June 8, 2026 · Children and Human Services Committee · 17,322 words · 8 speakers · 241 segments
We call this meeting to order. Clerk, please call the roll.
Chair White. Here. Vice Chair Salvo. Here. Ranking Member Litt. Here. Representative Brewer. Here. Representative Brownlee. Representative Bryant-Bailey. Here. Representative Click. Here. Representative Dieter. Here. Representative Fowler-Arthurs-Chuckton. Representative Miller. Here. Representative Plummer. Here. Representative Ray. Here. Representative Richardson. Present.
Okay, we do have a quorum, so we will proceed as a full committee. I do want to point out Representative Odioso was not able to make the committee today, and so Representative Plummer has been swapped out, and actually their votes are identical. So it worked out very well. So we will begin the process. First, take a look at the minutes on your iPad. If you would just see if, in fact, you have any changes. Is there any changes to the minutes? Seeing none, the minutes are approved. Okay, we will go ahead and begin. We have several votes, and I know there's multiple committees meeting, so we'll go ahead and call up House Bill 635 for its fourth hearing, and the chair recognizes Representative Click for a motion.
Madam Chairwoman, I move to amend with AM underscore 139. 136 underscore 2895-2.
The amendment is in order. Please explain.
This amendment makes the following changes. It requires a PSCA to respond to and investigate the report of child abuse or neglect when the child resides in another county immediately and to notify the PCSA of the child's county within 24 hours of receiving the report and requires when multiple PCSAs are involved in a report for the PCSAs to determine the lead agency within one business day or receipt of the report. Secondly, it decreases the bill's requirements for in-person caseworker visitations from weekly to twice monthly in-person visits and once-a-week contact via video conferencing when the caseworker is not visiting in person. Number three, it codifies the existing DCY rules requiring weekly in-person caseworker visits with children on in-home safety plans and weekly contact and every other week in-person visits with children on out-of-home safety plans. Number four, it requires additional oversight by a supervisory team at specified key decision points for infants, children ages 1 to 5 with a substantiated report of child abuse or neglects, and children of a sibling or a child who has experienced a substantiated or indicated near fatality. Fifthly, it requires a PCSA to report to DCY when children who are five or younger under an out-of-home safety plan are the subject of a second report of abuse or neglect. Sixth, it permits DCY to adopt rules to broaden the type of children to whom the provisions requiring additional oversight and PCSA reporting apply. And finally, it requires PCSA caseworker training to include courses on safety and risk assessment for youth with disabilities and courses on interviewing persons under continuing law including individuals with developmental communication and other disabilities and intervening and interviewing techniques using telephone video conferencing or any similar technology.
Well, thank you very much, Representative. Are there any objections to the amendment? Representative Richardson, you wanted to?
Yes, yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd just like to say that when I reviewed the amendment, it still requires in-person casework visitation. And while I think that's very important, I have some concerns about its funding and its sustainability. And I would just like to say I will support the amendment, but I would like us to consider helping fund some more of those inspections.
Okay. Are there any other comments? I would just like to say I want to appreciate all of the work that's been done on this bill. I want to specifically tell the children that are in foster care that we see them and we care about them. And we see the foster families and the residential treatment providers and everyone who is trying to do the right thing. And we see the children's services workers. You have a very tough job, and I want you to know that we see you and we are listening. This bill has increased requirements. In the Ohio Administrative Code, there are very specific requirements for visiting medically fragile, at-risk children now. And I thank the Public Children's Services Association and the County Commission Association and all of the individuals who have spoken into this bill. and I anticipate that as this will hopefully move to the Senate, they will continue to speak into this bill. So that's the legislative process. When you introduce a bill, it becomes the people's bill. And the people speak into the process, and that is what is happening today, and it will continue to happen. I do want to say, though, whether it's perfect or not, or needs tweaked or not, or there's money or not, with our vote today, we are saying we need to do more, and we need to do better by the foster children in this state. I want to reread some of the stats that the Dave Thomas Foundation talked about last week in their adoption bill testimony. One in five youth who are aging out of foster care will be homeless after age 18, 20%. 50% will be employed at age 24, which means 50% will not be. Less than 3% will earn a college degree. 70% of former female foster youth will be pregnant by the age of 21 according to our current statistics. So this bill is about saying we are going to do better and we also need to tell our colleagues we need to do better in terms of funding for these children because it truly is invest now or we will be paying later. So with that, we accept the motion and... Well, yeah, clerk, please call the roll. Oh, no, wait. What is the pleasure of the committee? The chair recognizes Representative Click for a motion.
Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for those comments. I agree with all of them. And Madam Chair, I move to favorably report substitute House Bill 635 as amended and recommend its passage.
Now will the clerk please call the roll.
Chair White.
Yes.
Vice Chair Salvo.
No.
Ranking Member Lett.
Reporter Yes. Reporter Yes. Reporter Yes Reporter Yes Yes Representative Plummer Yes Representative Ray Yes Representative Richardson Yes
With a vote of 12 yeses and one no, the vote has passed.
And members, please make sure you sign the roll before you leave. And if you wish to add your name to the title, you may indicate it on the roll. And as far as harmonizing, LSC will do what it does to harmonize the bill. And I've heard many people say that, but right now I don't have the exact words. So LSC, please do what you do best. Chen Wei, while we have an audience here, I want to commend you. You do a fantastic job for this committee and others, and I want to thank you for the diligent work you put into all of our bills. Okay, so with that, that completes. Let's get this right. We have, I think, the fourth hearing on House Bill 635, and it will be favorably reported. All right. Did I say everything correctly? All right. So this is our most complex hearing today, so we want to make sure we get it all right. Next, we have House Bill 484 for its fourth hearing, and we will call up 484. I call on the pleasure of the committee, and I recognize Representative Click for a motion.
Madam Chairwoman, I move to favorably report House Bill 484 and recommend it to be re-referred to the Committee on Rules and Reference.
Will the clerk please call the roll?
Chair White.
Yes.
Vice Chair Salvo. Yes.
Ranking Member Litt. Yes. Representative Brewer. Yes. Representative Brownlee. Representative Bryant-Bailey. Yes.
Representative Click. Yes.
