Disability advocates decry Utah guardianship law as 'civil death'

Disability rights groups argue that a new guardianship law creates a two-tier system that strips people with intellectual disabilities of basic legal protections.

by Quinn Welsch 

The capitol building in Salt Lake City, Utah houses not only the state government but also the state attorney general. (Chris Marshall/Courthouse News)

(CN) — Disability rights organizations sued Utah in federal court Monday over a new set of guardianship rules that they argue discriminates against people with intellectual disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Utah Disability Law Center and the American Civil Liberties Union of Utah say that the state established a two-tier guardianship system under legislation passed earlier this year that strips some citizens of certain legal protections.

Those protections include the right to an attorney, the right to a trial and the right to object to a guardianship, the plaintiffs write in their complaint. Opponents of the bill argue it also include sweeping powers for guardians to restrict an individual’s personal relationships, diet and media consumption.

“People categorized as having ‘severe intellectual disabilities’ are now directed into Senate Bill 199 guardianships, where they are stripped of key rights and protections, funneled in many cases into a system where the opportunity to mount a defense to a guardianship petition all but vanishes, and, once under guardianship, subjected to more restrictive terms than are available in standard guardianships,” the plaintiffs write. “The chasm between standard guardianships and Senate Bill 199 guardianships rests solely on a disability classification of ‘severe intellectual disability.’ This two-tier system — one which treats people differently based on their disability classification — is illegal.”

The bill, titled Guardianship Amendments, was introduced in the Utah Legislature’s General Session this year, sponsored by state Senator Kevin Stratton and Representative Steve Eliason. The Republican lawmakers argued that the existing laws on guardianship didn’t correctly separate people with intellectual disabilities from the elderly, for example.

Stratton and Eliason argued that people with severe intellectual disabilities are at greater risk for financial and sexual exploitation, and could unknowingly be involved in criminal activity. Their bill gave guardians, often parents, more power to protect them from this exploitation or from falling into state care.

But the ACLU and Disability Law Center also say that the new legislation is dangerous because it gives guardians broad power to restrict who the dependent may or may not associate with.

The bill also allows guardians to limit the person’s access to alcohol, tobacco, pornography and other legal substances they determine could be harmful — a category that disability advocates say is too vague and could include things like sugary foods, red meat or the internet.

These guardianships are not the correct tool for protecting people with intellectual disabilities, Nate Crippes, public affairs supervising attorney at the Disability Law Center, wrote in a statement to Courthouse News.

“In addition, a parent could get this restrictive guardianship through the current guardianship system, but it would require an individualized assessment and give the individual due process,” Crippes wrote. “Ultimately, if a person is going to have their decisionmaking authority taken, there should be due process and it should be based on the specific individual’s needs, which is what we believe the ADA requires.”

In their complaint, the plaintiffs describe guardianship as a “civil death.”

“Even where a guardian is acting with the utmost good faith, guardianship carries practical, physical and psychological consequences and risks, and should not be entered into lightly or established as a default," the disability advocates argue.

After Governor Spencer Cox signed the bill in March, the Disability Law Center challenged the law in federal court in April. However, U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby, a Barack Obama appointee, dismissed the case with prejudice in July and denied a motion for reconsideration in November.

The Disability Law Center’s new lawsuit focuses solely on violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, while its previous attempt claimed the bill violated the Rehabilitation Act and due process rights. 

Full Article & Source:
Disability advocates decry Utah guardianship law as 'civil death'