Federal law requires that schools provide students receiving special education services and their parents/guardians with notice, 1 year before the student reaches the age of majority, that all of the educational rights previously afforded to the parents/guardians will transfer to the student once they reach the age of majority. During this “transfer-of-rights” period, educational professionals often advise parents/guardians to seek legal guardianship over the student with disabilities without providing information about other options. As a result, many parents/guardians seek guardianship without knowing about or exploring less-restrictive alternatives that could help students retain their legal rights, provide opportunities to enhance self-determination, and build community participation skills that benefit them in school and as adults. This article will (a) provide an overview of the use and impact of guardianship and describe recent advances in developing and implementing less-restrictive alternatives to guardianship and (b) advocate for an amendment to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 that will require schools to provide students and their families with information about the full range of decision-making options during the “transfer-of-rights” period.
AlgozzineB.BrowderD.KarvonenM.TestD. W.WoodW. M. (2001). Effects of interventions to promote self-determination for individuals with disabilities. Review of Educational Research, 71, 219–277. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543071002219
2.
BlanckP.MartinisJ. (2015). “The right to make choices”: National Resource Center for Supported Decision-Making. Inclusion, 3, 24–33. https://doi.org/10.1352/2326-6988-3.1.24
3.
BuntinxW. H. E. (2013). Understanding disability: A strengths-based approach. In WehmeyerM. L. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of positive psychology and disability (pp. 7–18). Oxford University Press.
4.
BurkeK. M.RaleyS. K.ShogrenK. A.HagiwaraM.Mumbardó-AdamC.UyanikH.BehrensS. (2020). A meta-analysis of interventions to promote self-determination for students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 41, 176–188. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932518802274
5.
CampbellK. P.BallP.CoulterM.CurvaF.DunbarS.MiltonA. L.MiltonS. (2016). The restoration of capacity for persons under guardianship with developmental disabilities in Florida. Journal of International Aging Law & Policy, 9, 55–100.
6.
CassidyJ. (2015). Restoration of rights in the termination of adult guardianship. The Elder Law Journal, 23, 83–122.
7.
DeanE. E.BurkeK. M.ShogrenK. A.WehmeyerM. L. (2017). Promoting self-determination and integrated employment through the Self-Determined Career Development Model. Advances in Neurodevelopmental Disorders, 1, 55–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41252-017-0011-y
HatchM. J.CraneS. A.MartinisJ. G. (2015). Unjustified isolation is discrimination: The Olmstead case against overbroad and undue organizational and public guardianship. Inclusion, 3, 65–74. https://doi.org/10.1352/2326-6988-3.2.65
12.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, H.R. 1350, 108th Congress (2004).
13.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. 1400(d)(1)(A) (2006).
14.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. 1415(m)(1) (2006).
15.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. 1415(m)(2) (2006).
16.
In re King, 2003 INT 249 (D.C. Super. Ct. Oct. 6, 2016) (order terminating guardianship).
17.
JamesonJ. M.RiesenT.PolychronisS.TraderB.MiznerS.MartinisJ.HoyleD. (2015). Guardianship and the potential of supported decision making with individuals with disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 40, 36–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796915586189
18.
KanterA. S. (2015). Guardianship for young adults with disabilities as a violation of the purpose of the individuals with disabilities education improvement act. Journal of International Aging Law and Policy, 8, 1–68.
19.
KingS. J. (2019). Our journey of supported decision-making for Ryan. Impact, 32, 28–29.
20.
KohnN. A.BlumenthalJ. A.CampbellA. T. (2012). Supported decision-making: A viable alternative to guardianship?Penn State Law Review, 117, 1111–1157. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2161115
21.
LindseyP.GuyB.WehmeyerM. L.MartinJ. (2001). Age of majority and mental retardation: A position statement of the Division on Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 36, 3–15.
22.
McDougallJ.EvansJ.BaldwinP. (2010). The importance of self-determination to perceived quality of life for youth and young adults with chronic conditions and disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 31, 252–260. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932509355989
23.
MillarD. S. (2007). “I never put it together”: The disconnect between self-determination and guardianship—Implications for practice. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 42, 119–129.
24.
MillarD. S.RenzagliaA. (2002). Factors affecting guardianship practices for young adults with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 68, 465–484. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290206800404
25.
National Association of State Directors of Developmental Disabilities Services and Human Services Research Institute. (2017). National core indicators. http://www.nationalcoreindicators.org/charts/
National Council on Disability. (2019). Turning rights into reality: How guardianship and alternatives impact the autonomy of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. https://ncd.gov/publications/2019/turning-rights-into-reality
28.
National Technical Assistance Center on Transition. (2016). Evidence-based practices and predictors in secondary transition: What we know and what we still need to know.
29.
O’SullivanJ. (2002). Role of the attorney for the alleged incapacitated person. Stetson Law Review, 31, 687–734.
30.
Payne-ChristiansenE. M.SitlingtonP. L. (2008). Guardianship: Its role in the transition process for students with developmental disabilities. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 43, 3–19.
RaleyS. K.ShogrenK. A.McDonaldA. M. (2018). Whole-class implementation of the Self-Determined Learning Model of Instruction in inclusive high school mathematics classes. Inclusion, 6, 164–174. https://doi.org/10.1352/2326-6988-6.3.164
33.