Representative Dieter. Yes. Representative Fowler-Arthur. No. Representative Miller. Yes. Representative Plummer. Yes. Representative Ray. Yes.
Representative Richardson. No.
All right. With a vote of 10 yes and 3 no. 3 no. Is that correct? 2 no. Okay. I miscounted. I'll rely on Kaylee from now on. With a vote of 10-2, the bill is favorably reported. And please make sure you sign the roll before you leave. And if you wish to add your name to the title, you may do so at this time. We now call up House Bill 647 for its ninth hearing. And the chair recognizes Vice Chair Salvo for a motion.
Madam Chairwoman, I move to amend with AM-136-2832-1.
The motion is ordered. Please explain.
This amendment does the following. It adds definitions of fraud against the publicly funded child care program and the misuse of public funds for purposes of law governing the administration of the PFCC program. Number two, it requires DCY, when it allows or approves the backdating of a child's PFCC attendance record, to pay the child's PFCC provider for the backdated attendance instead of giving DCY the discretion to approve or deny the record as specified in the most recent sub-bill. Number three, it specifies that dual authorization may be extended on a caretaker's parent's request for one or more additional exceptions.
Are there any objections to the amendment? Seeing none, the amendment is accepted. What's the pleasure of the committee? The chair recognizes Rep Salvo again.
I move to favor Chairwoman, I move to favorably report Substitute House Bill 647 as Amended and recommend its passage
Will the clerk please call the roll
Chair White Yes Vice Chair Salvo Yes Ranking Member Lutt Yes Representative Brewer Yes Representative Brownlee Yes Representative Bryant
No.
Representative Click.
Yes.
Representative Dieter.
Yes. Representative Alan-Ruther. Yes.
Representative Miller.
Yes.
Representative Plummer.
Yes.
Representative Ray.
Yes.
Representative Richardson.
Yes.
My vote of 12 yeses and one no, the bill passes. And I authorize LSC to harmonize this bill. Members, would you please make sure you sign the roll if you are interested to add your name to the title. You can indicate with a star on the roll. I now call up, so that is concluding the ninth hearing on that bill. Chair White is now calling for House Bill 7. And I call it up for its fourth hearing. The chair recognizes Representative Ray for a motion.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move to amend the amendment 136-849.
The motion's in order. Please explain.
This is a technical amendment that updates the bill to match the most recently enacted code sections.
Are there any objections to this amendment? It was a technical amendment proposed by LSC, and we thank you for that. Clerk, without objection, the amendment is accepted, and if you could please call the roll.
Oh, I need to make a motion, actually, for...
Sorry, we have not done this many bills in one time. Okay, what's the pleasure of the committee, Rep. Ray? Do you have a motion for that?
Madam Chairwoman, I move to favorably report House Bill 7 as amended and recommend its passage.
Now will the clerk please call the roll.
Chair White.
Here. That was just for me. Comedic effect, yes.
Vice Chair Salvo,
yes. Ranking member
Lit, yes. Representative Brewer,
yes. Representative Brownlee,
yes. Representative Bryant-Bailey,
yes. Representative Click,
yes. Representative
Dieter, yes. Representative
Fyeller-Cother, yes.
Representative Miller, yes.
Representative Plummer, yes.
Representative Ray, yes.
Representative Richardson, yes.
Okay, I am now going to call up Senate Bill 218 for its, oh, with a, that is a unanimous passage of that bill, 13 yeses. And with that, we move to ask LSC to harmonize that bill, and we are favorably reporting it. So with that, we will call up Senate Bill 218. First hearing, please be sure to sign the roll and put your star by your name if you want to. co-sponsor. Welcome, Senator.
Thank you, Chairwoman. Chair White, Vice Chair Salvo, Ranking Member Lett, and members of the House Children and Human Services Committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide sponsor testimony on Senate Bill 218, which upon enactment would provide an exemption to licensure for family child care providers certified by the Department of War. I'm going to pause right there because this committee is very familiar with this bill. It was House Bill 464, sponsored by Representative Richardson. I want to give her a shout-out and a huge thanks for paving the way on this. I believe this committee voted that bill out 10 to 0, and then that overall House, you guys passed it 97 to 0 as well. So I'm going to greatly shorten this. In the past, I have worked in collaboration with the Department of War on numerous interstate licensure compacts and learned about the hardships that military families Many of these hardships stem from the fact that on average military families usually move every two to three years, making it difficult for spouses to secure employment and for families to access quality child care. The Department of War has reported that in September of 2023, there were only 793 Department of War certified family child care providers, and that number was up to 814 in June of 2024. These family child care providers not only offer our military families dependable and personalized care in home-like settings, but 87% of these providers in fiscal year 2021 were themselves a military spouse. The point of this legislation is that these child care providers get certified by the Department of War, and Ohio is requiring them currently to also receive licensure from our state. That is not only duplicative licensure, but the fact of the matter is, as you guys are well aware, the Department of War even has higher standards than the state of Ohio, including their certification has to be renewed annually. All employees have to pass a background check. Minimum liability insurance is over $500,000. They have to complete 40 hours of orientation, 24 hours of training annually, including CPR. They have unannounced monthly home visits, unannounced annual safety, fire and health, water, and multidiscipline team inspections in accordance with its requirements. It's also important to note that those family child care providers who would operate solely with a Department of War certification, so they wouldn't have the state license or just the Department of War, they would be limited to caring for eligible Department of War children. And so you would think, who would those be? That would be active duty military personnel, obviously, Department of War civilian employees, reserve component members on active or inactive duty training, combat-related wounded warriors, their children, and the children of surviving spouses of members deceased in combat-related incidents. Additionally, of interest, military family child care providers are funded through a combination of parent fees and Department of War subsidies. This was a question that came up in the Senate. So it's not Medicaid funded. So this is how it is funded. Senate Bill 218 seeks to eliminate this redundant licensure and certification process by simply adding family child care providers certified by any branch of the United States Armed Forces, including the United States Coast Guard, to a list of providers exempt from the requirements of Chapter 5104. This legislation, again, was drafted in collaboration directly with the Department of War with input from the Department of Children and Youth. Our liaisons at the Department of War and the Department of Children and Youth also provided a side-by-side comparison chart of licensure and certification requirements, and so you should have that as a general submission on your iPads. and if you review that again you'll see that the Department of War has got a very, very high standard even higher than what Ohio requires so far this legislation has passed in 28 states with pending legislation in Illinois, New York, South Carolina and Ohio passing Senate Bill 218 would add Ohio to a growing list of states seeking to expand access to quality child care for military families reduce barriers for military spouses who support their families by operating family child care homes and move frequently between states with differing licensure requirements Again, I would like to thank this committee for passing House Bill 464 out unanimously, as well as your entire House of Representatives that did so as well. So with that, thank you for letting me come here today. Thank you for your consideration of this bill, and happy to answer any questions that you might have.
