Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Guardianship Reform topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Judicial council-backed guardianship overhaul wins broad proponent support, critics seek amendments
Summary
House Bill 2359 would adopt uniform guardianship and protective proceedings acts and update Kansas guardianship law; proponents said the changes would modernize and person-center proceedings, while disability advocates and family caregivers urged additional protections and voiced concerns about stakeholder inclusion.
House Bill 2359 would enact the Uniform Adult Guardianship and Protective Proceedings Jurisdiction Act and the Uniform Guardianship, Conservatorship and Other Protective Arrangements Act into Kansas law and make conforming changes throughout the statutes, the reviser told the committee.
Proponents, including a Judicial Council advisory committee chaired by Judge Marilyn Wilder, said the bill modernizes Kansas law, introduces more detailed capacity evaluations, requires planning tailored to an individual’s abilities and needs, and provides alternatives to full guardianship. Judge Wilder said the advisory committee began work in 2020 and incorporated elements of Kansas law into the uniform acts to keep person-centered protections while improving clarity and organization.
Attorneys and social workers who practice in this area told the committee the bill would provide tools for narrower, surgical remedies instead of an all-or-nothing guardianship. Rachel Perner, a Wichita attorney who has handled hundreds of cases, gave examples where limited protective arrangements would better fit a person’s needs than a full guardianship or conservatorship—such as narrowly tailored authorization to consent to treatment or to prevent financial exploitation.
The Disability Rights Center and allied groups said a House amendment addressing end-of-life provisions corrected a serious flaw in earlier drafts. Rocky Nichols, executive director of the Disability Rights Center, and Jean Gowden of Kansans for Life described the House amendment as fixing language that could otherwise have permitted a guardian to withdraw life-sustaining treatment in cases that were not terminal and where the ward could live for many more years.
The Department of Defense’s Midwest region liaison said the uniform jurisdiction provisions ease burdens on military families who relocate frequently; Kansas is one of a small number of states not yet party to the jurisdiction act, the witness said.
Opponents from caregiving organizations and family guardians said they were not sufficiently included in the drafting process and asked for additional protective amendments. Joan Kelly of the National Council on Severe Autism requested clarifying language to preserve family decision-making authority and to protect profoundly affected individuals from placement or decisions made without experienced caregivers’ input.
Proponents and disability advocates said the House amendment added more robust protections specific to withholding or withdrawing artificial nutrition, hydration or life-sustaining treatment and limited guardian authority in end-of-life decisions; several organizations filed written proponent testimony supporting the bill with the House amendment. The committee did not take final action at the hearing and accepted questions from members about specific statutory interactions and enforcement mechanisms.
