Unlike CPS, APS does not focus on the alleged perpetrator AT ALL. Our purpose is to HELP the victim. Rarely do we report the alleged perpetrator to our law enforcement, and even when we do, nothing is done about it. I don’t remember ever hearing about a successfully prosecuted alleged perpetrator of elder abuse. But even if this was to change, and the alleged perpetrator is in fact prosecuted, the alleged perpetrator in this sense will have all due process rights, as law enforcement and Commonwealth have to abide by them. APS does not prosecute the alleged perpetrator. We line up services to help the victim stop being a victim.

 Even our dispositions reflect this. They are as follow: unfounded, no longer in need of protective services, and in need of protective services. Unfounded is chosen when there is preponderance that abuse, neglect, or exploitation did not occur. In Need of Protective Services is chosen when there is preponderance of evidence that abuse, neglect, or exploitation occurred. And finally No Longer in Need of Protective Services is chosen when the victim as at one time abused, neglected, or exploited, but the circumstances have changed (victim died, moved out of neglectful environment, etc.) As you can see, nowhere in our dispositions do we say that “the alleged perpetrator abused, neglected, or exploited the victim” – thus we do not use the simple disposition of “founded” like in CPS.  Our dispositions are obviously mean to reflect the situation of the victim, and not the alleged guilt of the alleged perpetrator. Even in our investigation disposition summary, after we have made the determination, we CONTINUE to refer to the alleged perpetrator as “the alleged” as we are not at all saying or interested in saying that “so and so abused Jane Doe” but rather that “Jane Doe needs our help.” Please note that even those decisions we make on preponderance of evidence and not on proof beyond reasonable doubt, as courts do. Preponderance of evidence is much lesser level of proof and is not admissible in court, not even in CPS cases, which is why we have law enforcement and courts to handle cases that rise above CPS or APS.

 Yes, we do have to report a licensed alleged perpetrator to their oversight agency. However, anybody in the world can do this, even anonymously. Licensing does their own investigation into the matter and makes their own disposition. We are only allowed to provide them with facts as we get them and we are NEVER permitted to even insinuate that the alleged perpetrator in question should lose their license or get fired.

 Why do I find this to be such a big problem? For one, in about 60% of all of APS cases, the alleged perpetrator is the victim. Yes, you read that correctly. Approximately 60% of all of our cases are that of self-neglect. Proposed regulations do not reflect this at all and so we will seemingly be forced to send our customers (victims) a letter saying “we determined that you are your own abuser and you have a right to appeal this decision.” Creating a good, trusting relationship with our customers (victims) is hard enough as it is, and making them feel as if they are “guilty” of something will not help at all. Even in the remaining 40% of the cases, when we have to send a letter to a nurse, a family member, a caretaker, this creates more problems than it resolves. Most alleged perpetrators are victims of circumstances themselves. Most actually want to provide good care, free of abuse, neglect, or exploitation. Only a small percentage is “evil” and wanting to hurt the victim. Although they are considered alleged perpetrators, we in APS depend on these people to continue to provide the care for the victims – improved care free of neglect, abuse, and exploitation – and if we tell them that they are “guilty and have a right to appeal this decision” we are risking them saying “well, alright then, you take care of this elderly person that has nobody else in the world.” Another problem is, who is going to fund this? Prince Edward County APS receives maximum of $2500 a year (if we are lucky) which we use to spend on emergency placements, food, medications, and attorney fees in case we need to take guardianship of our customers. If we have to pay $1000 for our attorney to prepare and represent us in hours and hours of appeal process, we will not be able to afford true Adult Protective Services.

 So, as we now have to consider the rights of the alleged perpetrator (even though our focus is not on the act, but on preventing it from happening again), the state needs to give us more funding and encourage law enforcement and courts to prosecute more (or at least SOME) cases of elder abuse! If not, then the public will think we care more about preserving rights of alleged perpetrators then preserving safety and well being of vulnerable victims.