WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

S 490

Westminster 150th Anniversary

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Thomas Alexander

The bill lets a family member petition probate court for reasonable visitation with a frail elderly relative if a caregiver unreasonably blocks visits.

Introduced and adopted
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · S 490

Summary — S.490 (2025): An Act relative to family visitation with a vulnerable adult

Main purpose

S.490 creates a new statutory cause of action in Chapter 215 (probate practice) to allow certain family members to petition the probate court for visitation with a “frail elderly individual” when a family caregiver unreasonably prevents visits. The bill is intended to protect family access to vulnerable adults who are functionally impaired and to provide a court process to restore reasonable family contact and notification.

Key definitions (selected)

  • Frail elderly individual: an adult over 60 years determined by a court to be functionally impaired because they either (i) cannot perform at least 2 activities of daily living without substantial human assistance (including verbal reminding, physical cueing, or supervision) or (ii) due to cognitive/mental impairment require substantial supervision because their behavior poses a serious health or safety hazard.
  • Family caregiver: an adult family member who provides in‑home care to the frail elderly individual.
  • Family member: spouse, adult child, adult grandchild, or other close relative.
  • Petitioner: the family member who files the verified visitation petition.

Key provisions

  • New Section 6d (Chapter 215) authorizes a family member to file a verified petition in the probate court if a family caregiver unreasonably prevents visitation.
  • The court may order the caregiver to permit visitation “reasonable and appropriate” under the circumstances.
  • At the hearing the court must consider: the frail elderly individual’s level of functional impairment; previously expressed visitation preferences; history of visitation; opinions of family members and caregiver; and other relevant matters.
  • The court must deny visitation if the frail elderly individual has capacity and expressly refuses visitation, or if visitation is not in the individual’s best interests.
  • The court may appoint — and must appoint in certain circumstances (e.g., the individual does not appear or cannot appear due to hardship) — a guardian ad litem for the frail elderly individual. Reasonable compensation may be awarded; the petitioner generally pays, except where the court finds the caregiver maliciously denied visitation, in which case the caregiver shall pay.
  • If visitation is granted, the court may also order the caregiver to use reasonable efforts to notify the petitioner of hospitalization, admission to a health facility, change of permanent residence, or death.
  • Procedural rules: proceedings commence in the county where the frail elderly individual resides. Personal service on the frail elderly individual and caregiver is required at least 14 days before the hearing; the petitioner must mail notice to other family members at least 14 days before the hearing.

Who would be affected

  • Frail elderly individuals (as defined) living with a family caregiver or otherwise subject to family visitation disputes.
  • Family members seeking visitation (spouses, adult children, adult grandchildren, close relatives).
  • Family caregivers responsible for providing in‑home care and for complying with court visitation and notification orders.
  • Probate courts and guardian ad litem practitioners (increased case intake and potential appointment/compensation obligations).

Legislative status and timeline (selected)

  • Introduced: Feb 6, 2025.
  • Procedural progress: advanced through Senate (passed Senate Apr 9, 2025) and delivered to the House (referred to Codes). Hearing scheduled Jun 24, 2025 (per committee notice). Companion bill: H.490 / A.490 referenced.
  • Petitioners named in the bill: Bruce E. Tarr and Peter J. Durant.

Potential impact and considerations

  • Provides a statutory mechanism to address family isolation of vulnerable elders and to balance caregiver control with family contact.
  • Protects an individual’s right to refuse visitors by requiring capacity and an expressed refusal as a basis to deny court‑ordered visitation.
  • May increase probate court dockets and use of guardians ad litem; allocation of GAL fees is addressed but could raise equity questions (petitioner pays unless caregiver acted maliciously).
  • Implementation will depend on court standards for “reasonable and appropriate” visitation, capacity determinations, and findings of malicious denial.

If you want, I can extract the exact statutory language to use in an analysis brief for courts or draft talking points for stakeholders (caregivers, families, elder‑care facilities).

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

Sign in to ask a question.