North Dakota House Bill HB1262

North Dakota 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/13/25
• Refer: 1/13/25
• Report DNP: 1/21/25

Caption

A BILL for an Act to amend and reenact section 30.1-28-04 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to guardians of incapacitated persons.

Summary

HB 1262 would revise North Dakota’s guardianship law for incapacitated persons by tightening the standards a court must apply before appointing a guardian and by emphasizing the least restrictive form of intervention. The bill requires the court to consider whether a proposed ward is truly incapacitated, whether valid durable powers of attorney already exist, and whether any alternative resource plan could protect the person’s health, safety, or habilitation without a guardianship. It also directs courts to appoint a guardian only on clear and convincing evidence and only with powers specifically stated in the order. The bill further limits the rights that may be removed from a ward, stating that voting, changing marital status, and obtaining or keeping a driver’s license may not be taken away unless the court makes specific findings. It also requires a beginning inventory of the ward’s assets, sets a five-year maximum duration for guardianship orders unless renewed, and requires periodic judicial review to determine whether the guardianship should continue. The bill confirms that a valid durable power of attorney for health care generally takes precedence over a guardian’s medical decision-making authority.

Impact

If enacted, HB 1262 would amend section 30.1-28-04 of the North Dakota Century Code and change how courts establish, scope, and review guardianships for incapacitated persons. It would impose more detailed findings before appointment, require courts to consider existing powers of attorney and less restrictive alternatives, and narrow guardianship orders to specific areas such as residential, educational, medical, legal, vocational, and financial decisionmaking. It would also add inventory, notice, and periodic review requirements, affecting courts, guardians, wards, attorneys-in-fact, and interested persons involved in guardianship proceedings.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have been presented as a reform measure aimed at protecting autonomy and ensuring guardianship is used only when necessary. However, the voting history shows it failed decisively on House second reading, with only 4 yeas and 90 nays, indicating little legislative support. No committee transcript is available, so the recorded sentiment is inferred primarily from the bill’s text and the strong negative floor vote.

Contention

The main points of contention likely centered on the bill’s stricter evidentiary requirements, mandatory consideration of alternatives to guardianship, and limits on court discretion in assigning guardian powers. Opponents may have viewed the proposal as adding procedural burdens or constraining judges and guardians in cases where immediate or broader authority is needed, while supporters likely saw it as a necessary safeguard against overbroad guardianships and unnecessary loss of personal rights. The bill’s provisions preserving voting, marriage-related rights, and driving privileges absent specific findings may also have been controversial.