You Should Care A Lot: Netflix’s New Film “I Care A Lot” and the Law in Pennsylvania

By John Higgins
May 4th, 2021

For those of you who have not yet streamed Netflix’s new movie “I Care a Lot,” starring Rosamund Pike and Peter Dinklage, I won’t here ruin the plot twists that make the movie a capable dark satire and light thriller.  I will say that the film raises important questions about the way our society cares for those who are unable to care for themselves, and the guardianship laws that govern how guardians are appointed and monitored.

In the film, we immediately discover that Pike’s Marla Grayson has carved out a vicious and lucrative living as a professional Court-appointed guardian.  We see mugshots of her wards (i.e. persons whom the Court has appointed her to watch over) on the wall of her sleek and bright office.  As she learns of the untimely death of one of her wards, her only emotion is regret that his death denied her the opportunity to milk his assets and take advantage of the awesome powers the Court has conferred upon her as his Guardian for her own personal gain.

  With the help of a cast of ethically compromised and greedy co-conspirators— respected professionals in whom society places an enormous amount of trust and power—Marla becomes aware of her next mark, a real “cherry,” the elderly, single, independent, wealthy Jennifer Peterson (Dianne Wiest).  We see Jennifer Peterson’s physician breach every ethical boundary to misdiagnose Jennifer’s early indications of memory loss as full-blown dementia requiring immediate and emergency intervention, and to alert Marla to Jennifer’s need of a guardian, and to promise favorable testimony in exchange for a cut of the proceeds.    

With Jennifer’s physician in on the scheme, Marla then petitions the local probate court ( in Pennsylvania, called the “Orphans’ Court”) for emergency guardianship of Jennifer.  The judge, on the basis of Jennifer’s physician’s exaggerated testimony, appoints Marla as Jennifer’s emergency guardian.  The judge is hapless, jaded and incurious—he is ignorant to Marla’s scheme and blinded by the many prior cases in which Marla’s professional guardianship company has been appointed guardian, and accepts the physician’s testimony without question.  Jennifer is not present for the hearing.  Once appointed, Marla appears at Jennifer’s home with the decree appointing Marla guardian and several law enforcement officers, and proceeds to move Jennifer to a nursing home, the director of which Marla has also cut a deal. 

We thereafter quickly learn that Jennifer is not without family, and she is not who she appears to be.  Jennifer has a son, Peter Dinklage, a not-so-legitimate businessman who will not take Marla’s scheme lying down.  His first move is to send his attorney to meet with Marla to first reason with her, and then to buy her off with cash to relinquish the guardianship.  When Marla rejects that offer, Jennifer’s son’s attorney petitions the Court, purporting to represent Jennifer, to rescind the guardianship.  Under questioning, the attorney reveals that he does not have a signed engagement agreement with Jennifer, and will not reveal who his real client is.  The judge sides with Marla, dismisses the attorney’s plea, and Jennifer’s son proceeds to take matters into his own hands. 

Although it may shock the conscience, not all aspects of the film’s portrayal of the guardianship system, at least in Pennsylvania, are inaccurate:

1.         An emergency guardian may be appointed without notice to the allegedly incapacitated person;

2.         Allegedly incapacitated persons do not have an automatic right to Court-appointed counsel to represent their interests in guardianship proceedings;

3.         Court-appointed guardians can and do move incapacitated persons from their homes in appropriate circumstances;

4.         Court-appointed guardians can and do sell the homes and assets of incapacitated persons in appropriate circumstances;

5.         Court-appointed guardians do receive compensation for their services.

There are, however, important checks within the guardianship system, and important rights of allegedly incapacitated persons are recognized, which the film ignores or de-emphasizes for dramatic effect:

1.         Guardians are fiduciaries, and are held to the highest standards of good faith and loyalty in the discharge of their fiduciary duties.  

2.         Pennsylvania law contains an express preference for any “less restrictive alternative” to a guardianship, which typically means that where an allegedly incapacitated person has validly appointed an agent under power of attorney, the Court will not appoint a guardian;

• Allegedly incapacitated persons, or other interested parties, may petition for an independent medical evaluation of capacity.

3.         Pennsylvania requires that Court-appointed guardians file an inventory and  annual reports with a centralized “Guardianship Tracking System” (“GTS”).  These required reports detail the guardian’s handling of the incapacitated person’s personal and financial affairs.  These reports are filed with the Court and are available to the Court, family members, and interested persons in order to monitor the guardian’s activities and choices.  Guardians may be removed or replaced by the Court for failing to act in the incapacitated person’s best interests. 

4.         Although Court-appointed counsel is not yet required under law in guardianship proceedings, many Orphans’ Court judges will appoint a member of the bar to represent the interests of the incapacitated person in guardianship proceedings, and many attorneys serve as court-appointed counsel pro bono.   

• At any time after a person is declared incapacitated, any interested person may petition the Court for a review hearing to determine whether the incapacitated person has regained some or all facets of capacity, and whether the guardian should continue to hold all, some, or none of the powers over the incapacitated person’s affairs.

5.         Criminal background checks are now required of prospective guardians, and many counties are starting to require that appointed guardians undergo specialized training.

• Although abuses in the system are real, most private and professional guardians do not live the high life on fees generated from their positions as guardians.  The work of a guardian is often difficult and unglamorous and un-or-underpaid. 

Legally, the best way to avoid interacting with this imperfect system is to sit down now, while you have the mental ability to do so, and select who you want to help you with your affairs if you ever should need help.  Then, appoint that person as your agent under a Power of Attorney.  Bear in mind that the POA does not make you bulletproof from the filing of a proceeding, but it serves two important purposes: (1) a Power of Attorney is considered a less restrictive alternative to a guardianship; and (2)  your agent can hire someone of your choosing to defend you in the process.  Short of that, a further practical protection is to say involved with your family and your community.  Have someone in mind that if you don’t have a power of attorney signed, you can at least ask to help you as part of the process and perhaps become your guardian if necessary.

Mannion Prior maintains an active guardianship practice, representing allegedly incapacitated persons and prospective and appointed guardians throughout Pennsylvania.  If you or a loved one have a guardianship-related question or issue, call Mannion Prior and we will be happy to assist.