposed guardian, because of
inexperience, lack of education, or other good reason,
is incapable of properly and prudently managing and
controlling the ward or the ward’s estate (sub 7). This
category is also helpful in allowing the court or a
guardian ad litem to decide between two qualified
candidates who might be the best possible guardian for
the ward. Presumably, the candidate with more
financial experience and more education would be a
better candidate as guardian of the estate than a person
with less of these qualities.
Please also note that the code (sub 11) now
requires that all professional guardians be certified by
the Guardianship Certification Board prior to being
appointed as guardian. Volunteers, who are part of a
guardianship program, are exempt from certification,
but anyone serving as guardian of the estate for a non-
relative must be certified prior to appointment if they
expect to receive guardianship commissions. If you
have any questions about guardianship certification,
please contact Leslie Ondrechen at 512/475-2873 or
[email protected] The Texas
guardianship certification system is part of the State’s
Office of Court Administration under the auspices of
the Supreme Court of Texas, and is one of the nation’s
premiere guardianship certification models.
WHO SHOULD BE GUARDIAN? IS ANYONE
LEFT?
Hopefully, after testing your candidates on the
“Sea of Disqualification,” some will remain afloat. If
so, how is the court or guardian ad litem to decide
which candidate is the most seaworthy to appoint as
guardian of the estate and/or guardian of the person?
CAN ANYONE BE REHABILITATED?
Usually, the court is faced with the decision of
which family member, although conflicted, might be
the easiest to rehabilitate? Such was the case in
Guardianship of Bobby Esther Walzel, 2010 Tex. App.
LEXIS 663 (TX App. 13th Dist., Corpus Christi-
Edinburg 2010, no writ). In Walzel, the court stated
that the proposed ward’s two children were both
eligible to be appointed guardian even though Sherry
owed her mother $1,200 and Allen may have owed his
mother $15,000. When Allen appealed the
appointment of Sherry, the appellate court affirmed the
lower court’s appointment of Sherry provided that she
pay back the $1,200 debt within 5 days of the court’s
order and that guardianship letters not issue until the
debt was repaid.
The Walzel case should be contrasted with the
Guardianship of Mary Jane Olivares, 2008 Tex. App.
LEXIS 9232 (TX App. 7th Dist., Amarillo 2008, writ.
den.). In Olivares, the court ruled on the ad litem’s
motion in limine that Dennis lacked standing to be
appointed as guardian for his mother because he owed
his mother $80,000. Dennis appealed claiming that the
ad litem failed to show that Dennis would never repay
the debt. The court record indicated that Dennis had
no job and lived in his mother’s house. The appellate
court stated that although Dennis “had the ability to
earn wages and care for himself, he opted to live off
his potentially incapacitated mother and expend her
finite estate for his own benefit.”
The lesson to be learned here is that debts owed
by proposed guardians to proposed wards must be
repaid before those guardians can be appointed. Of
course, debts closer to $1,200 are more likely to be
repaid than debts closer to $80,000. It’s also helpful if
a proposed guardian is employed and isn’t still living
in his mother’s house.
WHY DOES EACH PERSON WANT TO SERVE
AS GUARDIAN?
One can assume that Dennis in the Olivares case
wanted to be guardian to prevent himself from
becoming homeless. Although this is a common
motivation among proposed guardians, it’s not the
desired motivation. A variation of this theme is the
proposed guardian who wants to move mother into the
nursing facility so that she can move into the family
home that she is certain her mother always wanted her
to have.
It used to be that people had the decency to wait
until a parent was dead before they started fighting
with their siblings over the spoils via a good old
fashion will contest. These days, many family
members become impatient for their inheritance and
begin fighting with siblings once a parent shows signs
of incapacity. They start emptying the family closets
and begin beating each other with the bones of the
skeletons found therein.
