Legislature(2007 - 2008)BELTZ 211
01/25/2008 03:00 PM Senate LABOR & COMMERCE
Audio | Topic |
---|---|
Start | |
SB101 | |
SB147 | |
SB107 | |
Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+= | SB 101 | TELECONFERENCED | |
= | SB 147 | ||
= | SB 107 | ||
SB 101-GUARDIANSHIP AND CONSERVATORS CHAIR JOHNNY ELLIS announced SB 101 to be up for consideration. d [CSSB 101(2 L&C) version V was before the committee.] DANA OWEN, Staff to Senator Johnny Ellis, sponsor of SB 101, said SB 101 has a major change. The Uniform Adult Guardianship and Protective Proceedings Jurisdiction Act, which is a model for a lot of states, was added. The idea is to set a uniform standard for dealing with cases that reach across state lines. In addition, he said Josh Fink, Director, Office of Public Advocacy, has asked for a few small changes. On page 9, sections 17 and 18 have been added; section 17 gives the court authority to make a finding of incapacity in absence of expert testimony in cases where the respondent stipulates to the incapacity. Section 18 mandates written findings in cases where the court deviates from the priority list of potential guardians. Section 20 has the same mandate for written findings in the case of conservators. Section 21 provides that records of cases involving public guardians are confidential except where they are relevant to an investigation of a public guardian who has provided guardianship or conservator services. There are various conforming amendments throughout the bill. 3:10:41 PM DEBORAH BEHR, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Legislation and Regulations Section, Department of Law, Juneau, said she also is a uniform law commissioner for the state that brought the Uniform Adult Guardianship and Protective Proceedings Jurisdiction Act forward. It is good public policy for Alaska families. She said SB 101 is supported by the National College of Probate Judges and the National Guardianship Foundation. The Department of Health and Social Services supported it as well. MS. BEHR said that Alaska family are often transient and have family members in several parts of the US. So, for example, if she had a mother in Fairbanks, a brother in Virginia and a sister in California and mother visits sister in California and has a major event like a stroke and becomes incapacitated, the court has difficulty deciding which court should handle that case. In the time you are arguing over which court should handle it, it's expensive to families. This bill would set up a priority system among the states as to who should handle these cases so they can look at what is in the best interest of an incapacitated family member. So in the example, the family could go to the California court and say the sister is the best person to take care of her even though she was with the mother only a couple of months. The California court under this bill could easily work with the Alaska court and come up with a plan. SB 147 would also make it easier to transfer guardianship back up to Alaska. It's cheaper and less stress for families. 3:13:26 PM JOSH FINK, Director, Office of Public Advocacy, said Mr. Owen went through the changes and he would give the rationale behind them. The issue in section 17 was that under current statute, they are required to provide psychological examination of any respondent where a petition is filed for a protective order. This language allows the respondent in instances where he or she doesn't object to an appointment to forego the need for a psychological evaluation, which can be very expensive. Rural parts of the state need to fly a psychologist out or fly the petitioner and a guardian in. He explained that under current law sections 18 and 20 for guardianships and conservatorships have a priority as to who should be appointed a public guardian or conservator. The order starts with the person requested by the respondent, then the spouse, then the adult child or parent, then a relative, family friend, private guardian and then finally, as a last resort, the Office of Public Advocacy. This change simply asks that the court make written findings as to why someone was appointed. Sometimes, he explained, family members exploit the protected person or were part of the problem and yet after the appointment they are at his door trying to micromanage the ward's affairs. This gives his office a written record of why that person was not appointed. Making the court explain what it is doing is just good policy. MR. FINK said that section 21 is new and exempts public guardian records from the Public Records Act, because they contain very personal information like mental health evaluations and personal family affairs. It's a grey area of the law right now, he explained, and he wasn't sure if someone asked to see one of those files that they could be shared or not. He said section 23 on page 11 clarifies the statute to allow OPA to go forward on a practice they have been doing since 1986. He explained that he collects a monthly fee established in regulation of $40 a month; and for some clients that is a hardship. OPA can defer the fees until the client comes into money. If a ward is transferred to a private guardian or family member or dies, the OPA typically collects the fees after burial expenses are paid and then have released the remaining funds to the family. The office already does this, but this language makes it clear. 3:18:04 PM SENATOR BUNDE asked how a person can either agree or disagree to a process that judges them incompetent. MR. FINK replied that there are two standards: guardianship is a higher level of incapacity than for conservatorship, which is just an inability to manage finances. The current practice is a court visitor goes out and collects whatever medical records are available and often they are able to get the doctor to be the expert. Often, particularly with conservatorships, the respondent will have no objection to the appointment. In some rural areas the judge has said a person is agreeing to the protective order, but under the law he has to have him evaluated. So, he has to be flown in with a caretaker or a psychologist has to be flown out. It is exceedingly expensive. If the ward was incapacitated such that consent was an issue, he couldn't stipulate. There would have to be a psychological evaluation. Competency means you have to understand the proceedings you are involved with and what you are doing, he added. 3:20:03 PM MARIE DARLIN, Coordinator, AARP Capital City Task Force, AARP, said she had provided a letter of support to the committee. With the increasing senior population there will be a bigger need for this kind of service, she said. Incapacitated elders often have problems with those kinds of cases. AARP fully supported the idea behind the legislation. 3:21:25 PM SENATOR DAVIS moved to adopt CSSB 101(2d L&C), version V. There were no objections and it was so ordered. 3:22:02 PM SENATOR BUNDE moved to report CSSB 101(2d L&C) from committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note(s). There being no objection, the motion carried.
Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
---|