Task force reviews past bill drafts on vulnerable adults and guardianship oversight; no policy advanced

The Mental Health & Vulnerable Adult Task Force reviewed a set of past Legislative Service Office drafts covering vulnerable‑adult definitions, a proposed vulnerable‑adult council, annual renewals and reporting for guardianships and conservatorships, Department of Family Services (DFS) confidentiality amendments, title 25 detention cost shifts, advanced‑directive changes for dementia and a K–12 mental‑health pilot program.

Anna (LSO) summarized the list of drafts, including 24 LSO 15 (Vulnerable Adult Definition), 24 LSO 145 (Vulnerable Adult Council), 24 LSO 192 (Guardianships and Conservatorships — letters of termination and annual reporting), 25 LSO 216 (DFS confidentiality amendments), 25 LSO 30 (Title 25 costs) and 25 LSO 450 (K–12 mental‑health program based on Project AWARE). The department and stakeholders described where drafts had stalled in prior interim work and session committees.

Stakeholders and long‑time advocates urged caution and additional study rather than rapid statutory change. Sam Shumway, AARP state director, said the group repeatedly considered the vulnerable‑adult definition in past iterations and concluded: "I'm not sure that the definition of vulnerable adult is is really a problem that we need to tackle right now." He said advocates had not been able to identify clear, recent examples showing that the current definition prevented services or prosecution.

Guardianship advocates and court representatives focused on reporting and oversight. Emily Smith of Wyoming Guardianship Corporation noted frequent lapses in statutory reporting and the risk of outdated guardian letters being used for improper access to an individual's accounts. "If that's not being provided to the court, how are they providing the oversight?" she asked, urging better mechanisms for courts to detect noncompliance and fraud.

Courts and judicial administrators told the task force that district court chambers are responsible for tracking reports and that statewide audit functions exist in some other states to review guardianship reports, but Wyoming lacks a central, searchable repository for active guardianships and conservatorships. The Administrative Office of the Courts said guardianship records live in the courts' case management system and are document driven, which makes a statewide extract of “active guardianships” difficult without additional data‑field work.

Representative Stiver described his own compliance experience and said many guardians do file regular reports: "As a guardian, we have to file every 6 months with the court." Judicial staff said processes vary by county and that missing reports commonly trigger follow‑up letters from a judge's chambers rather than automatic statewide enforcement.

On the DFS confidentiality amendments, DFS and task‑force members said the subject remains important to cross‑agency casework, but that Judiciary is the standing committee most likely to consider revisions. Task‑force leaders said they would reach out to co‑chairs of Judiciary to determine whether that committee intends to reexamine the confidentiality proposals.

The task force did not vote to advance any of the bill drafts. Instead co‑chairs and executive‑branch representatives agreed to the following informal steps: (1) co‑chairs will ask the Judiciary Committee whether it plans to consider the DFS confidentiality draft; (2) Judicial Council/Administrative Office of the Courts will examine possibilities for improved guardianship reporting or an audit function and report back to the task force; and (3) agencies and advocates will continue to provide examples and data if they can demonstrate gaps caused by the current vulnerable‑adult definition. No formal motions or legislative referrals were made during the meeting.