Senate hearing on SB 190 advances UCOPA discussion; sponsors, AARP and court staff outline limits on emergency guardianships

Sen. Jesse Kiel, sponsor of Senate Bill 190, told the Alaska Senate Judiciary Committee on Feb. 6 that the measure would update Alaska’s guardianship and conservatorship laws by adopting the Uniform Guardianship, Conservatorship, and Other Protective Arrangements Act (UCOPA) and give courts more nuanced tools to protect vulnerable Alaskans while protecting individual liberty.

Kiel said the bill “increases transparency and it increases notice” and moves the focus from labeling someone as ‘‘incapacitated’’ to assessing their specific needs and abilities. He told the committee the bill would ‘‘limit the length of emergency guardianships,’’ adding, “Under the bill, an emergency guardianship can be granted for 60 days that can be renewed once.”

AARP government affairs director Beth Russo, who worked with Alaska stakeholders and the Working Interdisciplinary Network of Guardianship Stakeholders (WINGS), endorsed the bill’s approach. “Full guardianship should always be the last resort,” Russo said, and described UCOPA’s “other protective arrangements” as a way for courts to fashion less-restrictive, individualized orders that better preserve autonomy.

Russo walked committee members through key changes UCOPA would make in Alaska law: clearer reporting and notice requirements for both minors and adults, expanded guardianship-plan content filed with the court, appointment and role guidance for court visitors and counsel, elimination of testamentary guardianships that bypass court oversight, and new disclosure requirements for potential guardians’ criminal history and bankruptcies so courts can make fully informed appointments.

Noah Klein, associate counsel for the Alaska Court System, answered fiscal and implementation questions. He said the court’s fiscal note anticipates hiring an employee to assist with rule and form changes and estimated the system could fill that position in roughly three months; the fiscal note shows a benefited position for a six‑month period.

Committee members sought clarifications on the bill’s interaction with child-in-need-of-aid proceedings, the priority list for appointing guardians and conservators, and practical barriers created by form requirements that reference notarization. Kiel and staff attorney Aurora Hawk said child-in-need-of-aid proceedings generally take precedence where the state must intervene for child safety, while emergency guardianships would address different, typically non-state-custody circumstances. On priority, Russo explained the bill prioritizes existing legal instruments—current guardians/conservators and agents nominated under powers of attorney—before listing spouses.

Several senators raised concerns about access to notary services in rural Alaska and in parts of Anchorage. Committee members discussed alternatives mentioned in the hearing record, including two-witness verification or electronic notary services; Klein said courts generally prefer to draft and manage their own forms and would advise the committee on the practical details.

The committee did not vote on SB 190. Chair Sen. Klayman said the 162-page bill is large and requested that sponsor staff return for two or three additional hearings that will examine separate sections in more detail. The committee set the bill aside for further review and adjourned; no committee action on final passage occurred during the Feb. 6 hearing.

Background: SB 190 follows a modern uniform-act model that many states have adopted in whole or in part. Its principal changes aim to expand notice and reporting, require courts to consider less-restrictive alternatives before ordering full guardianship, limit emergency appointments, and clarify the roles of guardian ad litem, court visitors and attorneys in protective proceedings.