Committee approves expansion of professionals who may perform guardianship evaluations amid sharp opposition from disability advocates and survivors

The Senate Judiciary Committee voted unanimously to advance a committee substitute for House Bill 36, a measure that adds several licensed professions to the list of practitioners permitted to conduct the independent evaluations probate courts rely on in guardianship and conservatorship petitions.

Sponsor Representative Leverett and judges who testified told the committee that many probate courts have difficulty securing timely independent evaluations — a problem that causes urgent cases to stall. "What is happening in reality is a family member is coming in to file a guardianship and there is no qualified individual willing to serve in that jurisdiction," Judge Wolk told the committee. She described some circuits that had only a handful of evaluators for very large populations and noted narrow emergency deadlines under existing law.

The substitute expands the pool of qualified evaluators to include additional licensed practitioners such as physician assistants, nurse practitioners and certain clinical specialists, and it also adds licensed marriage and family therapists (LMFTs) and licensed professional counselors (LPCs) to the list. The bill explicitly says the evaluation is a factual report — interview, observation, records review and description of the proposed ward’s social supports and needs — used to determine whether the case should proceed to an adversarial hearing. The final decision, judges emphasized, rests with the court after a hearing.

Opposition and concerns: the Georgia Council on Developmental Disabilities and other disability-rights advocates opposed adding LMFTs and LPCs, arguing those professions typically practice in therapeutic settings and may lack training or experience assessing long-term cognitive or neuropsychological impairments relevant to permanent guardianship decisions. "Permanent guardianship should be reserved for professionals with specialized training in long-term capacity assessments," the Council’s legislative advocacy director said.

Several public-witness testimonies described serious harms from guardianships gone wrong. Douglas Franks, a longtime opponent of some guardianship practices, described his mother’s case and urged caution. Another opponent told senators about an experience involving alleged misuse of statutes related to abuse and neglect (OCGA §29-9-3) and warned the committee that guardianship proceedings can have severe financial and liberty consequences.

Safeguards in the substitute: sponsor Leverett said the substitute includes explicit language to make clear that the presence of a developmental disability alone is not sufficient to grant guardianship and that proposed wards — who have a right to counsel — can challenge the qualifications and sufficiency of evaluator reports in the hearing. The sponsor said the intent is to ensure judges retain discretion, that the evaluation remains one piece of evidence and that probate courts may appoint counsel and a guardian ad litem as needed.

Vote and next steps: after extended testimony from judges, clinicians and disability advocates, the committee adopted the committee substitute and passed it by unanimous voice vote. Sponsors said the bill will go back to the House for concurrence on amendments.

Ending: supporters argued the expansion will reduce dangerous backlogs and allow courts to find independent, locally available evaluators; opponents urged the legislature to remove LMFTs and LPCs and to consider further guardrails to protect vulnerable adults and to ensure evaluations meet the clinical standards required for life-altering decisions.