It is the job of the ad litems, the court staff, and
the judge to uncover the motivation of each person
who wants to serve as guardian. Our court is
somewhat unique in Texas for actively investigating
court initiated guardianships requests under Section
683 of the Texas Probate Code. Our court, therefore,
receives a large number of 683 information letters and
doctors’ letters from hospitals and nursing facilities
concerning individuals in their facilities who are
incapacitated and may need guardians. The court
assigns a staff social worker to visit these individuals
and file a report concerning whether a guardianship is
needed and which family member, if any, would the
best person to serve as guardian.
One of our two staff social workers, Denise
Buchan, LCSW, has worked for Tarrant County
Who Can or Should Be a Guardian Chapter 8
4
Probate Court since 2002 as Court Visitor Program
Manager and monitors about 1,200 guardianships of
the person. Ms. Buchan also conducts some initial 683
guardianship investigations as well as many
investigations into who may be appropriate to serve as
successor guardian when a guardian dies or resigns.
Due to her extensive experience in dealing with
guardians, I asked Ms. Buchan to answer the following
questions:
1. What are the most common bad motivations
or attitudes of bad guardians?
2. What are the most common good motivations
of good guardians?
3. What are some attributes of those people who
make the best guardians?
4. How do you decide between two equally
qualified guardians?
Ms. Buchan also uses and supervises social work
interns from University of Texas at Arlington to
conduct court visits on existing guardianship cases.
Ms. Buchan asked one of her best MSW student
interns, Melissa Ortiz, to answer these questions as
well.
Finally, I mentioned these four questions to John
Wank, long-time General Counsel and Director of
Programs for the Illinois Guardianship and Advocacy
Commission which is the nation’s largest public
guardianship program serving approximately 5,000
indigent individuals with guardianship services. Mr.
Wank is also a past president and board member of the
National Guardianship Association (NGA)
www.guardianship.org, and since 1996, he has been
involved with the NGA Legal Review, an annual
summary of US guardianship cases. I have included
the answers of these three guardianship experts below
without commentary. Let’s start with the bad
motivations first and then end on a positive note. To
set the stage for this portion of the paper, here is the
first of six equitable maxims from guardianship guru
and attorney John Wank:
“Good social work often trumps good legal
work unless the lawyer also happens to be a
good social worker. Honor the good social
workers; suffer the good lawyers.”
BAD MOTIVATIONS OR ATTITUDES OF BAD
GUARDIANS
Buchan: Bad guardians are often motivated by
gaining control over a ward and using this power
against the ward’s other family members. These
guardians will often prohibit visitation of a ward by
certain family members.
Ortiz: Bad guardians are often only interested in the
ward’s estate. They are often selfish and put their own
interests ahead of their wards’ interests when making
decisions.
Wank: Family will fight over anything, especially
money. If there is no money, they will fight over who
took it.
Buchan: Bad guardians are often in denial of or
misinformed about the medical and psychiatric
conditions of their wards. This often causes their
wards to be misdiagnosed and to not receive necessary
psychiatric medications.
Wank: The most common bad motivation of bad
guardians must surely be financial hanky-panky of
one sort or another. The kind that every public
guardian sees so often relates back to family with
warped notions of entitlement- the justification that it
is okay to use mom’s social security check to pay my
own bill because of some sick family dynamic.
Remember the mope in the 2010 NGA Legal Review,
who, in answer to a question of motivation for taking
over $45,000 of his father’s estate asked by his own
attorney, said:
“Two reasons. One is the fact that it was just
going to go to Medicaid anyway and I would
just as soon me have it as the government get
it, and the second was the fact that my sister,
half-sister, had already taken $24,000 from
Dady and my half-brother had $20,000 from
Dad, and if they could get money for
nothing, I should at least get paid for taking
care of him.” In the Matter of the
Guardianship of R.S., an Incapacitated Adult,
2009 WL 2447836 (IN Ct. App. 2009)
unpublished.
GOOD MOTIVATIONS OF GOOD GUARDIANS
Buchan: Good guardians have the ward’s best
interests at heart. They are able to make a decision that
is in the ward’s best interests even if the ward does not
agree. Good guardians want to be responsible and
involved in all aspects of the ward’s life. They are
able to be fair in providing access and visitation to all
interested family members.
Ortiz: Good guardians have a genuine interest in the
ward’s health, lifestyle, daily activities, and well-being.
