Senator Williams previews guardianship changes, committee schedules counsel review

Senator Williams introduced S.5, described in the committee as the "AGE Act" (Adult Guardianship Equity), and provided an overview of the bill’s intent to address differences in how guardianship proceedings are handled between family court and the probate division.

At the outset, Williams told the Judiciary Committee the bill grew out of earlier work and committee review. "It's called the guardianship, proceedings here at here at the moment is the AGE Act, adult guardianship equity," Williams said, and explained the bill seeks to make voluntary guardianship options that currently exist in family court available through the probate division so that more people — including those with developmental disabilities — can access voluntary guardianship pathways.

Why it matters: supporters said the current split between family court and probate creates practical problems that can strip individuals of rights when an involuntary guardianship was established decades earlier. Williams recounted an example in which an individual placed previously under an involuntary guardianship later obtained a voluntary guardianship through probate, attended high school, worked and received a driver’s license; he said the earlier involuntary designation had lasting effects on that person’s rights.

Key points raised: Williams said the bill would fold relevant provisions into Title 14 and asked the committee to examine differences between Title 14 (probate) and Title 18 (family matters). He urged the committee to consult probate judges about court capacity; Williams reported probate judges told him the probate division could assume additional cases. The committee did not take action and asked legislative counsel to provide a line‑by‑line walkthrough at a later meeting.

Committee process: committee leadership signaled they would not read the bill aloud during the meeting and preferred to hear a summary from the sponsor and then invite legislative counsel for detailed legal review. Williams agreed to return at a later time if more detail was needed; the committee had a lunch break scheduled and planned a fuller discussion when counsel was available.

Ending: No formal votes or motions were recorded on S.5 in the transcript. The committee left the item open for follow‑up with legislative counsel and additional discussion at a later meeting.