Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Guardianship Conservatorship topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panel advances two-year guardianship pilot for First Circuit after clarifying evaluation language
Summary
The committee passed HB 648 to create a two-year pilot in probate and family court to fund guardianship- and conservatorship-related court resources. The Office of the Public Guardian requested clarifying amendments to specify permitted professional evaluations; the committee accepted the change.
The Senate Committee on Judiciary recommended passage of HB 648 to establish a two-year pilot program in the probate and family court of the First Circuit to fund certain guardianship and conservatorship-related court resources and to cover costs when respondents cannot pay.
Roland Lee, director of the Office of the Public Guardian, testified in support and requested clarifications to the bill’s language. Lee said, "professional evaluations and physician's letters are not the same thing," and asked the committee to permit the court to order specific types of professional evaluations. Lee recommended adding language to specify that professional evaluations could include "functional evaluations, neurocognitive evaluations, or psychological evaluations."
Daishi Bartoldis, who represented the Hawaii State Council on Developmental Disabilities and the working group that produced the proposal, said the working group had convened stakeholders and that this pilot was an agreed-upon, pragmatic measure. Louie Yurichik of the Hawaii Disability Rights Center also testified in support and said the pilot addressed gaps in access for people who cannot afford evaluations that courts frequently rely on in guardianship decisions.
During decision making the committee accepted amendments consistent with the Office of the Public Guardian’s request, changing references to "physician's letters" to be consistent with the statutory phrase "professional evaluations" and adding clarifying language that the court may order professional evaluations "including but not limited to the psychological evaluations, neurocognitive, or functional evaluations." The committee recommended passage with those amendments and adopted the measure.
Committee members discussed the need to avoid unnecessary restrictions that would prevent judges from ordering certain evaluations; the accepted amendment was framed to preserve judicial flexibility while naming common evaluation types.