Thank you, Senator. Are there any questions for the witness? Representative Richardson.
I just want to say, well said, Senator, well said. I think you did a terrific job there, and not so much a question, but I wanted to note that this is a priority for the DOW, and this duplication is a barrier, and I so appreciate you and the initiative you've taken over there on the other side to get it done. So thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, and to the Chair and to Representative Richardson. and it's been a joy to work with you, and thank you for your service to our country as well. Thank you. Thank you.
Representative Brewer.
Thank you so much for the legislation. As these child care centers are certified by the Department of Defense, how will we know who they are? Will they, like, be a gold star on this? You know, if someone in my district, you know, wants to find one of these child care agencies, how can we know they were certified by the Department of Defense? That's all. Thank you. So to the chair and to the representative, So if there's someone just in the general community that's not associated with the military, right, they would not be able to go to this child care because, as I mentioned in my testimony, if they only have the certification through the Department of War, then they are only allowed to care for those children of, I mentioned, the wounded warriors and those of deceased. It's an active duty, obviously, so it wouldn't be an issue. Thank you.
Are there any other questions for the witness? I do want to thank you, Senator Rogner. You have played a key leadership role in many of these priority bills over the years, and we truly appreciate you taking a leadership role, and we are glad you brought this bill. I know there's 5,000 to 6,000 active duty Air Force in Ohio, plus other military members. So we thank you for your testimony today. And with that, we will call up Brittany Bolton, who has submitted testimony for today on Senate Bill 218. Welcome.
Good afternoon, Chair White, Vice Chair Salvo, Ranking Member Lutt. I'll be brief. I know there's a lot of committee activity today. Thank you for receiving Groundwork's proponent testimony on Senate Bill 218, and a special thank you to Representative Richardson for championing the companion legislation here, House Bill 464 in this chamber. Groundwork Ohio is the state's leading early childhood advocacy and research organization, and we're here to support the rigorous certification system already in place that the Department of War family child care providers utilize in removing the unnecessary duplication in Ohio's licensing process while maintaining strong safety standards for young children. By aligning the state policy with existing federal oversight, as Senator Roegner described, this bill will offer a practical solution that supports military families and providers who serve them without reducing any accountability or quality of care for young children. In addition to sustainable investments, building capacity in Ohio's child care system requires the ability to build both the workforce of child care providers and new child care programs. Senate Bill 218 will help remove barriers for qualified military-certified family care providers to offer additional care in Ohio and contribute in a really targeted way to the state broader efforts to reduce access barriers and create safe affordable care We appreciate the thoughtful very targeted approach of Senate Bill 218 and its companion bill House Bill 464 We recommend favorable consideration and I happy to answer any questions
Thank you, Ms. Bolton. Are there any questions for the witness? Seeing none, we thank you for your time today. I did want to point out, so thank you for coming in. Thanks, Chairwoman. I did want to point out there is a written testimony by David Cordonier on your iPads from the Dayton Development Coalition. We did hear from Mr. Cordonier in the committee previously. Because we have basically heard this bill, voted on this bill in committee and on the House floor, we are moving this bill through today with the votes. And I understand that there is broad support for this again. So with that, what's the pleasure of the committee? I call on Rep. Richardson.
Madam Chairwoman, with enthusiasm. I move to favorably report out SB 218 and recommend its passage.
Thank you. Will the clerk please call the roll?
Chair White.
Yes.
Vice Chair Salvo.
Yes.
Ranking Member Lett.
Yes.
Representative Brewer.
Representative Brownlee. Yes.
Representative Bryant-Bailey.
Yes.
Representative Click.
Yes.
Representative Dieter.
Yes.
Representative Fowler-Arthur.
Yes.
Representative Miller.
Yes.
Representative Plummer.
Yes.
Representative Ray.
Yes.
Representative Richardson.
Yes.
All right. With 13 affirmative votes and zero negative votes, the bill passes. Members, please be sure to sign the roll and indicate if you would like to add your name to the title with an asterisk on the roll. All right. So now we are going to go backwards just a little bit to House Bill 865. And I move to call up House Bill 865 for its third hearing. And the chair recognizes Vice Chair Salvo for a motion.
Madam Chairwoman, I move to amend with AM-136-2818.
All right, the motion's in order. Please explain.
This amendment removes a provision that would have allowed a child who is 12 years of age or older and part of a sibling group to consent to the creation of profiles on behalf of the child's siblings if the siblings are not able to give consent. It also requires that the profile of a child who is part of a sibling group to indicate that the child is part of a sibling group and to specify the number of children in the sibling group.
All right. The motion is in order, as we said, and are there any objections to this amendment? Hearing none, the amendment will be accepted. Will the clerk... What is the pleasure of the committee right now?
Rep Salvo. Madam Chairwoman, I move to favorably report House Bill 865 as amended and recommend its passage.
All right. Will the clerk please call the roll?
Chair White.
Yes.
Vice Chair Salvo.
Yes.
Ranking Member Litt.
Yes.
Representative Brewer.
Yes.
Representative Brownlee.
Yes.
Representative Bryant Bailey.
Yes.
Representative Click.
Yes.
Representative Dieter.
Yes.
Representative Fowler-Arthur.
Representative...
Oops, she's here. Sorry. I apologize.
Yes.
Representative Miller.
Yes.
Representative Plummer.
Yes.
Representative Ray.
Yes.
Representative Richardson.
Yes.
