Bill
HB 5485
AN ACT CONCERNING SUPPORTED DECISION-MAKING STUDY.
HB 5485 allows Connecticut adults with disabilities to make their own decisions with help from trusted supporters they choose, offering greater independence than traditional gua...
Bill
HB 5485
HB 5485 allows Connecticut adults with disabilities to make their own decisions with help from trusted supporters they choose, offering greater independence than traditional gua...
HB 5485 establishes a legal framework for supported decision-making (SDM) in Connecticut. SDM is an alternative to guardianship that allows individuals with intellectual or developmental disabilities to make their own decisions with assistance from trusted supporters they select. The bill would authorize adults to formally designate decision-makers to help them understand options and consequences while retaining ultimate decision-making authority themselves.
This legislation addresses a critical gap in Connecticut's disability rights infrastructure. Traditional guardianship removes decision-making authority entirely from individuals, which many disability advocates consider unnecessarily restrictive. SDM offers a less restrictive middle ground that respects autonomy while providing practical support. This aligns with the national trend toward person-centered alternatives and the Americans with Disabilities Act's integration mandate. For individuals with mild to moderate cognitive disabilities, SDM can enable greater independence and self-determination than guardianship while protecting their interests.
Legal liability concerns: Supporters may face unclear legal responsibilities if decisions result in harm, creating hesitation among potential supporters and uncertainty for family members.
Guardianship professionals' interests: Attorneys, guardians ad litem, and established guardianship practitioners may view SDM as economically threatening or worry about adequate oversight.
Implementation standards: The bill's success depends heavily on how well it defines supporter qualifications, training requirements, and dispute resolution mechanisms—unclear standards could lead to inconsistent application.
Protection gaps: Critics may argue SDM lacks sufficient safeguards against exploitation or abuse compared to formal guardianship's court oversight.
Financial decision-making: Disputes may arise over which decisions SDM can cover, particularly regarding healthcare, finances, and living arrangements.
Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.
Sign in to ask a question.