S.B. 161 Evaluations in Guardianship Amendments: transcript

Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee, Jan 22, 2026

1. Committee chair (presiding)57:18

   Thank you. So now we go to the next bill in the agenda, which is SB 1 61 evaluations in guardianship amendments. Um, Senator Weiler,

2. Sen. Todd Weiler57:27

   Thank you. This bill, um, derives from a, a horrific experience that one of my constituents went through. Um, um, and I'm not gonna name him. Um, I will say, um, it's a name that many of you, not all of you, but many of you would recognize. Um, he's from a prominent family. Um, and, and they, they're a family of means, not that that matters, but if it could happen to them, I think it could happen to anyone. And that, I think it even makes a starker contrast. But there was a dispute, um, among the children. And, um, some of the children wanted the father, um, declared, uh, basically incompetent. Um, and not all of the children agreed, and there was a very nasty court battle. And the judge, um, ordered a, uh, evaluation of the father. Um, and he wasn't allowed again. Uh, you know, in the criminal context, everyone's considered innocent until proven guilty. This is a civil case, so that presumption doesn't, there, it wasn't there, but he was kind of treated incompetent unless he proved he was incompetent. Now, again, it's a different standard for a civil case, but when the results of that expert evaluation came back, which was court ordered, he couldn't even get a copy of what the doctor was saying about him and, and, uh, the results of the test. And it was really dehumanizing, um, you know, to have this individual, um, basically put on trial. Um, he, he is an elderly individual, and I think, you know, we probably all know, I I come from a situation where my parents both died by the age of 74. Um, my, my in-laws, however, both lived until their mid nineties, and my father-in-law was sharp as tack un until the bitter end. My mother-in-law went into full blown, uh, dementia. And so, I understand these are difficult issues. Um, and, you know, some, some, even some people with Alzheimer's or dementia, some days or some moments, they, they're clear and they're saying, and other moments they're not. So these are not easy issues. But this bill, and I'm gonna, I'm gonna go through it in a little bit of detail. It, it kind of, um, shores up based on this one experience, which I think is probably emblematic of hundreds or even thousands of other experiences. It clarifies first of all, that under hipaa, which is a federal law, um, that a person's rights are not altered or abridged by the Utah Code provisions, um, related to the rights of a person alleged to be incapacitated this family, and I'm not making a legal conclusion either way, they felt like the courts, um, and the plaintiffs in this case, or the petitioners were violating their father's HIPAA rights, um, and that nobody was standing up for that. It also amends provisions related to the qualifications of a healthcare provider appointed by a court to assess an individual alleged to be incapacitated and standards for the tools, uh, the healthcare professional uses for assessment. Now, I did get a little feedback just in the last hour from the Utah Medical Association, which I appreciate. I don't know if Michelle McCumber is going to testify or not, but they have some suggested changes, which I think are reasonable. And if the committee sees fit, um, to, to, um, advance this bill, I will make a commitment to work with her before second reading. So I have, um, those changes incorporated, and they, I think, um, she would agree that they're fairly slight changes and don't really change the intent of the bill. Um, this bill would also clarify that the court appointed healthcare professionals report must be filed with the court that would give all of the parties, um, um, opportunity to have a copy of it. And also, al also clarifies that the court appointed visitors report must be filed with the court. So often in these guardianship cases, the court will appoint an attorney or another experienced person to visit with the elderly person. That way they can kind of see their circumstances. Are they living in squalor, they can talk to them, kind of get a feel for them. So it's, it's not a medical evaluation, it's more of somebody that can come back, because quite frankly, our judges don't do this. They don't do home visits. They don't go look at somebody's bedroom, look in the cupboard to see what food they're eating. They don't do that. So they, they'll appoint a court visitor to do that. And, um, I've run bills a decade ago about making sure that somebody's not being isolated. Um, sometimes one child will have the parent, uh, elderly parent live with them, and then they don't let the other children or their friends or their pastor or bishop come see them. So the court visitor. Um, but what, what this says is that the court visitor's report must also be filed with the court. So, so all of the parties to the litigation, uh, can have access to that. Lastly, this provides that the court appointed healthcare professional may not interview the person seeking to be appointed a guardian or incorporate that individual's opinion into the healthcare provider's report of the assessment. What we don't want is the family member who's advocating for this, um, finding that the, that the elderly adult is incapacitated, tainting the process by coming in and telling the doctor, this is what you should find. And, and, and, and, and they may, they may exaggerate the symptoms. They might take something, um, an event and over blow it. Um, so if any of us legislators, if we tripped on the stairs on the way to this committee, you know, it might be embarrassing, we might get laughed at, but if an elderly person did the same thing, they might use that as evidence that they're, that they're incompetent. And so, so they don't want that person kind of, uh, overshadowing and tainting the process. And so that is, um, in granular detail what the bill, the, the problem we're trying to solve and, and the solutions that this bill offers. And I just want to tell you, um, the family I'm dealing with, um, have been wonderful to work with. They did ask for some changes that I, as a legislator and a lawmaker, uh, and, and a lawyer, I thought, I, I can't go there. So they're happy, you know, with this bill, but I, I didn't give 'em everything they're asking for. And that's kind of the uncomfortable position I think that we're often in, is when a family has a problem, I can say, well, I can do 80% of this. I can't get, I can't give you a hundred percent of what you're asking for. So with that, uh, Madam Chair, that concludes my presentation.