With 13 affirmative and zero negative, the bill has passed. Please, LSC, harmonize this bill. And members, if you would sign, and then if you would like to co-sponsor, please indicate by an asterisk. Thank you, everyone, for all of these votes. And I believe we have completed all of our votes, right? All right. So right now we got a little out of order but we are moving right now to Senate Bill 35 for its second hearing So I now call up Senate Bill 35 and the chair recognizes a number of witnesses for testimony today I will tell you we probably have several witnesses, so I ask for people to keep their remarks for three to four minutes, and that way we will have time for people to have questions. And we will start off with
Kristen Henry, Advocacy and Protective Services, Inc., as a proponent. Welcome. Thank you. Good afternoon. Chair White, Vice Chair Salvo, Ranking Member Lett, and members of the House Children and Human Services Committee, my name is Kristen Henry, and I'm the Executive Director of Advocacy and Protective Services, Inc., or APSEE. I'm here today to provide proponent testimony on Senate Bill 35, sponsored by Sen. Serino and Sen. Reynolds. APSEE is a not-for-profit organization that provides guardianship, advocacy, and other decision-making supports, according to Ohio law and by the authority of Ohio probate courts for about 3,000 eligible adults who have a developmental disability. APSE specializes in serving individuals with the highest level of needs in the least restrictive manner possible. APSE strongly supports Senate Bill 35, which recognizes supported decision-making as an option for adults with developmental disabilities. Supported Decision-Making, or SDM, is a process for supporting people with disabilities to make their own decisions with the assistance of trusted family members, friends, and professionals. We all rely on other people to make decisions at times. So Senate Bill 35 provides a structure for people with disabilities who are competent but need some additional support to make decisions. Although current law does not prevent people from getting help to make decisions, Senate Bill 35 would ensure that this option is recognized and accepted in the community. That is why at least half of the states now recognize supported decision-making, including Texas, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, and many others. In addition, SB 35 provides important protections for adults with developmental disabilities who use supported decision-making. Supporters would be required to act in the best interest of the principal, disclose and avoid conflicts of interest, and accept the fiduciary responsibility of their role. Prior testimony on this bill in the Senate suggested that recognition of SDM would have a negative impact on individuals with developmental disabilities who need a guardian to make decisions for them. Our extensive experience at APSE dispels these concerns. We serve people with a wide range of abilities and needs, and we see that SDM can benefit people who have the capacity to make decisions without reducing the effectiveness of the guardianship supports that others need. In response to testimony on this subject in the Senate, SB 35 was previously amended to focus on SDM plans, written documents in which the person, called the principal, identifies the trusted individuals, called supporters, who will assist them in understanding, communicating, and implementing their decisions. The version of the bill before you that passed the Senate unanimously also clarifies that the principle must be of sound mind, the same standard under Ohio law to make a will or a power of attorney. For the time's sake, I'll skip a couple points related to a soon-to-be-published study that supports some of these principles. Currently, adults with DD and their families who attempt to use SDM experience barriers due to a lack of recognition in Ohio law. SB 35 provides critical recognition of SDM plans as one option for adults with disabilities who have legal capacity to make their own decisions. Importantly, any person who needs a guardian because they are legally incompetent will still have their needs met. SB 35 does not impinge on the authority of guardians or affect Ohio's current guardianship process in any way. To be clear, nothing in SB 35 makes any changes to current law about guardianship. Ohio's current process and standards for establishing a guardianship will continue to be available unchanged. And again, I'll skip over the details of that that are written in my testimony. SB 35 allows adults with developmental disabilities to get the support they need with important protections that do not currently exist for the informal types of SDM that families have tried to use.
By passing SB 35, Ohio would be adding protections for adults with DD to ensure that they can get help from supporters who have their best interests in mind. Chair White and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony as a proponent on SB 35, and I'm happy to answer your questions at this time. Thank you. Are there questions for the witness? All right. Ms. Henry, thank you for coming in. I do have a question for you. So I think to help us kind of categorize, because there's been some discussion, and there'll be more discussion today, but just to try to figure out. So the guardianship is decided by a court.
Correct.
If the court deems someone not to need guardianship, there's still power of attorney available for that individual and their family members or designated person to act on their behalf. Could you please explain the difference between the power of attorney, what they can do there, and what they can do in supported decision-making? Again, in practical terms for us, why is this needed? Why do we need to go from informal to informal? and what are the guardrails put in place to protect individuals so that they are not exploited by someone who may have, you know, they're not in the guardian role, but someone could take advantage of them. So I think those are some of the questions I've heard as we've talked about this bill. It would be helpful for you to just kind of walk us through that.
