[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6678930,"mediaKeyId","2254501-965528980103946606b9fdef2fa5b76e","parentId",2254501,"title","JVCC adopts revisions to guardianship code of ethics and approves sanction matrix for guardians and programs","audioSeconds",162,"startMs",3727000,"endMs",3889000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2254501-965528980103946606b9fdef2fa5b76e&start=3727&end=3889","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2254501-965528980103946606b9fdef2fa5b76e/thumbnail_3727000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6678930/Texas/JVCC-adopts-revisions-to-guardianship-code-of-ethics-and-approves-sanction-matrix-for-guardians-and-programs","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6678930-ba1db60d17c5fc8b2761199536695027/orig.mp4?Expires=1771163854&Signature=jrpP5pLoDyJ1bQJlXOlzi0NblVmwW6Uc49mURG9-Jh0GLDkrRpJhH9VpOZ68GOQ-W65Pgegm9y4tkC6BDJRckQdvmdENrtDfHk7F2AadOUthgldSuXBhEB-FIrwKhsMVbh0L06yZluYNJRjGUKf2CWdnfTeRNoszjTNEPi2C145VAurlVG9lDrlPdrIL9LtCJ5IX28kIaHL-zx~57s7~VY13I53ou2LZIOOepV1JvSRe0-crAfyMW~4E8~A8x8TZLA2B5j0OZerUMclvrXLXyuGNS2K4dn5OfQ1INKsWdYzGVg1OISXPSLZFsXnRGKkKB6OLOP4lCnFkFj7IUEir~g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Criminal Appeals, Court of (CCA)","date","2025-02-10T22:04:18.877Z","article","The Judicial Branch Certification Commission adopted revisions to the guardianship code of ethics and minimum standards and approved a proposed sanction matrix for certified guardians and guardianship programs at its Feb. 7 meeting.

Staff presented amendments that reorganize definitions, add provisions requiring truthfulness to courts, wards and service providers, require disclosure of conflicts of interest in writing to the court, clarify the guardian's fiduciary role and add language addressing courtroom decorum. The commission voted to adopt the advisory board’s proposed changes and to forward the amendments for rule promulgation by the Texas Supreme Court.

Commissioners also approved a sanction matrix for guardians and guardianship programs intended to guide the complaint review committee and the commission in recommending sanctions. Staff emphasized the matrix is nonbinding guidance and that the complaint review committee and commission retain discretion to deviate from the matrix based on case circumstances.

During discussion commissioners reiterated that adoption of the matrix and the code changes are intended to strengthen oversight, clarify expectations for guardianship duties and provide consistent guidance for compliance and discipline. The commission carried both motions by voice vote and directed staff to pursue promulgation steps.

The commission also noted it had no further updates on a related uniform format manual and scheduled its next meeting for April 2025.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","JBCC Commission Meeting - 02.07.25","oneSentenceSummary","The commission adopted advisory-board recommended amendments to the guardianship code of ethics and minimum standards and approved a sanction matrix to guide compliance decisions; both actions will move toward rule promulgation and provide nonbinding guidance for future enforcement.","taxTitle","Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA), Judicial, Texas","taxId",17431,"location","Texas","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6678932,"JVCC grants guardian licensure renewal with condition to complete deferred adjudication",153,3490000,3643000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2254501-965528980103946606b9fdef2fa5b76e&start=3490&end=3643","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2254501-965528980103946606b9fdef2fa5b76e/thumbnail_3490000.jpg","/articles/6678932/Texas/JVCC-grants-guardian-licensure-renewal-with-condition-to-complete-deferred-adjudication","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6678932-f0d6d80cf858e7d890bfe256be76399b/orig.mp4?Expires=1771163854&Signature=GhGzmFQvP1yV3AHKzLtjx-AvJD0JNsE8QtvBvj1UR67YLN8SZqZMq2hlv~wUfOXXNNaWCvaeeweIAbsME1uFKh4Cdl6gLC6I49p3gdDvIatSEmeFpFCDcOf5xsW~5THyB4kmt3O7TITelM94ABEbUEIZVrBP~ogJuocjSi~h8cbRsfneCRUYGs-rYpAGRCLEyEwSrqESXeRoWgiLqSNN9JYLlK6KbHwnLthoma5~JGaf-KmJU2Ljn0MRD84jGI7CrlRB1YMFbAG1On30SQ31r6Rl2xWwwNzdc1h1FaoShl6hmR5jdxfLuLk-TzrrNkt3dXWk-3yjRrY7Emj0NPKvrA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Judicial Branch Certification Commission voted Feb. 7 to reconsider and grant a renewal application for a guardian who had previously been denied, making approval contingent on successful completion of deferred adjudication.

