Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Guardianship Contract Cancellation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners approve cancellation of Denton County MHMR guardianship contract; judges outline interim plan and RFP timeline
Summary
On July 8 the Denton County Commissioners Court unanimously approved a motion to cancel the county's guardianship services contract with Denton County MHMR, citing staff resignations and certification gaps. County judges outlined an interim plan to protect 87 clients and a procurement timetable for a replacement provider.
The Denton County Commissioners Court on July 8 voted to cancel its contract with Denton County MHMR that provided guardianship services for indigent residents, citing recent staff resignations and related certification issues.
Commissioner Williams moved to approve cancellation of the contract under RFP 202575, effective July 2025; the motion was seconded by the county judge and carried unanimously.
Pam (surname not specified), the MHMR representative who addressed the court, said the immediate cause was staff resignations. “The only reason that we were closing the program is because we did not have the employees,” she told the court, adding she informed the board chair and county judge as soon as resignations were known.
Denton County judges who oversee the court's guardianship responsibilities described the program and the continuity plan. Judge Yates said the probate courts have contracted for a guardianship program to provide guardians of the person for indigent individuals who have no family or other support. The current contract had a cap to supervise up to 100 individuals; at the time of the meeting 87 people were under supervision in about 30 residential settings.
For the immediate interim, judges told the court they planned to enter orders that would release MHMR from its role as guardian of the person and had identified local attorneys experienced in guardianship law who could step in on an emergency basis. Judge Yates said the court had issued a request for proposals (RFP) that closes July 10 and expected proposals to be reviewed promptly; he said it was the court’s intent to present a recommendation to the commissioners for action as soon as that procurement process allowed.
Judges and commissioners discussed compliance and staffing. County officials said supervisors for some portions of the program had not held required state certification for extended periods and that certification opportunities are limited (certification classes are offered quarterly, according to testimony). Judges warned appointing a new guardian organization in the interim would require new hearings and successor-guardian appointments that could cost the county roughly $500 to $1,000 per case.
Commissioner Williams acknowledged MHMR’s long record of service while expressing concern about recent turnover and communication. Court members thanked MHMR staff and the judges for the continuity planning and directed staff to proceed with the procurement and interim protections described in court comments.
Speakers at the discussion included county judges and MHMR representatives; the court record shows the motion carried unanimously. The judges said their priority is to ensure continuity of care for the 87 individuals currently supervised by the guardianship program while a new contract is procured and implemented.
