Purpose: This study investigates the impact of statutory reform in adult guardianship on court practice.
Methods: Case files for 298 cases of adult guardianship were reviewed in three states with varying degrees of statutory reform: MA (no reform), PA (major amendments in 1992), and CO (full re-enactment of statute per UGPPA in 2000). Five court practices associated with progressive statutory reform were studied: (1) diversion to less restrictive alternatives; (2) minimal and appropriate use of emergency procedures; (3) presence of the alleged incapacitated person at the hearing; (4) use of functional evaluation; (5) use of limited orders.
Results: CO more frequently utilized all five practices, whereas PA used diversion to less restrictive alternatives and less frequent emergency procedures, but not other practices. MA files rarely showed evidence for use of any of these reforms.
Implications: Statutory reform may improve court practice. More study of the effects of reform on court practices, and the vulnerable adults served by these courts, is needed.