Chair Sid Harrell moved to reconsider the denial and grant renewal, noting concern about the applicant’s elevated blood-alcohol concentration and emphasizing the risk that further impairment could pose both to the applicant and to wards and agency clients served by the guardian. Commissioners added an amendment making successful completion of deferred adjudication a condition of the license. The commission adopted the amended motion; the vote carried with two members recorded as opposed.

Staff and commissioners discussed next steps if the condition is not met. One commissioner asked whether the matter would return to the commission or be handled as a staff-initiated complaint; staff and counsel said the commission would reassess the licensing position if the condition is not successfully completed, but no immediate enforcement action was described beyond re-evaluation.

The decision restored licensure with a monitoring condition tied to the applicant’s completion of court-ordered deferred adjudication; commissioners noted the obligation of guardians to be fit to serve vulnerable persons and requested administrative follow-up to confirm completion.","The commission reconsidered a prior denial and voted to grant renewal of a guardian’s license contingent on successful completion of deferred adjudication, citing concerns about an elevated blood-alcohol reading and potential community impact.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6678938,"Commission debates \"drop serve\" return accuracy, ratifies dismissal and asks staff to review curriculum",748,1481000,2229000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2254501-965528980103946606b9fdef2fa5b76e&start=1481&end=2229","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2254501-965528980103946606b9fdef2fa5b76e/thumbnail_1481000.jpg","/articles/6678938/Texas/Commission-debates-drop-serve-return-accuracy-ratifies-dismissal-and-asks-staff-to-review-curriculum","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6678938-7b50430f0f4ad6647a2215d33d21d3c9/orig.mp4?Expires=1771163854&Signature=FGcjKUcr2LA2z5W2xmD-etzFtA4LLZOtdV1JeDizdoNUSFrKt5ylN6FBm5CSXHnhw8mFhrcZMNE7isi1kk4taoYZti31iui9jwf3lchP8XzlwUzcBM27VlkmhuXbX-vIexceCkvkETJJAp20agjPT8XPCNj0t9r6SPA~96JxbUHbwGOCH53svIeGYZjvgbC~5cvm8-7LPl79JzfuGF8IwEcCAwg5IN9fBoVdCPbeT0kFAFyV0FeIaZAaxSD2ANyHV3O9PX76g2bzPXXxOFX0INST~LwkzJKDFD2N6YM08ygjqm66idDx74SEb7~UPLVI50Nc5rIMjLWnbjRJfu77Ng__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Judicial Branch Certification Commission on Feb. 7 considered whether to sustain or dismiss a complaint alleging an inaccurate return of service after a process server said service occurred via signals through a window and a subsequent “drop” at the door.

Investigative staff told commissioners the available evidence supported a drop-service method that the JVCC curriculum describes as permissible when the defendant is visible and refuses to take papers; staff concluded the record was inconclusive and recommended administrative dismissal for no misconduct. One commissioner objected, saying the sworn return and the respondent’s later written response differed in ways that could be misleading and urged referral to the complaint review committee for further review. After extended discussion, commissioners voted to ratify the administrative dismissal for case 0609 but asked staff to consult the process-server advisory board and consider updating the curriculum and the return-of-service guidance to reduce ambiguity.

Staff explained that many process servers use third-party service apps with limited return options, which can produce repetitive or abbreviated return text. Commissioners said that auditing the app output, clarifying acceptable return language, and updating the curriculum could reduce future disputes.

The commission’s action preserves the administrative dismissal on the record for that complaint while directing staff to examine the curriculum language and the return-entry options used in common process-service apps. Staff committed to follow up with the process-server advisory board and report back to the commission on possible curriculum updates and guidance for return wording.