3. Committee chair (presiding)1:03:57

   Thank you, Senator Weiler for that presentation. Come back to the committee for any clarifying questions related to SB 1 61. Seem to be any clarifying questions. Now we're going back to the public. Is there anyone from the public that wants to make a comment on this important bill? We do have one person online, Jennifer Stout on, uh, online. So we're gonna go about to the online, um, public comment right now. Take a second. Yeah, it takes some a second to get us everything connected. Jennifer. Perfect. Oh, hi Jennifer. I know you, uh, go ahead, Jennifer, if you don't mind introducing yourself. And, um, also if you represent our organization.

4. Jennifer Stout1:04:42

   Hi. Yes, my name's Jennifer Stout. I'm actually just gonna be representing myself right now. Um, so I really appreciate this bill. Um, I wish it was something that I had, my dad passed away last month and he was in guardianship with his wife and the last six months of his life, we weren't allowed to see him. And, um, I just wanna testify just the importance of laws to really protect the person that's in guardianship, um, because I know she took advantage of the situation. And just like you were talking about, um, the only input that the doctors had was from her. Um, and just to give you a little background, adult Protective Services had to get involved. Um, they ended up doing an investigation because of poisoning they found. So it was just a really severe situation. And, um, and because of it, I didn't even get a say goodbye to him. So, um, I just wanna testify the importance of this. Um, so thank you.

5. Committee chair (presiding)1:06:02

   Um, thank you for that comment. And that will be recorded. Thank you, Jennifer, for that. Um, with that, any other public comment? I think we have no one else. Perfect. We come bring it back to the committee for any motions at this, at this moment.

6. Sen. Todd Weiler1:06:17

   Um, if I could, uh, as member Senator Committee, Madam Chair, I'd like to move that we favorly recommend, um, to the body, um, Senate bill. Let me get it right. 1 61, 1 61 With the understanding that I'll work with the Utah Medical Association before second Reading.

7. Committee chair (presiding)1:06:36

   I appreciate that. Thank you, Senator. We'll be looking forward to that. Uh, will that, uh, do you, anything else you wanna speak to that motion?

8. Sen. Todd Weiler1:06:42

   No, I'll waive. Perfect.

9. Committee chair (presiding)1:06:44

   I'll take, bring it back to the committee for any, um, discussion to that motion. There doesn't seem to be any discussion to the motion. So with that, we can now go to the voting process. Everyone in favor, please say Aye. In passing SB 1 61 Aye.

10. Unknown speaker1:07:01speaker not certain

    Aye. Aye. Any opposition to that? Nope. Okay.

11. Committee chair (presiding)1:07:06speaker not certain

    Just wanna make sure the online Senator Ipson get a chance to vote if they're interested. Yep.

12. Unknown speaker1:07:10speaker not certain

    I was an I. Okay.

13. Committee chair (presiding)1:07:11

    Senator Fillmore, that's Fillmore Senator, Senator Bremmer interested in voting or not? Okay. I think we go with a six to zero on SB 1 61.

14. Sen. Todd Weiler1:07:24

    So, Madam Chair, I know you're chairing right now. I'm gonna take that back in just a moment. Let me just make a quick announcement. Um, I have, I am in possession of 30 bills, uh, in Judiciary committee, and I would love to have put 10 or 12 or 15 of them on the agenda today. But the fourth bill on the agenda, I believe, um, has substantial interest. And I wanted to reserve time so that we could do at least an hour, if not more, a public comment. And so it's important to me, uh, oh, Mr. Uh, Senator, I was gonna, I was gonna announce a short pause until Senator Wilson's got here, but he just arrived as I can see in the camera. Uh, so I will, I'll, I'll come back up. Perfect. Thank you.

