Bill
HB 4676
HB 4676 requires courts to routinely consider less restrictive alternatives and document guardian limits before appointing guardians for people with developmental disabilities.
Status and basic info
- Bill: HB 4676 (substitute H‑1 reported)
- Sponsor: Rep. Sharon MacDonell (with multiple co‑sponsors)
- Subject: Guardianship for individuals with developmental disabilities (amends MCL 330.1602, sec. 602 of 1974 PA 258 — Chapter 6 of the Mental Health Code)
- Key dates: filed 2025‑03‑12; initial hearings April 2025; substitute (H‑1) reported 2025‑08‑13 and referred to second reading.
- Related bill: HB 4677 addresses supported decision‑making language in the Estates & Protected Individuals Code (EPIC).
Purpose and intent
HB 4676 aims to strengthen protections for persons with developmental disabilities by requiring courts to apply a "least restrictive alternative" approach before appointing guardians and to explicitly consider and prefer limited or partial forms of guardianship or non‑guardian alternatives when appropriate.
Key provisions and changes
- Applies to Chapter 6 (Guardianship for the Developmentally Disabled). Amends MCL 330.1602.
- Explicitly requires courts, when they find a person with a developmental disability “likely to need protection” (per factors in sec. 618(1)), to:
- Apply the least restrictive alternative principle.
- Not restrict personal liberty or the individual’s ability to manage financial resources more than necessary to protect the person and estate.
- State any limitations on a guardian’s authority in the court’s findings, in the letters of guardianship, and in the first‑publication notice of letters.
- Before appointing a guardian, courts must consider whether needs can be met by less restrictive alternatives, including (but not limited to):
- Durable power of attorney / attorney‑in‑fact (if executed before petition).
- Trust management by a trustee.
- Representative payee for public benefits (if already appointed).
- Supported decision‑making arrangements (defined in the bill as a process where friends, family, and professionals assist the individual to understand choices so they can make their own decisions).
- Protective or supportive services, appropriate services or assistive technology.
- Appointment of temporary or emergency guardians, guardians of the estate, or limited/partial guardians or conservators (including preference for partial guardianship when guardianship is necessary).
- Hearing requirements: courts must inquire into general intellectual functioning, adaptive behavior impairments, capacity for self‑care (making and communicating responsible personal decisions), capacity to manage estate/financial affairs, and appropriateness / least‑restrictive nature of proposed living arrangements (including specifics about facilities, if applicable).
Who would be affected
- Primary: individuals with developmental disabilities who are the subject of guardianship petitions.
- Secondary: family members, proposed guardians/guardianship petitioners, courts and probate systems, trustees, attorneys, service providers, and agencies offering supported decision‑making or assistive services.
- Fiscal impact: House Fiscal Agency reports no direct fiscal impact on state/local CMHSPs or courts.
Procedural / timeline notes
- Substitute (H‑1) reported by Committee on Families and Veterans 2025‑08‑13 and bill was referred to second reading.
- The bill’s language and the substitute retain the core least‑restrictive and alternatives requirements; the substitute clarifies temporary/partial guardian options under Chapter 6.
Stakeholder positions
- Testified in support: Disability Network Michigan, Disability Rights Michigan; other supporters include Michigan Developmental Disabilities Council, Michigan Elder Justice Initiative, Michigan Guardianship Association, The ARC Michigan.
- Opposition: Michigan Probate Judges Association.
Bottom line
HB 4676 strengthens judicial obligations in guardianship proceedings for people with developmental disabilities by requiring explicit consideration of less restrictive alternatives (including supported decision‑making), limiting unnecessary intrusions on personal liberty and financial autonomy, and documenting any specific limitations on guardian authority.
Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.
Sign in to ask a question.
