Have you ever heard of “granny-snatching?”  This is a term that is used when, for example, a son or daughter invites their elderly parent from out of state for a visit and then files for guardianship over them in the son or daughter’s home state – even though the parent may have no real connection to the state they are visiting.  This is possible in many states because the courts in the state in which the alleged incapacitated person is physically present has guardianship jurisdiction.  In a famous recent case, Lillian Glasser, a multi-millionaire, was a long time resident of New Jersey, but was visiting her daughter in Texas. The daughter petitioned and was awarded guardianship over Lillian by a Texas court.  Many people thought the case should have been brought in New Jersey, Lillian’s home state.

There is a movement to stop this kind of thing.  Indiana has proposed adoption of the Uniform Adult Guardianship and Protective Proceeding Jurisdiction Act.  If adopted, it would not allow a Court to have guardianship jurisdiction unless the alleged incapacitated person had a significant connection to that state.  The law would have prevented Lillian Glasser’s daughter from getting guardianship over her in a Texas court just because Lillian was visiting there and had no significant connection to Texas.  The Act would also make it easier for one state to recognize a guardianship started in another state.  It would also make guardianships easier to transfer from state to state.  The obvious problem in all of this is that all states would have to adopt the law for it to work.