Lawyers and advocates split over supported decision‑making language in HB 96

Caroline La Larman, a parent and attorney, told the House Health Committee she opposes language in HB 96 that would codify supported decision‑making (SDM) for adults with developmental disabilities. Larman said SDM can look like a contract that allows a supporter to implement decisions and, in some cases, could place mentally incompetent adults at risk of exploitation. “This is essentially a guardianship in a way without the protections of a guardianship,” she said, and urged the committee to remove the language or require the Department of Developmental Disabilities’ model plan to be vetted by the committee before the provision becomes law.

Kristen Henry, executive director of APSE, testified as an interested party that APSE supports recognizing SDM in Ohio law while also increasing funding for protective services. APSE said SDM supports many people who have not been found incompetent and that codifying SDM can provide additional protections—including clearer recognition of supporters by medical providers and financial institutions—than informal arrangements or powers of attorney.

Committee members probed whether SDM in the bill is optional or mandatory; witnesses said the bill language uses a permissive verb (“may enter”) but Larman warned legalizing SDM could create pressure in probate courts to prefer the least‑restrictive alternative. APSE and other supporters countered that more than two dozen states have SDM legislation and that statutory recognition can clarify safeguards for people and professionals.

The committee recorded competing perspectives but took no legislative vote during the informal hearing; members asked for additional written materials and for stakeholders to collaborate on model language.