Absolutely. Thank you, Chair White, for the question. So to start out by kind of differentiating between these three things. So we have guardianship, which, as you said, would go through the probate courts. So someone who wants to be the guardian would apply to their county probate court, show why the person needs a guardian. That involves providing a statement of expert evaluation signed by a physician or a psychologist and showing that the person needs a guardian and that the person applying is the appropriate person to be that guardian. That can be for guardianship of the person, daily kinds of living decisions, medical decisions, things like that. Or it can be guardian of the estate, managing money and property, or it could be both. So that all goes through the probate court and is based on a finding that the person is legally incompetent. Then you mentioned powers of attorney. In Ohio law, we recognize two specific kinds. We recognize health care powers of attorney, which we typically think of as like a durable health care power of attorney, which frankly everyone in this room should have because you might want to designate who's going to make decisions for you if you become incapacitated unexpectedly. So that would be something that any person who is of sound mind, as our law says, can create a power of attorney and designate that person who would make decisions for them if a doctor determined they were incapacitated. That would spring into action when they become incapacitated. And then financial power of attorney could be by anyone. Maybe you need someone to sign home buying papers on your behalf or otherwise manage financial matters for you. You could sign a financial power of attorney. So a key difference between that and what I'll get into next, supported decision making, is that under guardianship or a power of attorney, that designated individual, the guardian or what we call the attorney, in fact, is making the decisions for the person. And so that where you can sometimes see stories in the news of someone taking advantage of a power of attorney a financial power of attorney to maybe liquidate someone accounts because they taken authority You turned over that authority to make those decisions to that attorney in fact So some people describe a power of attorney as like a loaded gun. You have to trust that the person is going to handle it appropriately. Supported decision-making, by contrast, kind of replicates, but in a more formal way, the kinds of advice and support that each of us sometimes get from people in our lives to make decisions that are, you know, maybe outside of our area of expertise. Maybe you have a nurse or a doctor in your family who you go to when there's a new diagnosis and you're trying to understand that, something like that. So supported decision making, the key difference is that the person, which is called the principal in SB 35, retains the authority to make their own decisions. So they're not turning that authority over to an attorney, in fact, in a power of attorney who can then spend all of their money or something like that. You're not turning it over to a guardian that's gone through that guardianship process. It's a way of kind of documenting, I need a little extra help to make decisions. This is my process for doing that. These are a couple of trusted people in my life who I'm planning to go to when I need help understanding my options, communicating what I want, or carrying out my decisions. So the key difference there is that we're not turning over any sort of authority. That person is called a supporter for a reason. They're supporting the person to make their own decisions. So then when we get into what are the protections for people under SDM plans, that's the first one, is that you're not turning that authority over to someone else. At APSE, we try to provide the highest level of guardianship services possible, and so we think very highly of guardianship. Unfortunately, we do know that in this state and nationally there have been stories of bad guardians who abuse that authority. So same with powers of attorney. Whereas in SDM, you're not turning over that authority. It's kind of a formal way of getting advice and support and involving someone in decisions when they need a little bit of extra help. So that's the first protection for people. The second protection is that there are several provisions within SB 35 that help people more than what we've got today when we just have informal types of SDM out there. So the first being a prohibition on conflicts of interest. So if I'm a supporter for someone and they are asking for help with a decision that involves me, maybe I'm a provider of services and they're trying to choose a provider of services, the bill would say I can't be involved in that decision. I can't help them with that decision because that's a conflict of interest. It would also be true that I have a fiduciary responsibility. so I have a legal duty to act in their best interest, not in my interest. So those are several of the provisions that are in the bill that provide protection. And what I would emphasize is that people are out there. Stephanie is going to testify momentarily about her experience getting support to make decisions, and her experience was great. If someone were taking advantage of someone right now, we don't have protections for that the way that SB 35 would provide those protections. Did I answer every part of your question?
You did, and I just want to just clarify a few things. Thank you, Ms. Henry. If, in fact, someone signs this document that I will be this supportive decision-making supporter, what if they get the – this is the fear, right? What if they have someone who wants them to designate them? does that document not protect the person who is the supporter in helping and influencing that person so that the the other side of the coin that i need to help us all understand these are the issues i just want to get them all out of what people have expressed How does that document not protect a bad player who might influence someone that they want to be their supporters so then the document kind of gets them off the hook if, in fact, they're steering them in a wrong direction? That's kind of what I'd like you to address. Thank you, Chair White.
So the answer to that is that in Senate Bill 35, it says that the protections for supporters and for third parties is only for people who are acting in good faith. So if somebody were to be clearly acting not in good faith, then they would not have the protections that are in that bill. And in the Ohio DD system, we do have our major unusual incident system that addresses abuse, neglect, exploitation of various kinds. And so the bill does refer to that, that if someone were to identify that a person is acting not in the person's best interest or engaging in exploitation, that that would need to be reported to the team, and the members of the team would be mandatory reporters in that major unusual incident system. All DD employees, APSE employees, everyone who's involved in that system is a mandated reporter.
All right. Thank you very much. Any other questions? Yes, Rep. Brewer.
Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you. Last session, we just recognized augmentative MUT, the recognition of it. Does this allow for people who use those devices to also be part of this as well? You know, someone who may have a disability, would they be required to use those devices to communicate, you know, what may be done or what may not be done? And is it in the bill to specifically say a person has this type of disability? that needs that, will it be in there? Thank you. Through the chair to the representative, yes. So the bill does recognize that just because someone communicates differently, including with assistive technology, that that's not a reason to say they can't make their own decisions. And so I think that's a very important protection that we hear from a lot of people with developmental disabilities who have speech impairments. And we actually had involvement in a situation a month or two ago where because of the way the person communicated, not specifically with the device, but because of their communication impairment, their medical team would not follow through with a planned procedure, even though their parent was trying to support them in this SDM type of capacity. And so that's exactly the kind of example that we think would be helpful to have revised code to refer a team like that back to to say, this mom is acting as a supporter, here's the document, and here's where it says that just because he communicates differently should not be a reason to say he can't make decisions. No, I just want to make sure that that is actually in the bill. It does refer to communication.
Thank you. Anything else? All right, well, thank you for coming in today. Thank you. Next up is Jacob Dowling, and Jake is with the Ohio Association of County Boards of DD as a proponent. Thank you, Jake.