15. Committee chair (presiding)1:08:04

    And we'll, we'll go to Senator Wilson next. Thank you, Senator. Thank you Senator Escamilla very much. Um, Senator Wilson, did you want to present a bill?

16. Sen. Chris H. Wilson1:08:35

    Rumor has it, but yes, I would like to thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the opportunity and, um, Well, let me call that. So we're, yes, we're doing it right. So we'll next go to Senate Bill 1 34,

House Judiciary Committee, Feb 25, 2026

1. Committee chair1:33:06

   Uh, item number four, SB 1 61 evaluations and guardianship amendments. We'll hear your bill and contact those other Senator Vickers to come present theirs. Thank you for coming.

2. Sen. Todd Weiler1:33:18

   Well, I don't usually gamble, but you know, I'm open to new ideas. Um, so this bill was, um, actually brought to me by Representative Ballard. She was approached by a prominent family in, in our shared districts, um, who had had a, a, a horrible experience when some of the kids, um, decided to, uh, to take their father to court and tried to have him declared, uh, incompetent. Um, he, um, ultimately was not declared incompetent, but went through some, um, you know, he, he, he was, he felt very disrespected in, in the process. And, um, and this bill kind that case kind of shed a spotlight I think, on a few gaps, um, that exists in our, our system. So this bill is designed, first of all, to restore dignity and due process in guardianship cases and to ensure that individuals alleged to be incapacitated are treated as competent unless proven otherwise. And this is probably the most important part that they have access to the medical and visitor reports used by the court. So the court ordered this individual to go to a doctor to be examined, and then this individual was never allowed to see the doctor's report. Um, also, the court appointed a visitor to come and visit him, and he was denied access to the visitor's report. And so you have someone who's almost being treated as if they're incompetent, even though they haven't been found to be incompetent. And so this kind of, um, flip flops that so that they would have access to what the doctors and the court visitors are saying about them. It also clarifies that HIPAA protections, which are federal protections, remain fully intact and prevent prospective guardians from influencing or tainting medical assessments. And it's also designed to require court appointed healthcare providers and court visitor reports to be just filed with the court, giving all parties the opportunity to view and respond to them. So, Senate Bill 1 66, uh, 1 61 strengthens fairness in guardianship proceedings by ensuring access to medical evaluations, protecting HIPAA rights and preventing bias assessments responding directly to a real case where an individual was excluded from the reports used by the judge, um, regarding their own capacity. And, uh, with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions. Madam Chair, Thank you to the committee for clarifying questions or discussion.

3. Committee chair1:35:53

   Seeing no lights, we'll move to public comment. Is there anyone in the room that would like to speak to this bell? Okay. And online, we have two online. Uh, Seth Stewart, please turn on your camera. State your name and who you represent. You will have two minutes. Thank you, Seth. Uh, are you able to turn on your camera and microphone and speak to the committee today? Um, we'll move to the next commenter and we'll try Seth again. Tracy Olson, please turn on your camera. State your name, who you represent, you'll have two minutes.

4. Tracy Olson, Attorney1:37:39

   Hello, Tracy Olson. I'm an attorney and I represent professional guardians in, um, and, uh, and individuals in guardianship cases. Uh, my one concern with this bill is that is in, uh, section four C where it, um, where it's allowing it, it's, it's basically saying that the, uh, medical evaluator is not allowed to interview or speak with the person who is moving for guardianship and incorporating anything that's, that's said in there is, um, in their reports. The concern that I have is that traditionally, uh, competency and capacity evaluations have generally had that happen in most cases. The other thing that would happen is, is that anyone who's not moving for guardianship would not be, would be allowed to be interviewed and their, uh, assessments of capacity would be allowed to be taken into consideration. Um, I I am all in favor of, uh, you know, the, the situation that the Senator Weiler had brought up with the, uh, incapacitated person or the allegedly incapacitated person not being able to see the court visitor report or the doctor's report the existing law already should have that he, the, the alleged incapacitated person should have had access to that already. And I think there's existing standards for that. In addition, the, uh, the alleged incapacitated person is entitled to counsel to represent them and counsel there would've been able to move the court to get copies of those things and to evaluate that with them. Thank you.

5. Committee chair1:39:21

   Thank you. We'll now try Seth Stewart again.