They want to improve the ward’s quality of life.
Wank:
A just decision is not necessarily the first decision.
Who Can or Should Be a Guardian Chapter 8
5
COMMON ATTRIBUTES OF GOOD
GUARDIANS
Buchan: Good guardians are rational and good
advocates. They take the time to research issues that
arise. They are loving and fair and have good people
skills. They are willing to give personal attention and
time to the ward’s life. They are able to set up
supervised visits using facility staff or geriatric case
managers or develop a written agreement for visitation
when problems arise during visits such as visitors
discussing negative or distressing topics with the ward,
interfering with the ward’s care, or attempting to
exploit the ward.
Ortiz: Reliable, Sincere, Mature, Patient, Caring,
Helpful, Genuine, Assertive, Selfless, Motivated,
Efficient, Honest, Competent, Trustworthy, and
Willing to advocate for the incapacitated person.
Wank: Justice often comes to those who pay for something
else.
DECIDING BETWEEN EQUALLY QUALIFIED
GUARDIANS
Wank:
Where there appears to be equal equity, blink, it is
probably an illusion.
He who speaks loudest should probably be ignored.
Buchan: Who has the most time to devote to serving?
Who has been most involved in visiting and going to
doctor’s appointments? Who interacts better with
caregivers, staff members and medical providers?
Usually, with two truly equally qualified possible
guardians, we ask them to decide who should serve,
and they are able to make that decision and let us
know.
Ortiz: Who has more time available, and who lives
closer in proximity to the incapacitated person? Who
has known the incapacitated person for a longer period
of time? Who has a closer relationship with the
incapacitated person? What kind of reputation does
each proposed guardian have? Which proposed
guardian has a better grasp of the incapacitated
person’s limitations and abilities?
Has the proposed guardian’s inactivity contributed
to the incapacitated person’s situation?
This is a question that courts often consider in
deciding whether to appoint a willing family member,
a private professional guardian or a guardianship
program. Sometimes, a family member’s inactivity
allowed the proposed ward to deteriorate to the point
that the health or finances of the proposed ward were
jeopardized. The court must consider whether giving
the family member court authority to protect the ward
will solve the problem or whether the proposed
guardian’s previous inactivity was rooted in other
deficits. This is an issue that the ad litems should also
consider before recommending or agreeing to a
proposed guardian.
Who would you want as guardian?
This is a question that an ad litem, especially a
guardian ad litem, should ask himself or herself. In
other words, one has to walk a mile in the proposed
ward’s shoes. As I was thinking about this paper a few
weeks back, a guardian came into the court offices.
She was being appointed as administrator for her ward
who recently died. She stated that she had now
probated estates for her husband and two of her
husband’s relatives, the last for whom she also served
as guardian. She was one of these people that wasn’t
fazed by anything. She told me that she liked court
offices and that her father had been a judge. I asked
her what she did for a living. She said she was a real
estate agent, and gave me her card. Dear Judge
Frankenstein, that’s who I want as my guardian. I may
also call her when I decide to sell my house.
Who Can or Should Be a Guardian Chapter 8
Health and Human Services Commission 2/4/2011
Page 1 of 6
HHSC List of Local Guardianship and Money
Management Programs in Texas
February 2011
FAMILY ELDERCARE, INC.
Ramona Brush, Manager of Client Services and Quality Assurance
2210 Hancock Drive
Austin, TX 78756
Phone: (512) 450-0844
Fax: (512) 459-6436
E-Mail: [email protected]
Counties: Travis, Williamson
Guardianship and Money Management
LULAC, PROJECT AMISTAD
Xavier Banales, Executive Director
1359 Lomaland, Suite 400
El Paso, TX 79935
Phone: (915) 532-3790
Fax: (915) 532-7463
E-Mail: [email protected]
Counties: El Paso, Ector, Midland
Guardianship and Money Management
FRIENDS FOR LIFE, INC.
