by: The Unicameral Update
In the wake of evidence of guardians who are not adequately serving their clients, the Judiciary Committee heard testimony Jan. 29 on two proposals that seek to improve Nebraska’s guardianship system.
LB 985, sponsored by Bennington Sen. Wendy DeBoer, would prohibit a private person from accepting appointment as a guardian or conservator if they already have 20 clients.
DeBoer said the cap would mirror the one already in place for the state’s Office of Public Guardian, which serves as guardian when no alternative is available.
While abuse by a guardian is rare, she said, it does occur. In December of last year, she said, an alleged case of fraud and abuse was made possible, in part, by the lack of a cap on how many clients a private guardian may serve.“The more individuals you serve as a guardian for, the more accounts you have access to and the more you can bill for your services,” DeBoer said. “In order to limit the potential for abuse, I believe a cap is necessary.”
Amy Miller testified in support of LB 985 on behalf of Disability Rights Nebraska. She said the organization has spent the last three years researching the state’s guardianship system.
Approximately 10,000 people are under guardianship in Nebraska, she said, and an estimated 90% of those are full guardianships — meaning the guardian makes almost all life decisions for the client.
“Your guardian gets to decide where you live, what type of medical care you receive, whether you’re able to get a job or take classes and all of the money matters related to your life,” Miller said. “It’s hard to imagine how one person with even 20 wards under their care could thoroughly represent all of those issues for so many people.”
Jina Ragland also supported the measure. Speaking on behalf of AARP Nebraska, she said a caseload cap would ensure that guardians aren’t stretched too thin.
“This [bill] would increase the likelihood that they could spend more time with older adults and respond quickly to emergencies,” Ragland said.
Tim Hruza testified in opposition to LB 985 on behalf of the Nebraska State Bar Association. Being a guardian is difficult and intense work, he said, and making it harder to find individuals who are willing to serve may not be the answer.
“Our concern is simply that a cap of 20, while well intended … may not get to the root cause [of the problem],” Hruza said.
The committee also heard testimony on LB 1178, sponsored by DeBoer, which would allow individuals under a guardianship or conservatorship to attend required hearings either virtually or in person. The bill also would require guardians to make at least monthly monitoring visits, keep written records of those visits and maintain periodic contact with care providers.
Finally, the bill would authorize courts to award costs and reasonable attorney’s fees in specified proceedings, payable either from the trust involved or by another party.
“Monthly visits ensure guardians actually know their ward’s current condition, living situation and needs, and are not just managing their affairs on paper,” DeBoer said.
Miller testified in favor of LB 1178. Currently, she said, guardians file an annual report that consists of two pages of questions. In examining those reports, she said, Disability Rights Nebraska found one attorney who indicated that he did not visit his ward of 10 years who lived only eight miles away.
“If any guardian doesn’t visit, how do they know the condition of their ward?” Miller said. “It makes common sense to go lay eyes on a person.”
No one testified in opposition to LB 1178 and the committee took no immediate action on either proposal.
The Unicameral Update is the official news service of the Nebraska Legislature.
Full Article & Source:
Bills would cap number of guardianship clients, require monthly visits







