Committee hears bills to add supported decision‑making as alternative to guardianship

The Michigan House Families and Veterans Committee on Wednesday heard testimony on House Bills 4676 and 4677, a package that would require courts to consider less‑restrictive alternatives to guardianship for people with developmental disabilities, including a statutory recognition of supported decision‑making.

Supporters told the committee the bills aim to preserve personal autonomy while allowing tailored supports. Representative McDonough, chair of the Michigan Legislative Disability Caucus, said the package would force courts to “consider the full spectrum of people with developmental disabilities and the full suite of options that can help them live their lives with dignity.”

The bills would add supported decision‑making (SDM) to the list of options judges may consider when deciding whether to limit an individual’s rights under the public health code. SDM allows a person to work with trusted advisors — family, friends or professionals — who help them understand choices; the advisors offer guidance but do not make final decisions for the person.

Advocates and family members who testified described both practical benefits and limits of guardianship. Representative Wozniak warned that “once a person gets guardianship, it's hard to revoke it,” and said the bills would require courts to consider a priority list for supporters and to document why a person on that list was not appointed.

Linda Van Wormer, who testified virtually about a Wayne County probate ruling in her case, described the difference in her life after the court denied a petition for guardianship and allowed her to use SDM. “I do call the shots now,” she told the committee. Her sister, Amy Peckinpah, described serving as partial guardian for roughly a decade and later helping restore Van Wormer’s rights.

Disability Rights Michigan’s director of community and institutional rights, Simon Secada, urged the committee to view SDM as a tool that lets judges tailor orders to individuals instead of using a “one‑size‑fits‑all” guardianship. Secada said Michigan law presumes capacity and added, “We all have the capacity to make our own decisions until a court finds otherwise.”

Estate‑planning attorney and policy analyst Ellen Shagru Hyman told the committee she supports statutory SDM because it would make it easier for professionals to craft documents and for people with disabilities to designate advocates. Jan Lattman, who said she has four decades’ experience working with people with developmental disabilities, told lawmakers that high rates of guardianship in Michigan can reflect lack of alternatives and urged greater use of supportive options.

Not all commentary was unqualified. Representatives asked whether existing oversight prevents exploitation and whether judges or probate associations support the changes. Testimony noted a written letter from the Michigan Probate Judges Association opposing HB 4676; Disability Rights Michigan disputed the association’s concerns about durable powers of attorney and exploitation, arguing that exploitation occurs under guardianship as well.

Discussion versus decision: the committee heard testimony and public comment but did not take a committee vote on either bill during the hearing.

Background and context: testimony to the committee said SDM has been codified in statutes in roughly 29 other states; speakers emphasized that the legislation would not eliminate guardianship where it is necessary but would require courts to consider less‑restrictive options first. Supporters said the change would help tailor legal interventions to individual needs and reduce unnecessary loss of rights. Opponents represented in written comments by the Michigan Probate Judges Association said the change raises concerns about exploitation and the functioning of existing legal tools.

What’s next: the bills remain in committee. Supporters urged lawmakers to advance the legislation so courts and families have statutory guidance for supported decision‑making and other alternatives to guardianship.