Committee amends supported-decision‑making bill to add Supreme Court form, capacity and compensation safeguards

Representative Ferrari asked the committee to reconsider House Bill 149 and return it to committee for further work, saying the committee report had been issued without some intended amendments and that additional amendments were being considered. Representative Ferrari said, “Having voted in the majority by the house bill 149, I ask for reconsideration and for it to be the next quarter of business.”

Senator Wirth offered a senate amendment as a substitute for House Bill 149 and walked the committee through a package of changes aimed at making supported‑decision‑making agreements more uniform and less likely to be misused. Senator Wirth said the substitute provides that the agreement “shall be in a form promulgated by the Supreme Court,” and explained he and the chief justice worked on drafting the changes after consulting judges and a task force. He also proposed replacing the statute’s court‑centric presumption of incapacity with a trigger based on clinical assessments: capacity would be presumed until the decision maker’s primary care practitioner and one other health professional determine the decision maker cannot make decisions, or until a court so determines.

The amendment adds new requirements for supporters. It includes a prohibition on a supporter receiving compensation for duties under the supported‑decision‑making agreement and bars supporters from signing legal documents or binding the decision maker to legal agreements in the absence of an applicable power of attorney. Senator Wirth said the no‑compensation provision followed the chief justice’s advice and reflected Arizona law adopted in 2023; he argued compensation without guardrails had driven abuses in some guardianship cases.

Alice McLaughlin and others who described themselves as advocates and experts supported much of the package but suggested tweaks: they urged that the co‑assessing health professional be described as a “qualified health care professional” and that one assessor have expertise in functional impairment where mental illness or developmental disability is implicated. A family member who could not attend in person (identified as an advocate for a person named Morgan) provided context for why professional training for supporters matters.

Committee members debated whether the statutory model form should be mandatory or only a model promulgated by the Supreme Court. Senator Wirth said he favored a statutory “shall be in a form promulgated by the Supreme Court” to prevent a proliferation of incompatible agreement forms and reduce future litigation over differing contract language; others argued that the form should be explicitly a model form, not mandatory, consistent with existing uniform power‑of‑attorney and health‑care statutes.

Committee discussion also focused on interaction with powers of attorney. Lawmakers and staff raised a concern that provisions barring supporters from signing legal documents or binding the decision maker could conflict with an existing lawful power of attorney. As a compromise, the committee inserted language clarifying that the prohibitions apply “in the absence of an applicable power of attorney,” so that someone holding a lawful, applicable power of attorney would retain authority to sign legal documents as authorized by that power of attorney.

After additional minor edits and clarifications (including specifying a qualified health care professional “with training and expertise in the assessment of functional impairment”), the committee adopted the amendment as modified. The committee then voted to report the bill out with a do‑pass recommendation as amended; the chair announced, “On the due pass motion as amended. Is there any objection? Seeing none, you have a due pass.”

Why it matters: supporters are promoted as a less‑restrictive alternative to guardianship; the amendments standardize form and add clinical and procedural safeguards intended to reduce the risk of financial abuse while preserving supported decision making as an option. The committee directed further technical edits to be prepared before floor action.

Ending: The committee advanced the bill as amended; members said they wanted additional technical language prepared for the floor and indicated support for continued coordination with the Supreme Court and stakeholders to finalize the statutory text.