RaleyS. K.ShogrenK. A.RifenbarkG. G.ThomasK.McDonaldA. F.BurkeK. M. (2020). Enhancing secondary students’ goal attainment and self-determination in general education mathematics classes using the Self-Determined Learning Model of Instruction. Advances in Neurodevelopmental Disorders, 4, 155–167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41252-020-00152-z
34.
ReynoldsS. L. (2002). Guardianship primavera: A first look at factors associated with having a legal guardian using a national representative sample of community-dwelling adults. Aging and Mental Health, 6, 109–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/13607860220126718
35.
RoodC. E.KanterA.CaustonJ. (2015). Presumption of incompetence: The systematic assignment of guardianship within the transition process. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 39, 319–328. https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796915571005
36.
Ross v. Hatch, No. CWF120000426P-03 (Va. Cir. Ct. Aug. 2, 2013) (order terminating guardianship).
37.
SaaltinkR.MacKinnonG.OwenF.Tardif-WilliamsC. (2012). Protection, participation and protection through participation: Young people with intellectual disabilities and decision making in the family context. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 56, 1076–1086. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2788.2012.01649.x
38.
SalzmanL. (2010). Rethinking guardianship (again): Substituted decision making as a violation of the integration mandate of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. University of Colorado Law Review, 81, 157–244.
39.
SchmidtW. C. (1995). Guardianship: Court of last rest for elderly and disabled. Carolina Academic Press.
40.
ShapiroJ. P. (1993). No pity: People with disability forging a new civil rights movement. Random House. https://doi.org/10.2307/1289622
41.
ShogrenK. A. (2013). A social-ecological analysis of the self-determination literature. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 51, 496–511. https://doi.org/10.1352/1934-9556-51.6.496
42.
ShogrenK. A.PalmerS. B.WehmeyerM. L.Williams-DiehmK.LittleT. D. (2012). Effect of intervention with the Self-Determined Learning Model of Instruction on access and goal attainment. Remedial and Special Education, 33, 320–330. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932511410072
43.
ShogrenK. A.RifenbarkG.WehmeyerM. L.KilleenM.KarsevarJ. (2020). Refining the Supported Decision Making Inventory. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities. https://doi.org/10.1111/jppi.12335
44.
ShogrenK. A.WehmeyerM. L. (2015). A framework for research and intervention design in supported decision-making. Inclusion, 3, 17–23. https://doi.org/10.1352/2326-6988-3.1.17
45.
ShogrenK. A.WehmeyerM. L.MartinisJ.BlanckP. (2019). Supported decision-making: Theory, research, and practice to enhance self-determination. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108633314
46.
ShogrenK. A.WehmeyerM. L.PalmerS. B.Forber-PrattA. J.LittleT. J.LopezS. (2015). Causal agency theory: Reconceptualizing a functional model of self-determination. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 50, 251–263.
47.
ShogrenK. A.WehmeyerM. L.PalmerS. B.RifenbarkG. G.LittleT. D. (2015). Relationships between self-determination and postschool outcomes for youth with disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 48, 256–267. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466913489733
48.
ShogrenK. A.WehmeyerM. L.SchalockR. L.ThompsonJ. R. (2016). Reframing educational supports for students with intellectual disability through strengths-based approaches. In WehmeyerM. L.ShogrenK. A. (Eds.), Handbook of research-based practices for education students with intellectual disability (pp. 25–38). Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315736198.
49.
ShogrenK. A.WehmeyerM. L.UyanikH.HeidrichM. S. (2017). Development of the Supported Decision-Making Inventory System. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 55, 432–439. https://doi.org/10.1352/1934-9556-55.6.432
50.
TeasterP. B.WoodE. F.LawrenceS. A.SchmidtW. C. (2007). Wards of the state: A national study of public guardianship. Stetson Law Review, 37, 193–242.
51.
ThompsonJ. R.BradleyV. J.BuntinxW. H.SchalockR. L.ShogrenK. A.SnellM. E.. . . GomezS. C. (2009). Conceptualizing supports and the support needs of people with intellectual disability. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 47, 135–146. https://doi.org/10.1352/1934-9556-47.2.135
52.
TurnbullA. A.TurnbullH. R.ErwinE. J.SoodakL. C.ShogrenK. A. (2015). Families, professionals, and exceptionality: Positive outcomes through partnerships and trust. Pearson.
U.S. House of Representatives. (1987). Abuses in guardianship of the elderly and infirm: A national disgrace (A briefing by the chairman of the Subcommittee on Health and Long-term Care of the Select Committee on Aging, 100th Congress Session 1, House of Representatives Report No. 100-64, opening statement of Chairman Claude Pepper). http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED297241.pdf
55.
WalkerA.WalkerC.GoslingV. (1999). Quality of life as a matter of human rights. In HerrS.WeberG. (Eds.), Aging, rights, and quality of life: Prospects for older people with developmental disabilities (pp. 109–132). Paul H. Brookes.
56.
WehmeyerM. L. (2013). The story of intellectual disability: An evolution of meaning, understanding, and public perception. Brookes.
57.
WehmeyerM. L.GragoudasS. (2004). Centers for independent living and transition-age youth: Empowerment and self-determination. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 20, 53–58.
58.
WinickB. J. (1995). The side effects of incompetency labeling and the implications for mental health law. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 1, 6–42. https://doi.org/10.1037//1076-8971.1.1.6
WrightJ. L. (2010). Guardianship for your own good: Improving the well-being of respondents and wards in the USA. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 33, 350–368. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1548709