No financial penalties or sanctions were imposed in this matter; the central outcome was procedural: dismissal was ratified and curriculum review was requested.","The JVCC debated whether a complaint about a process server's 'drop serve' should be administratively dismissed or sent to the complaint review committee; the commission ratified the administrative dismissal but directed staff to consult the advisory board to consider updating the process-server curriculum and return-field guidance.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6678943,"Judicial certification commission issues final orders, sanctions and settlement in multiple process-server cases",566,456000,1022000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2254501-965528980103946606b9fdef2fa5b76e&start=456&end=1022","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2254501-965528980103946606b9fdef2fa5b76e/thumbnail_456000.jpg","/articles/6678943/Texas/Judicial-certification-commission-issues-final-orders-sanctions-and-settlement-in-multiple-process-server-cases","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6678943-746efb7cedc7bd47f2d23da2d3e1f458/orig.mp4?Expires=1771163854&Signature=eY4AImD5xbOHQS1JOsz41YI4JvzXn1ZIu~FqTGOkeGEOxq5MHGq0BTvX8cHRtiYVSy8M9QblMiUG05Ew7NlRE-zQ-KinQHUAuzZoZcIBltZie1qZ6lF7mqKT8LD8msAXQLQqubyriikm6gYEFQBqBVqWpySnlNolrZOhaz0nLWhftnEAafgC7nLrsb8c0Ezplijxfnj5wje-wzo9GbiuI682avn7nLm3svcCzoKxQyPNJEjqb6LrJ9ap4OjZEP9i9rQxUvwKDc9kN6Y2t-SGWyXvDIa9u88CkNfx16Bkhs5xkLlY6B7LgHX1aiYHegwcOL2PkJDkoaTsTCmUwbxAsg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Judicial Branch Certification Commission on Feb. 7 issued final disciplinary orders in multiple cases involving court process servers, adopting default sanctions in several matters and approving a settlement that reduced one penalty to $500.

At a compliance hearing, a staff presenter identified a case in which a process server filed a false return of service and described it as a perjury matter. The presenter said the findings of fact and conclusions of law were uncontested and asked the commission to issue a final order imposing the sanction recommended by the complaint review committee: permanent revocation of certification and a $1,250 administrative penalty, with payment due within 12 months of the final order. The respondent did not appear. Commissioners moved to issue the final order by default; the motion carried.

Commissioners also moved in block to issue final orders by default in other process-server matters, including cases cited by docket numbers in the meeting materials, and approved agreed final orders for respondents who accepted sanctions recommended by the complaint review committee. In one matter identified by docket number 0574, the commission accepted a settlement agreement that halved recommended penalties and required the respondent to pay $500 — described in staff materials as the maximum penalty for making false statements under penalty of perjury — and issued a final order reflecting that settlement.

Commissioners discussed the role of the complaint review committee in developing sanctions. One commissioner asked whether the committee or staff set penalties; staff responded that recommendations come from staff but the complaint review committee reviews and may adopt or deviate from them.

The commission’s actions included both default orders (where respondents failed to appear after notice) and adoption of agreed settlements where respondents accepted violations and sanctions. Meeting minutes and staff materials list the cases acted on and the sanctions imposed or adopted; commissioners repeatedly emphasized deference to the complaint review committee’s work and oversight when defaults occur.

The commission’s general counsel and compliance staff were present during the hearings and answered commissioners’ questions about procedures and prior committee deliberations. The commission’s public record will include the adopted final orders and settlement documents for the cases referenced on the agenda.

Votes at a glance: final orders by default were issued in the perjury/false-return case (recommended sanction: permanent revocation and $1,250 penalty) and in additional default matters listed on the agenda; agreed final orders were adopted where respondents accepted complaint-review-committee sanctions; settlement agreement 0574 (reduced penalty, $500) was accepted and a final order issued.","The Judicial Branch Certification Commission issued final orders by default in several process-server disciplinary matters, upheld agreed orders and approved a settlement reducing a perjury-related penalty to $500.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

JVCC adopts revisions to guardianship code of ethics and approves sanction matrix for guardians and programs

JVCC grants guardian licensure renewal with condition to complete deferred adjudication

Commission debates "drop serve" return accuracy, ratifies dismissal and asks staff to review curriculum

Judicial certification commission issues final orders, sanctions and settlement in multiple process-server cases