STEVEN D. FIELDS Court Administrator/Senior Attorney ...

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


817-884-1049 phone

817-884-1807 fax

[email protected]

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


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,

http://www.TexasBarCLE.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=275&edition=S.W.3d&page=623&id=130236_01

http://www.TexasBarCLE.com/CLE/PMCasemaker.asp?table=TX_caselaw&volume=275&edition=S.W.3d&page=623&id=130236_01


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.


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


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.


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.


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


Counties: El Paso, Ector, Midland


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


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


7



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


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


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


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


Counties: Dallas, Collin, Rockwall, Kaufman, Hunt

Guardianship

Counties: Southern Denton, Collin, Dallas, Rockwall

Money Management

8



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


Counties: Grayson, Fannin, Cooke


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


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


Mailing Address

P.O. Box 11481


Phone: (817) 921-0499

Fax: (817) 921-0680


Counties: Tarrant


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


Counties: Harris


9



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


Counties: Atascosa, Bandera, Bexar, Comal, Guadalupe, Kendall, Medina, Wilson


LENA MAE FARIS FOUNDATION

Cynthia Parker Robertson, Director

P.O. Box 472

Washington, TX 77880-0472

Phone: (936) 878-2107


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


Counties: Fort Bend


10



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


Counties: Dallas, Collin


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


Counties: Comal


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


Counties: Jefferson, Hardin, Orange


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


Counties: Denton

Guardianship Only

11



Page 1 of 6

NOR-CEN-TEX GUARDIANSHIP SERVICES

Pat Bergeman, Director

P.O. Box 2413

Granbury, TX 76048

Phone: (817) 573-9996


Counties: Hood, Erath, Somervell, Johnson


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


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


Counties: Hays, Comal, Guadalupe, Bexar, Kerr, Uvalde

Guardianship

12

STEVEN D. FIELDS Court Administrator/Senior Attorney ...

Documents

Transcript of STEVEN D. FIELDS Court Administrator/Senior Attorney ...