WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 6165

AN ACT CONCERNING THE USE OF SUPPORTED DECISION-MAKING AGREEMENTS IN LIEU OF CONSERVATORSHIPS OR GUARDIANSHIPS.

2025 Regular Session Introduced by Patrick Biggins and 12 co-sponsors

Connecticut bill authorizes supported decision-making agreements as legally recognized alternatives to guardianships, allowing individuals to retain autonomy while designating trusted advisors for decisions.

REF. TO JOINT COMM. ON Judiciary
#conservators #disabledpersons #guardianandward
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 6165

Legislative bill overview

HB 6165 would allow individuals with cognitive or developmental limitations to use "supported decision-making" (SDM) agreements as an alternative to traditional conservatorships or guardianships in Connecticut. Under SDM, a person retains legal decision-making authority while designating trusted advisors to help them understand options and make informed choices. The bill establishes a legal framework recognizing SDM agreements as valid alternatives to the more restrictive guardianship model.

Why is this important

Guardianships and conservatorships can significantly restrict personal autonomy—the ward loses legal rights over finances, healthcare, and life decisions. SDM offers a less restrictive middle ground that preserves individual agency while providing support, aligning with modern disability rights principles emphasizing self-determination. This addresses a growing recognition that many people under guardianship could exercise meaningful decision-making with appropriate assistance rather than having decisions made for them.

Potential points of contention

  • Liability and accountability concerns: Supporters of traditional guardianships may worry that SDM lacks sufficient legal protections for vulnerable individuals if advisors act negligently or exploit the person's trust
  • Implementation and enforcement gaps: Questions about how SDM agreements would be monitored, what happens if advisors disagree or act against the person's interests, and whether court oversight mechanisms are adequate
  • Vulnerability to coercion: Critics may argue that individuals with cognitive limitations could be pressured to accept SDM by family members who want less legal responsibility while still controlling decisions informally

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.