Under IDEA, when youths reach the age of majority they become responsible for their educational program, unless they are determined to be incompetent. When considering student competence, the issue of guardianship is often raised. Guardianship is inconsistent with the recent emphasis on self-determination. This study examined guardianship practices as they relate to young adults who have developmental disabilities. Review of 221 court files found that (a) disability label, limited ability to make decisions, and youth reaching the age of majority were main reasons why petitions were filed; (b) evidence used to “prove” incompetence was unclear; (c) ward's “conditions” remained constant following the guardian appointment; and (d) guardianship did not necessarily resolve the areas of concern. Guardianship is a complex issue in need of further investigation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AgranM.SnowK.SwanerJ.Teacher preparations of self-determination: Benefits, characteristics, strategies. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities342933011999
2.
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U. S. C. A. § 12101 et seqWest1993
3.
AndersonL., PolisterB., ProutyR. W., & LakinK. C. (1996). Number of residential settings and residents by type of living arrangement. In ProutyR. W. & LakinK. C. (Eds.), Residential services for persons with developmental disabilities: Status and trends through 1995 (pp. 54-59). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Institute on Community Integration.
4.
BogdanR. C.BiklenS. K.Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methodsAllyn and BaconNeedham Heights, MA1992
5.
BrothersonM. J.CookC. C.Cunconan-LahrR.WehmeyerM. L.Policy supporting self-determination in the environments of children with disabilitiesEducation and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities303–141995
6.
BulcroftK.KielkopfM.TrippK.Elderly wards and their legal guardians analysis of county probate courts in Ohio and WashingtonThe Gerontologist31156–1731991
7.
Oregon State UniversityGovernment information sharing project. Information servicesUnited States Census Bureau websitehttp://govinfo.library.orst.edu/index1995Census data
8.
FieldS.A historical perspective on student involvement in transition programs. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals19169–1761997
9.
FriedmanL.SenageM.Taking care: The law of conservatorship in CaliforniaSouthern California Law Review61273–2901988
10.
HealL. W.SigelmanC. K.Response biases in interviews of individuals with limited mental abilityJournal of Intellectual Disability Research39331–3401995
11.
HoughtonJ.BronickiG. J.GuessD.Opportunities to express preferences and make choices among students with severe disabilities in classroom settingsJournal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps1218–271987
12.
HurmeS. B.Steps to enhance guardianship monitoringAmerican Bar AssociationWashington, DC1991
13.
HurmeS. B.Monitoring of guardianship1998
14.
ZimnyG. H.GrossbergG. T.Guardianship of the elderlySpringerNew York115–132Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, 20 U. S. C. A. § 1400 et seq
15.
IrisM.The use of limited guardianship as the least restrictive alternative for the impaired elderly: An ethnographic examination of the probate court and the decision-making processThe Erickson InstituteChicago1986
16.
IrisM.WallachM. A.L. B. Implementation of the disabled adults statute in Illinois: A survey and analysis of the 1985 docket and court records in Cook, Lake, and Du Page countiesModel project of guardianship for low income aged: Summary report and impact evaluation final reportThe Erickson InstituteChicago1986
17.
LearyJ.A review of two recently reformed guardianship statutes: Balancing the need to protect individuals who cannot protect themselves against the need to guard individual autonomy1997
18.
Virginia Journal of Social Policy & Law5245–286
19.
LincolnY. S.GubaE. G.Naturalistic inquirySageBeverly Hills, CA1985
20.
LisiL. B.BurnsA. M.LussendenK.National study of guardianship systems: Findings and recommendationsMental Health Code of Michigan ActMichigan Compiled Laws Annotated (MCLAAnn Arbor, MI258330–16001974
21.
MillarD. S.RenzagliaA.Factors affecting guardianship practices for young adults with disabilitiesExceptional Children68465–4842002
22.
O'sullivanJ. L.HoffmanD. E.The guardianship puzzle: Whatever happened to due process?Maryland Journal of Contemporary Legal Issues711–511995
23.
ParsonsM.ReidD.Assessing food preferences among persons with profound mental retardation: Providing opportunities to make choicesJournal of Applied Behavior Analysis23183–1951990
24.
RyndersJ. E.SchleienS. J.Together successfully: Creating recreational and education programs that integrate people with and without disabilitiesARCArlington, TX1991
SchleienS. J.RayM. T.GreenF. P.Community recreation and people with disabilitiesAbuses in guardianship of the elderly and the infirm: A national disgraceUS Government Printing OfficeWashington, DC1989Baltimore: Brookes. Select Committee on Aging, House of Representatives
27.
SpringJ. C.DublerN.GarginloJ. M.1990New York state's conservator and committee statutes: Do they serve the personal, financial, and health care needs of the elderly?New YorkAssociation of the Bar of the City of the City of New York.
28.
SullivanN. A. (1986). Guardianship for citizens with developmental disabilities: A training package for guardians. Lansing, MI: Michigan Protection and Advocacy Services.
29.
The Center for Social Gerontology. (1994). National study of guardianship systems: Implications and additional research. Ann Arbor, MI: Author. The State Court Administration Office. (1998). The Michigan state courts annual report. Lansing, MI: Author.
30.
ThomaC. A., NathansonR., & BakerS. R. (2002). Self-determination: What do special educators know and where do they learn it? Remedial Education and Special Education, 23, 242-247.
31.
ThomaC. A., RoganP., & BakerS. (2001). Selfdetermination in transition planning: Voices unheard. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 34, 16-29.
32.
TurnbullA. P., TurnbullH. R., ShankM., & LealD. (1995). Exceptional lives: Special education in today's schools. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill. Vocational Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1992, 29 U. S. C. A. § 701 et seq.
33.
WagnerM., NewmanL., & ShaverD. (1989). The National longitudinal transition study of special education students: Report on procedures for the first wave of data collection. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
34.
WardM. J., & HalloranW. D. (1993). Transition issues for the 1990s. OSERS News in Print, 1, 4-5.
35.
WardM. J., & KohlerP. D. (1996). Teaching selfdetermination: Content and process. In PowersL., SingerG., & SowersJ. (Eds.), Promoting selfcompetence in children and youth with disabilities: On the road to autonomy (pp. 275-290). Baltimore: Brooks.
36.
WehmeyerM. L. (1998). Self-determination and individuals with significant disabilities: Examining meanings and misinterpretations. The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 23, 5-16.
37.
WehmeyerM. L., AgranM., & HughesC. (2000). A national survey of teachers' promotion of selfdetermination and student-directed learning. The Journal of Special Education, 34, 58-68.
38.
WolcottH. F. (1994). Transforming qualitative data: Description, analysis, and interpretation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