6. Seth Stewart, American Fork resident1:39:40

   Okay. Um, thank you. Sorry. Um, Seth Stewart representing myself from American Fork. Um, yeah, so, so I do appreciate that there is a, a right to trial by jury for the incapacity proceeding. And, uh, I I would also just echo the previous, uh, concern that, uh, that there is certain disqualification of evidence that the, uh, line 1 64, that the healthcare provider may not interview the person seeking appointment as guardian as part of the healthcare providers assessment. Uh, because I think that was actually a, a very significant source of evidence in these determinations. So thank you.

7. Committee chair1:40:17

   Thank you. Alright, back to the committee for further discussion or action. Representative Acton.

8. Rep. Cheryl K. Acton1:40:32

   Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to make a motion that we recommend favorably SB 1 61 guardianship evaluations.

9. Committee chair1:40:43

   Alright. The motion is to favorably recommend a SB 1 61 evaluations and guardianship amendments to, would you like to speak to that?

10. Unknown speaker1:40:53speaker not certain

    I was just going to say, I, I, the situation that you described at the beginning, um, it just sounds like, um, something surreal if you couldn't as, and have access to the information that others are reporting to the court about you so, or reporting about you that could affect your own future. So I, I really think this is a good bill and a necessary one.

11. Committee chair1:41:18

    Thank you. All right. To the sponsor?

12. Sen. Todd Weiler1:41:21

    Yeah. Thank you. Um, so I just want to, uh, respond to the pub. The first public comment if I could. As as my summation, I, I've heard from several, um, uh, attorneys who work in this space, and I know that Representative Abbott is an attorney that has some experience in this space. Here is my thinking, and I'm actually open to suggestions on this, uh, for maybe an amendment on the floor if this bill advances, but here, here's my thinking. If you look at lines 1 54, we want the health provider who is giving this report to the court, um, to be qualified by training, education experience, and then in lines 1 58 to use evidence-based screening tools appropriate for the assessment. So the person who is petitioning the court for a finding event capacity, they already believe the person's incapacitated, and they're going to put their beliefs into the petition. They'll probably testify in the hearing, they'll probably submit an affidavit that's typically done. So their opinion is already being heard by the court. What, what I'm trying to do in line 1 65 and 1 66 is not allow their opinion to now become the medical opinion as well. And so the idea is that person is going to have plenty and ample opportunities to tell the judge why they think grandpa or dad is incapacitated. Um, what I want is a medical opinion to be medical and not just based on the petitioner's own conclusions telling the doctor, um, you know, we need a letter saying that they're incompetent, uh, because this is what I've seen. So we want them to give a medical opinion and not just to repeat what someone told them to say. So that's my submission.

13. Committee chair1:43:07

    Thank you, Senator. Uh, Representative Abbott.

14. Rep. Nelson T. Abbott1:43:11

    Sorry. Is it too late to ask a question? I know,

15. Committee chair1:43:13

    We're pretty, no, it's not.

16. Rep. Nelson T. Abbott1:43:14

    Okay, thank you. So I have a question. So this says the court may appoint a healthcare provider. Can the guardian go out and just hire their own expert and bring them in and have them testify? Or are they always appointed?

17. Sen. Todd Weiler1:43:26

    I think in these situations, they're typically appointed by the court. I think the idea is you get, um, to save costs. You try to get one neutral, um, expert as opposed to each side bringing in a battle of doctors. Right. Okay. But you in theory, if you felt like this was too restrictive, you could go out and hire your own expert? Yeah, absolutely. There's nothing that would prohibit that.

18. Rep. Nelson T. Abbott1:43:47

    Okay. All right. Thank you. Yeah.

19. Committee chair1:43:52

    All right. Thank you Representative Abbott. And we still have a motion, we're discussing any further discussion to that motion. Seeing none. Will do a roll call vote.

20. Unknown speaker1:44:10speaker not certain

    Representative Abbott? Aye. I'm not sure. Acton Aye. Oxia? Aye. Gracious. Yes. Hawkins Lube? Yes. Manga. Aye. Millard? Yes. Thompson? Yes. Clancy? Yes. Libe. Aye.

21. Committee chair1:44:30

    That motion passes unanimously. Thank you, Senator.

Senate floor, Feb 2, 2026

1. Senate clerk (roll call)15:49

   be read for a third time? Roll call vote. Senator Vickers Baldy. A Bwin brammer bus. Aye. Comore a Escamia Fillmore Grover Aye. Harper Aye. Kins Aye. Ipson Aye. Johnson Aye. Quan Aye. McKay, Mikel Milder Musman Aye. Owens Aye. Pitcher Plum re Aye. Sandal Aye. Stevenson Stratton. Yes. Vickers Aye. Weiler Aye. Wilson Aye. Winterton Aye. President Adamson

2. Sen. J. Stuart Adams (presiding)16:52

   Senate Bill 1 61, having received 22 yay votes, zero na votes, excuse me, 24 yay votes, zero nay votes, five being absent will be read for a third time.

