Committee hears sweeping guardianship overhaul that would create Office of Guardianship and Conservatorship under state Supreme Court

The House Human Services Committee opened a hearing on Senate Bill 20 29 on a proposed overhaul of North Dakota's adult guardianship system that would create an Office of Guardianship and Conservatorship (OGC) under the North Dakota Supreme Court and consolidate multiple state‑funded guardianship programs.

The bill, drafted by a task force on guardianship monitoring, would authorize four entities under the Supreme Court: the Office of Guardianship and Conservatorship to contract for public guardianship services and issue licenses; an investigation counsel to look into allegations of guardian misconduct; a Guardianship and Conservatorship Review Board to conduct administrative hearings; and an Operations Committee to set policies and budgets. "I'm here today to testify in support of senate bill 20 29," said Garrick Voigt, staff attorney with the Office of the State Court Administrator, who walked the committee through the bill's text and the task force's recommendations.

Why it matters: Witnesses who backed the bill said it would improve oversight of professional guardians, create licensing and complaint processes, and consolidate roughly $7.1 million in public adult guardianship funding into one judicial‑branch appropriation so the state auditor could review it. Voigt told the committee the measure aims to protect wards, ensure accountability for taxpayer funds and consolidate public adult guardianship programs under a single funding umbrella.

Substantive provisions and funding. The bill would: - Create Chapter 27.27 (as described in testimony) and a licensing scheme for professional guardians and conservators with an "agency permit" option for employees of licensed entities. Employees holding an agency permit would have temporary authority tied to employment. - Allow the OGC to establish training, mentoring and monitoring programs and maintain a fund for program revenues and appropriations. The draft requires four FTEs in the judicial branch to staff the new entities and cites a judicial budget increase in staffing of roughly $936,405. - Transfer existing programs now administered by other entities (the PASS program administered by the Office of Management and Budget through the North Dakota Association of Counties, several Department of Health and Human Services establishment funds, a corporate guardianship contract with Catholic Charities, and the Judicial Branch monitoring program) into the new OGC funding umbrella. Voigt said the PASS program served about 600 people and the DD corporate guardianship contract funded guardians for 529 DD adults, with a DD wait list of roughly 147 individuals.

Supporters' arguments and evidence. Melissa Howard, general counsel for the North Dakota Hospital Association, urged action based on hospital impacts when patients have no decisionmaker: she summarized an internal survey of six large hospitals and said the average direct cost of one unnecessary hospital day for a patient awaiting guardianship was $1,417 and the six hospitals together accounted for about $1.9 million per year in avoidable days. Voigt and others argued state licensure is needed after examples of professional‑guardian misconduct that persisted while oversight from an out‑of‑state certifying nonprofit took months to act.

Concerns and opposition. A sizable coalition of professional guardians, provider groups and advocates urged changes or opposed placing the new office under the judicial branch. Margo Hout, founder of Guardian Angels Inc. and president of the Guardianship Association of North Dakota (GAND), testified the bill "creates a new biased government branch by establishing the office of guardianship and conservatorship within the judicial branch" and argued the structure concentrates appointment, appropriation, monitoring and discipline in a single loop without independent external checks. Catholic Charities' corporate‑guardianship director Donna Bizewski said her program has operated under the DD division for 37 years and that the DD contract provides close oversight; she and others suggested the executive branch (DHHS or OMB) or an independent office would be a better fit.

Process for complaints and investigations. Under the draft, investigation counsel would hold administrative proceedings (with more rehabilitative than adversarial procedures), and could refer suspected criminal conduct to the Attorney General and Bureau of Criminal Investigation; administrative and criminal tracks could proceed concurrently. The review board would have limited administrative sanctions; it could order education or remediation but not impose most criminal penalties.

Licensing and protections for family guardians. The bill would require licensure for professional guardians and limit the number of unlicensed adult guardians a person may serve, with exceptions. Proponents said the OGC would also serve as an information resource to help family guardians meet obligations. The draft criminalizes certain advertising and would make violation a class B misdemeanor effective Aug. 1, 2026.

Outstanding questions and next steps. Committee members pressed staff and proponents on audit timing, the composition and powers of the operations committee and review board, whether national certification requirements would remain, and the mechanics of transferring program funds and contracts. State Court Administrator Sally Hollava confirmed court funds are audited annually. The committee held the hearing open and scheduled further consideration for Tuesday afternoon of next week.