Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Guardianship Procedure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee reviews technical guardianship cleanups including successor‑guardian and notice procedures
Summary
Senate Bill 22‑91, a suite of technical amendments to guardianship and conservatorship statutes, received largely uncontested support. The bill adds a short "good cause" extension for expiring letters, centralizes notice requirements, clarifies confidentiality of reports and sets a "gross negligence" standard for guardian liability.
The House Human Services Committee heard testimony on Senate Bill 22‑91, legislation drafted by the Supreme Court guardianship work group to clarify procedural aspects of guardianship and conservatorship law.
The bill focuses on process and cleanup: a limited 90‑day good‑cause extension when letters of guardianship would otherwise expire before a review hearing can be held; a new, uniform notice section to centralize and simplify who must receive notice after appointment; confidentiality protections for expert‑examiner, visitor and guardian reports; clearer procedures for removal, resignation or death of a guardian and appointment of a successor; and language clarifying a guardian's liability standard. "This bill was drafted as a collaborative effort by the members of the guardianship standards work group," said Sarah Behrens, staff attorney for the state court administrator's office and staff to the guardianship standards work group.
Liability changes: The bill proposes that a guardian is liable for a ward's acts only where the guardian was "grossly negligent," language Behrens said the work group selected to avoid overly broad immunity while protecting volunteers and professional guardians from meritless suits. The work group discussed alternatives and settled on the gross‑negligence threshold, which case law describes as willful lack of care or no care at all.
Other clarifications: The bill removes duplicate or obsolete definitions, moves definitions into a common chapter for ease of reference, creates clearer timelines for emergency‑guardian and emergency‑conservator hearings (10 days), and permits subpoena and cross‑examination of examiners and visitors when reports are relied on at hearings. Jonathan Alm, chief legal officer for the Department of Health and Human Services, testified in support of sections modifying who may provide informed consent and the authority for certain treatment authorizations in civil‑commitment settings.
Support and next steps: Testimony was uniformly supportive; Protection and Advocacy and other stakeholders said earlier drafting concerns had been addressed. Committee members heard a brief, light‑opposition amendment request from a professional guardian (Guardian and Protective Services) proposing additional clarifying immunity language; that request was presented for the committee's consideration. The committee closed the hearing after discussion.