Inez Russell, Director
5000 Lakewood
Waco, TX 76710
Mailing Address
P.O. Box 23491
Waco, TX 76702
Phone: (254) 772-7600
Fax: (254) 772-3900
E-Mail: [email protected]
Counties: Anderson, Bell, Bexar, Bosque, Brazos, Brown, Burleson, Callahan, Cherokee, Coleman,
Comanche, Coryell, Eastland, Erath, Falls, Fisher, Freestone, Gregg, Hamilton, Henderson, Hill,
Jones, Lampasas, Lee, Leon, Limestone, McLennan, Milam, Navarro, Nolan, Robertson, Runnels,
Rusk, Taylor, Shackelford, Smith, Upshur, Van Zandt, Washington
Guardianship and Money Management
7
Who Can or Should Be a Guardian Chapter 8
Health and Human Services Commission 2/4/2011
Page 1 of 6
COVENENT OUTREACH, L.L.C.
Sheila Watts, Director
1049 N. Third Street, Suite 606
Abilene, TX 79601
Phone: (325) 673-8516
Fax: (325) 437-1674
E-Mail: [email protected]
Counties: Taylor, Montgomery, Mitchell, Ector, Stephens, Crockett, Midland, Brown, Eastland,
Callahan, Comanche, Dawson, Haskell, Howard, Nolan
Private Professional Guardianship Only – Fee for Services
JEWISH FAMILY SERVICES OF DALLAS, INC. GUARDIANSHIP SERVICES
Debbie Weiner, Coordinator for Gerontological Services
Edna Zale Building
5402 Arapahoe Road
Dallas, TX 76248
Phone: (972) 437-9950
Fax: (972) 437-0424
E-Mail: [email protected]
Counties: Dallas
Very Limited Guardianship and Money Management
ELLIS COUNTY VOLUNTEER GUARDIANSHIP PROGRAM
Patti Binger, Administrator
103 S. 4th
Street
P.O. Box 915
Midlothian, TX 76065
Phone: (972) 723-9815
Fax: (972) 775-2704
E-Mail: [email protected]
Counties: Ellis, Hill
Guardianship Only
THE SENIOR SOURCE, SENIOR CITIZENS OF GREATER DALLAS, INC.
Suzanne Cobb, Director
3910 Harry Hines Blvd.
Dallas, TX 75219
Phone: (214) 823-5700
Fax: (214) 887-1255
E-Mail: [email protected]
Counties: Dallas, Collin, Rockwall, Kaufman, Hunt
Guardianship
Counties: Southern Denton, Collin, Dallas, Rockwall
Money Management
8
Who Can or Should Be a Guardian Chapter 8
Health and Human Services Commission 2/4/2011
Page 1 of 6
TEXOMA MONEY MANAGEMENT & GUARDIANSHIP PROGRAM
Jim Welch, Director
1117 Gallagher, Suite 200
Sherman, TX 75090
Phone: (903) 813-3503
Fax: (903) 813-3515
E-Mail: [email protected]
Counties: Grayson, Fannin, Cooke
Guardianship and Money Management
ARC OF SAN ANGELO – GUARDIANSHIP ALLIANCE OF THE CONCHO VALLEY
Lettitia McPherson, Executive Director
P.O. Box 1922
San Angelo, TX 76902
Phone: (325) 657-0308
Fax: (325) 655-6627
E-Mail: [email protected]
Counties: Tom Green, Crane, Coke, Crockett, Kimble, Menard, McCulloch, Schleicher, Sutton, Concho,
Irion, Mason, Reagan, Sterling
Guardianship and Legal Guardianship Assistance
GUARDIANSHIP SERVICES, INC.
