Abstract
This essay relies on Wendy Williams’ guardianship as a current case study to illustrate broader issues in adult guardianship, demonstrating how such regimes can become a criminalized tool of protection and turn into a structure of enhanced control that denies the individual freedom and autonomy of choice and financial self-sufficiency. It contends that guardianship regimes can become a source of decision-making power in a manner that is not dominated by an individual’s choices, especially when medical accounts of incapacity are seen as the ultimate and procedural protections are feeble. The discussion identifies how health conditions, evaluated capacity measures, financial gatekeeping, and institutional incentives may interplay to restrict autonomy and diminish transparency and meaningful avenues for review. The paper also poses the concept of guardianship as a gendered right problem, and how stereotypes regarding the competence and vulnerability of women, which may be intensified because of ageism and disability prejudice, can determine court decisions and societal attitudes. In addition to a celebrity scenario, the analysis shows that there are universal pathways that can subject many women to risk of the same types of illnesses, stress-related impairment, family conflict and economic dependency. The paper ends by highlighting the need for more vigorous protections of due process, judicial review of cases, increased transparency, and the application of supported decision-making models that do not diminish the agency but do satisfy the legitimate needs of care.
Visit here to download the full article.
WassermanFiduciary. com