3. Sen. J. Stuart Adams (presiding)17:11

   Senator Musselman. Senator Musselman,

4. Sen. Calvin R. Musselman17:17

   Mr. President Pro Tem. Uh, if, if you haven't heard of George Wallen, then you may not be involved with the,

Senate floor, Feb 5, 2026

1. Sen. Todd Weiler53:02

   incapacitated alleged person has the rights to the court visitors and other medical reports filed with the court about them. With that, I'll be happy to yield any questions.

2. President Adams (presiding)53:19

   Senator McKay, are you up looking for questions? Not seeing any Senator Weiler back to you for, uh, mo a motion.

3. Sen. Todd Weiler53:31

   Thank you. I move that Senate Bill 1 61 pass.

4. President Adams (presiding)53:34

   Thank you. And the question is, shall Senate bill? Senate bill one sixty one pass Roll call vote.

5. Unknown speaker53:38speaker not certain

   Senator Vickers Baldy Aye. Lewin Bramer bus cu Colmore Escamia Fillmore a Grover Harper Aye. Kinins Ipson johnson. Aye. K Juab Aye. McKay Aye. Mikel Aye. Milner Musselman Owens pitcher Plum Rebi Sandal Stevenson Stratton Aye. Bickers Aye. Weiler Aye. Wilson Winterton Aye.

6. President Adams (presiding)54:28

   President Adams Aye. Senate Bill 1 61 Having received 25 yay votes, zero nay votes, four being absent passes this body and will be sent to the house for their consideration.

7. President Adams (presiding)54:40

   Senator Musselman, you, let's go back to the second reading calendar now, unless anybody wants to encircle on third, uh, before we, we haven't left the third yet. Senator Weiler wants to keep going here. Senator Musselman. Senator Weiler for a motion.

8. Sen. Todd Weiler54:54

   Okay, here we go. There we go. Uh, Motion to encircle Senate bill one 10.

9. President Adams (presiding)54:58

   We have a motion encircle Senate bill one 10 Marriage amendments. All in favor say aye. Aye. Let me place that motion again. The motion is encircle second substitute Senate Bill one 10 Marriage amendments. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion passed. It's the second substitutes in front of a Senator Weiler.

House floor, Feb 26, 2026

House floor, Feb 26, 2026

House floor, Feb 26, 2026

Senate floor, Mar 3, 2026

1. Sen. Todd Weiler24:11

   Thank you Mr. President. I'm gonna move to Concur, but I'd like to explain, um, I asked the house, the house to make a small change. This is the bill that would make sure that someone, uh, let's say an elderly person whose mental competency is being challenged usually by a family member, that they have access to all of the court visitor reports and the doctor's reports about their medical condition. We put in the original bill that the doctor could not rely exclusively on the opinion, uh, that the doctor couldn't use the opinion of the person, um, who was trying to have a person, uh, deemed incompetent. So we, we watered that down just a bit to say that the doctor can't rely exclusively on their opinion. The reason for that is we want a medical opinion, not a family member's opinion. And second of all, we don't wanna handcuff the doctors and tell them how to do their job. We just don't want it exclusively relied on that. So with that explanation, I'd move that we concur, uh, with the house's changes.

2. Senate President (presiding)25:13

   Thank you. You have a motion to concur? Do we have discussion in the motion? All in favor say Aye. Aye. And Opposed Motion passes. First substitute Senate Bill 1 61 has been read three times. The question is, shall it pass? Roll call vote.

3. Senate clerk (roll call)25:27

   Senator Vickers Baldry Aye. Lewin Aye. Brammer bus? Aye. Culmore Escamilla Aye. Fillmore Grover Aye. Harper Aye. Hankins Ipson Johnson. Aye. Qua McKay Grover. Aye. Mikel Aye. Milner Musman Owens pitcher Plum rebe Aye. Sandal Aye. Stevenson. Aye. Stratton Vickers Aye. Weiler Aye. Wilson. Aye. Winterton President Adams Aye.

4. Senate President (presiding)26:20

   First substitute Senate Bill 1 61, having received 28 yay votes, zero nay votes, one being absent, passes his body and will be returned to the house for the signature of the speaker.