Colleen Colton, Executive Director
603 West Magnolia
Fort Worth, TX 76104
Mailing Address
P.O. Box 11481
Fort Worth, TX 76110
Phone: (817) 921-0499
Fax: (817) 921-0680
E-Mail: [email protected]
Counties: Tarrant
Guardianship and Money Management
HARRIS COUNTY GUARDIANSHIP PROGRAM
Jan McLaughlin, Guardianship Program Director
2525 Murworth Drive
Houston, TX 77054
Mailing Address
P.O. Box 20605
Houston, TX 77225-0605
Phone: (713) 363-2320
Fax: (713) 363-2364
E-Mail: [email protected]
Counties: Harris
Guardianship and Money Management
9
Who Can or Should Be a Guardian Chapter 8
Health and Human Services Commission 2/4/2011
Page 1 of 6
GALVESTON COUNTY GUARDIANSHIP PROGRAM
Joe Metyko, Manager
123 Rosenberg Street, Suite 4020
Galveston, TX 77550
Phone: (409) 770-5583
Fax: (409) 770-5590
Counties: Galveston
Guardianship Only
CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF SAN ANTONIO
Monica Bonilla, Guardianship Director
202 W. French Place
San Antonio, TX 78212
Phone: (210) 293-1009
Fax: (210) 293-0799
E-Mail: [email protected]
Counties: Atascosa, Bandera, Bexar, Comal, Guadalupe, Kendall, Medina, Wilson
Guardianship and Money Management
LENA MAE FARIS FOUNDATION
Cynthia Parker Robertson, Director
P.O. Box 472
Washington, TX 77880-0472
Phone: (936) 878-2107
E-Mail: [email protected]
Counties: Washington, Grimes
Money Management Only
BRAZOS BEND GUARDIANSHIP SERVICES
Kirk Monroe, Executive Director
10435 Greenbough, Suite 200
Stafford, TX 77477
Phone: (281) 207-2320
Fax: (281) 207-2471
E-Mail: [email protected]
Counties: Fort Bend
Guardianship and Money Management
10
Who Can or Should Be a Guardian Chapter 8
Health and Human Services Commission 2/4/2011
Page 1 of 6
ARC OF DALLAS COUNTY
LaFreda Smith
12700 Hillcrest Road, Suite 200
Dallas, TX 75230
Phone: (214) 634-9810
Fax: (214) 634-9815
E-Mail: [email protected]
Counties: Dallas, Collin
Guardianship and Money Management
COMAL COUNTY SENIOR CITIZEN’S FOUNDATION
Lynn Mahaffey, Money Management Program Director
655 Landa
New Braunfels, TX 78130
Phone: (830) 629-4547
Fax: (830) 625-1802
E-Mail: [email protected]
Counties: Comal
Money Management Only
SOUTHEAST TEXAS REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION
Kathryn Walker, Program Coordinator
2210 Eastex Freeway
Beaumont, TX 77703
Phone: (409) 899-8444 Ext. 120
Fax: (409) 899-8680
E-Mail: [email protected]
Counties: Jefferson, Hardin, Orange
Money Management Only
HEALTH SERVICES OF NORTH TEXAS
Ronald G. Aldridge, Ph.D., Executive Director
4210 Mesa Dr.
Denton, Texas 76207
Phone: (940)381-1501
Fax: (940)566-8059
E-Mail: [email protected]
Counties: Denton
Guardianship Only
11
Who Can or Should Be a Guardian Chapter 8
Health and Human Services Commission 2/4/2011
Page 1 of 6
NOR-CEN-TEX GUARDIANSHIP SERVICES
Pat Bergeman, Director
P.O. Box 2413
Granbury, TX 76048
Phone: (817) 573-9996
E-Mail: [email protected]
Counties: Hood, Erath, Somervell, Johnson
Guardianship and Money Management
LIFESPEAK SERVICES, INC.
Sundra Spears, Executive Director
165 S. Guadalupe Street, Suite 110
San Marcos, TX 78666
Phone: (800) 997-4443
Fax: (800) 800-997-5220
E-Mail: [email protected]
Counties: Hays, Comal, Guadalupe, Bexar, Kerr, Uvalde, Dallas Metroplex
Money Management
SENIOR ANCHORS FINANCIAL AND ELDERCARE, INC.
Sundra Spears, Executive Director
165 S. Guadalupe, Street, Suite 110
San Marcos, TX 78666
Phone: (888) 866-1939
Fax: (888) 866-1953
E-Mail: [email protected]
Counties: Hays, Comal, Guadalupe, Bexar, Kerr, Uvalde
Guardianship
12