Good afternoon. Chair White, Vice Chair Salvo, Ranking Member Lett, and members of the House Children and Human Services Committee on behalf of the Ohio Association of County Boards of Developmental Disabilities, thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of Senate Bill 35. Ohio's 88 county boards of DD support more than 117,000 people with developmental disabilities and their families by offering funding, planning support, and a wide variety of services that help people live happy, healthy, and fulfilling lives. For most of us including people with disabilities living a happy healthy and fulfilling life means living as independently as possible It also means having control over our own affairs being empowered to make decisions about our own futures and having the support necessary to feel confident that our choices will be respected and upheld by those closest to us County boards help people with disabilities and their families achieve this goal in many ways. By using person-centered planning processes, county boards help people identify their goals and then partner with them to create strategies that will achieve them. By encouraging self-advocacy, county boards help people speak up for themselves and effectively communicate their views on topics that are important to them. And by engaging in supported decision-making, county boards help ensure that Ohio's guardianship system is reserved only for those who truly need the robust protection offered by court-appointed family and professional advocates. Supported decision-making is not a criticism of Ohio's guardianship system. indeed court-appointed guardians can and do help keep individuals safe, including those whose disabilities substantially limit their capacity to accurately gauge risk or fully understand the implications of major life choices. However, guardianship is often overly restrictive and inappropriate for those individuals who could thrive and otherwise make fully informed decisions on their own, provided that they have adequate resources and support to do so. Unfortunately, in many instances, guardianship represents an all-or-nothing decision for the courts to make when they are asked to balance a person's health and safety with their ability to make decisions about their own future. Supported decision-making offers a middle path that preserves both. Formerly recognized in statute by more than 25 states, supported decision-making helps ensure people with disabilities understand and can communicate fully the choices they make while offering a formal structure that courts can rely upon to forego traditional guardianship. It also provides family members and loved ones with helpful tools that they can use to support a person while respecting their individual autonomy, preferences, and dignity. By creating plain language materials and resources that are accessible to all, offering extra time to discuss and consider important decisions that will have an impact on a person's future, and using custom-developed exercises and activities, such as making lists of pros and cons, engaging in role-playing and others, supported decision-making helps people fully consider the potential outcomes of their choices and gives confidence to those who may come in contact with a person at key life decision points. Supported decision-making also expands the number of people who are looking out for a person's best interests, from a single court-appointed guardian to many individual supporters who have been chosen as trusted sources of information and guidance by the person with disabilities themselves. This greatly diminishes the possibility of an individual having too much influence over another person's life, thereby helping to prevent abuse, fraud, and similar acts. Last but not least, supported decision-making closely mirrors the path that all people undertake when making big life choices, regardless of whether or not they have a disability. By empowering people to seek their opinions of friends, family, and trusted advisors, supported decision-making ensures people with disabilities can enjoy the same level of independence, autonomy, and dignity as those without. Senate Bill 35 takes an important step forward in recognizing these fundamental human values by establishing in the Ohio Revised Code that people with disabilities are capable of making informed decisions about their futures. We are grateful for Senators Serino and Reynolds for this critical piece of legislation. We appreciate the committee, and I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Thank you, Mr. Dowling. Are there any questions for this witness? Seeing none, we appreciate your time today. Thank you. Next up is Scott Lundregan. Welcome Scott.
Thank you. Chair White, Vice Chair Salvo, Ranking Member Lett, members of the committee, thank you so much for the opportunity to testify in support of Senate 035 today. I'm here on behalf of Elevated. a statewide advocacy program for developmental disabilities that through its various programs serves thousands of Ohioans, I think, in every county of the state. But also as a father, you know, a very proud father of a child who has Down syndrome who's seven years old, and as an attorney and, you know, a lobbyist who's been working around this stuff a lot, I thought I'd just give some perspective as to, you know, instead of reading the testimony, just why this bill matters. You know, one of the hardest things you have to deal with as a parent is trying to plan for the terrible situation where you and your wife or your loved one is not there anymore. With developmentally disabled children, that becomes all the more challenging. And so for my wife and I, it was a very difficult process. You know, we want to put everything in our estate plan possible to make him live the life that he can live, the fullest life he could possibly live. as much autonomy as he can possibly have. And to that end, we put some stuff in our estate plan that, quite frankly, isn't recognized under the law, and we don't know how the probate court, sorry about that, probate judges, we don't know how they're going to deal with it, but we just want as much flexibility as possible to have him live with as much independence as he can. And why this is important, why supported decision-making is important and having it in the revised code is it recognizes it, and it also promotes it. And I can tell you that in talking to others who deal with these kinds of issues, virtually everything with estate planning and guardianship is all focused on what these people can't do, right? And support decision-making is about what they can do, what they're capable of, what they can grow to have more independence on. And it's just really important to have that as a component of estate planning and this whole process because people who are interacting, the guardians, in our case, We tried to set up a support group that's going to be there for James to push him and to see what he can do. And I'm fortunate to have gone to law school with a lot of friends that are very aware of changes in the law. And we want people to be pushing that envelope forward. And a lot of this stuff is really focused on the negative. And so far, as I know we've got some other witnesses that can really help with understanding how this fits in, it does fit in with powers of attorney. It fits in with guardianship. it's really just a very important recognition that our laws can be there to also support and to influence and to try and encourage people to be more independent and to live the fullest life that they could live. So hopefully that's helpful. I'm happy to answer any questions, and thanks for having me today.
Thank you, Mr. Lundgren. Vice Chair Salvo?
Thank you, Chairwoman. Thank you so much for your testimony. If you wouldn't mind, and I'm fine if you don't, Would you be able to share an example of what you put in that estate plan that you don't feel would be recognized now that would tie into this bill? Is that the question you all have? Yeah, through the chair.
So what we wanted to do in our plan was to account for a situation where, look, I've got four young children, and he's the second oldest. and just for the instance where my wife and I were to both pass away, what would happen right away? And it's impossible to put where did all the kids go, and it's a very difficult decision, and James is a different set of, I wouldn't say challenges, opportunities, and joy, but he's a different set of circumstances to deal with. So what we tried to do was set up this council of sorts that was going to be meeting and trying to figure out where the kids would go but then they also charged with exploring things like this supported decision making And then also with regards to our special needs trust that we set up the trustees are charged with paying attention to changes in the law and to try and do as much as possible to use money and to use resources to try and influence and make him more independent. So there's just a lot of stuff. I mean, I would say, yeah, the attorney that I was working with, she was like, we'll see how they handle it. but we wanted to give as much flexibility as possible. And having something in the revised code just like this is just very helpful to point to. But also for people who don't know about it, it promotes it as well. So hopefully that's your follow-up.
Yes, so again, this concept's still just a little bit nebulous for me. So in the estate planning, that support group you're identifying would be what this supportive decision-making would be. Is that?
It's more they're required to pay attention and to see things like this. So if this is enacted in the law, we're going to probably say that they need to consider, you know, support decision making and making sure that James's guardian has that kind of built into what, you know, kind of life he's going to live, if that makes sense. And that's what it's really, you know, it is like kind of throwing a lot of stuff out there, just like hoping and praying because it's really, really challenging with a child with developmental disabilities because you don't want to put a limitation on them in any way, shape, or form. And so I don't, you know, he's seven right now. I don't know what it's going to look like 10 years from now, but we just want as much flexibility and just to encourage everyone that's involved in that process to pay attention to changes in the law, to look for things like this that can be more about promoting independence, if that makes sense.
Thank you. Yep. Thank you.
Senator Richardson.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you so much for your testimony. I'm trying to be extremely sensitive in understanding, you know, what you're experiencing as well as trying to discern and understand how this bill affects you. And so when you started talking about your estate planning, I was wondering, is it possible, and maybe in the context of law, can you designate a supported decision maker, not just the council, but would you consider designating on his behalf, because he's only seven, obviously he's going to have to have some guardianship because he's only seven, but is it possible that you could have a supported decision maker designated according to this bill?
Through the chair, I think that would just be challenging. Under the bill, the principal has to be the one making the decision and signing off on it, and of clear mind. And that's really important to have that principle be part of the establishment of it. But then also, you know, with estate planning to be, I mean, you have to account for what's going to be like five years from now. It's going to be like 10 years from now. So it's more of a, I guess what I'm bringing up in my estate planning is to say that people are not just worried about, like, the negative side of stuff or what they can't do. Like, you have to, we're very concerned with, and we want to make sure that we're doing stuff to do the positive. What is he capable of? So that's why we put some, like I said, I don't know how effective it's going to be, but we just wanted to do everything possible to say, consider every tool, every option. We want him to have as much independence as he can. And it's important to note, too, this fits into the piece of the whole puzzle. This isn just a standalone and this isn the silver bullet so to speak It a big part of a much larger picture Thank you No follow Thank you Representative Brian Bailey
Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for your testimony today.
I am, and similar to Representative Richardson, just trying to understand from a place of understanding. So one thing that I think I'm caught on is the, you know, broad competency. And in your work with Elevate, are there examples from other states or places where you've been able to see this consistently done, where it's not being bounced back and ending up back in the courts because a lack of competency was found later? I mean, do you have any examples where this has been done in a way that has been successful?
Through the chair to the representative, I would say just generally, like, supported decision-making is a part of everyone's life. And, you know, what this is recognizing is that, like, for some, they need a little bit of a push to do the same thing that we all do when we're changing jobs, we have a little council we meet with and we say, should we do this? This just recognizes that some people need a little more structure, protection, and to be pushed to do it. So I would say, again, to my earlier comments, I think there's some that are alleging this is sort of a silver bullet, or it's going to be an alternative to guardianship. I mean, this doesn't really change that analysis. If guardianship's needed, guardianship's needed. If a power of attorney's needed, a power of attorney's needed. but what this does is it shows that we're making some positive steps to say, hey, it's not all about what you can't do, but what can you do? Let's try and facilitate some more independence if that's helpful. But as far as other states and what we've seen, I think it's a relatively newer concept. I feel like it's kind of been playing out over the past 10 or so years of getting more and more popular, so I think we'll be monitoring what happens in the future as well.
Thank you. Did you have a follow-up? Thank you, Madam Chair. You may have the answer to this question. I know you mentioned you're a seven-year-old child, but the bill says, will he even fall up under this? Because it says all adults with developmental. And then it says specified all adults. So will he even fall up under something? Will he be able to support the decision-making plan? How would that work with a seven-year-old versus, you know, the language of this bill?
Thank you. Through the chair to the representative, yes, you're correct. This is about the future for him, right? And so our plan that says push this kind of stuff is about that situation where he is an adult. But I would say even just having these discussions does, like, kind of put it in our heads. Like, for a seven-year-old, like, we do need to kind of push him towards more supportive decision-making, just like when I give him money at the pool to buy an ice cream, consult his brother. Make sure it's the right, maybe get vanilla because you don't want it to get all over your shirt or something. So little things like that. But yeah, it is for the future. It's for adults.
All right. All right. Thank you very much for coming in. Next up, we have Stephanie Leppard with the Down Syndrome Association of Central Ohio. Are you here, Stephanie? Thank you Stephanie for coming in Welcome.
Thank you. I am Jamie White, Vice Chair Savo, Ranking Member Lett, and the members of the House Children and Human Services Committee. My name is Stephanie Leppart, and I am a woman with Down syndrome who enjoys working at the Down Syndrome Association of Central Ohio, D'SACO, as Outreach and Advocacy Associate. I am submitting this testimony as a proponent of SB 35. I want to give you an example of how I use supported decision-making to decide to move out of my parents' house. Senate Bill 35 is important to me so that I and other people with developmental disabilities can get the help we need in making good choices for our lives without having a guardian who would make all our decisions for us. I like getting to make my own decisions with help from people I trust. I had been living with my mom and my dad for 37 years. It had been my goal to move out since I was in high school. At first, I was nervous and scared about moving out because it was a lot different from living with my mom and my dad. My mom and dad explained to me that I would still see them because they only lived 10 minutes away. They also said that if things didn't work out, I could move back home. When they said those things, that made me less nervous and scared. I liked how they explained that to me. When I was trying to decide to move out, I talked with some of my friends who were already living on their own. I asked them what it was like to live with a roommate. Many of my other friends still lived with their parents. Most of my other friends didn't live on their own. My service coordinator and I talked about my goal of moving out. She encouraged me to give it a try.
She helped me with some paperwork connected to my moving outs. At home, my mom and dad taught me how to do my own chores. So I pretty much already knew how to do those things when it was time to move out. Some of my friends who still live with their parents say that they like that I moved out. But they still want to live at home. and that's okay. Everyone gets to make their own choices. When my mom and my dad went to San Diego for vacation, I decided to stay at my mom and my dad's house to get some experience, to see what it would be like to be at home with my provider. It went well, and my mom and my dad said I did a great job while they were in California. My provider stayed with me part of the time, but not all the time. My mom had me do a lot of thinking about when I finally wanted to move out. Before I moved out, I spent the night at a friend's house to see what it would be like to sleep in a different room, to give it a try. It went well, but the air matches deflated while I was sleeping. I also encouraged some of my DeSarco friends to move out on their own. there are a lot of them who have moved out since I did, and it's all because of me. That's part of advocacy, encouraging my friends. At one point, I thought I felt a little homesick because I was used to living with my mom and my dad, but I don't feel like that anymore. When I am with my roommate, I feel right at home doing my own stuff, like when I lived in my parents' house, even though there were some things that were different when I moved out. They were a good difference. This is my fourth year living on my own, and I love it. Chair White and members of the community, thank you for this opportunity to submit this testimony as a proponent on SB 35. Thank you, Ms. LaPorte, for coming in today. And we are very glad to hear your personal story. We appreciate you sharing that with us. Thank you. Are there any questions for the witness? Representative Richardson.
Thank you, Madam Chair. And I just want to say you did a terrific job. Amazing. Amazing. I hope you know that. My question for you is are your parents your guardians still That a good question I don really know if they are
because I am 42 years old and I think I am my own guardian, but I'm not quite sure for a fact.
Thank you so much for that answer and I want you to know that it makes sense to me because you seem pretty, really, really independent, and that's exceptionally impressive. Congratulations. Thank you. I have no further questions.
Any other questions for the witness? I did want to say you are a fantastic 42, I will tell you. So thank you for your time and for coming in and sharing your personal experience very much. You did a great job. Thank you. All right. Next up we will have Thomas Schmidt. Is Thomas here today? Alright, his testimony is in writing and so you can take a look at that. Next up we will have Derek Graham.
Thank you, Chair White, Vice Chair Salvo, members of the committee. I appreciate you having this hearing and hearing about this very important bill. I am going to ask, please take the time to read my testimony and bear with me. I'm going to go off script a little bit, which will be no surprise to some people in the room. I, like Scott, who testified earlier, I am also the parent of someone with Down syndrome. I'm also an attorney. In my legal field for the last 17 years, my law firm has done nothing but work with families who have loved ones with developmental disabilities. That's all I do all day. I meet with families on a weekly basis where they're trying to navigate this decision-making process. Do we pursue guardianship? Do we pursue power of attorneys? How do we support this individual? And I'm feeling the weight of it, an extra, I'm feeling an extra weight in that decision-making process this year. My daughter with Down syndrome is 17. And so this coming March, I have to face the same hurdle myself of figuring out how does this work? What does it look like? Does all the stuff I've been preaching to my clients for all these years actually work? And I'm going to find that out for myself. The supported decision-making legislation, I think, is critically important to the lives of individuals with developmental disabilities. As has been previously testified to, there are 25 states plus the District of Columbia that has this legislation. There are seven other states that have specifically amended their guardianship legislation to address supported decision-making. decision making in that. So in all total tally we have 32 states in the District of Columbia that have legislation affecting supported decision making. I'm part of several national alliances of attorneys that do special needs work. I've been to national seminars where we have had these discussions and they would tell you it works in all of those states. Part of the team that worked on some of the initial drafts of this legislation, I personally reached out to other states to address a question that came up earlier. And in other states, Disability rights organizations raved about the legislation. Texas especially talked about how big of an impact, a positive impact it had on the lives of individuals with developmental disabilities. And as I said, as part of my practice, I do a lot of work in guardianship. And if I thought for one second this legislation would hinder or negatively impact the authority of guardians in their quest to support their loved ones with developmental disabilities, I would not support it. But I can assure you it does not is someone that does multiple guardianship hearings sometimes multiple hearings a day in guardianship I can tell you this legislation will make the lives of people under guardianship better It will not at all hinder the authority of guardians to protect and support their loved ones with developmental disabilities. As the parent of someone with a developmental disability, we have a saying that my wife and I do, that we live our life in the 1%. You know, 1% of the individuals in this world have the developmental disability my daughter has. Less than 1% have the heart defect she has. Less than 1% have rheumatoid arthritis at the age of 13. And despite all of that, she overcomes those obstacles. In fact, today is her first day at work, and I'm really excited to get home and hear how her first day of a real job went for her. But as we look into next year for her and what her life will look like, what supported decision-making legislation does for my wife and I to tell you just practically how it actually helps. Right now, the only thing Ohio law has to offer is guardianship, which says someone else makes her decision. We have power of attorneys, which I'm a big fan of. Everyone should have power of attorneys. And the day after my daughter turns 18, I'm going to ask her to sign power of attorneys. But power of attorneys designate who we want making decisions for us in certain circumstances. My wife and I, we don't want to make decisions for our daughter. On March 8th of next year, when she turns 18, I want to continue to make decisions with her. I want to make decisions behind. I want to stand behind her as she makes decisions and push her forward. She has the ability to do that. But to do that successfully, she needs patience, she needs time, and she needs support. If I slow down to her pace, there's not a single decision my daughter can't make. And that's the quandary that so many of my clients face. They're not worried about whether the loved ones with developmental disabilities can make decisions. They're worried about whether or not the world will support them as they take the time and acquire the resources they need to make decisions. make those decisions. And that's what this legislation does. It empowers families like my own to recognize individuals' abilities, to support individuals, to stand behind them. And I realize my four minutes is up. I love questions. I'm happy to answer questions. But I could go on and on about specific examples of how this legislation and supported decision-making plans will specifically make my wife's, my daughter's, and my family's life better. Thank you.
Thank you, sir, for coming in today. Are there any questions for the witness? Representative Brewer. Go ahead. You had your hand up first.
Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for bringing your testimony. Once again, I think my question more, Elijah, you kind of addressed it, power of attorney versus what we have here. What if the child decides they don't want their parent in their life with that type of form? Would that be okay? You know what I'm saying? Absolutely. whatever, alienation of the parent. And so when it comes to some decisions, will the court take the power of attorney form or will they take the other form? How would that weigh legally if there's something that may be conflicting? Thank you, Madam Chair. So with guardianship and individuals, their right to make certain decisions is taken and transferred to someone else, the guardian. And so in a guardianship, if someone doesn't want their parent to be involved, It's going to be harder, especially if that parent is the guardian. If there is a guardian and there's a parent, the guardian has a duty to promote positive and safe relationships within guardianship. So we get very fact-specific for whether a non-family guardian would incorporate the family. With a power of attorney in Ohio, anyone with the statute says sound mind, but case law behind that says that really means capacity. So anyone with capacity can sign a power of attorney. Anyone with capacity can revoke a power of attorney. So if my daughter were to sign a power of attorney saying she wants my wife and I to help her, Again that us helping her by making decisions for her not with her But if we were to do that then she could revoke that power of attorney in the same way that she could create it Unless there been some change in her health care capacity she could always revoke that. With supported decision making, of all the options and decision making supports available, that would give the broadest authority to the actual individual to have that say in who's involved in their life. Because with a supported decision making plan, they would have a plan in place where they identify the supporters. And those supporters would also be signing that plan saying, we recognize the order of events is this person's going to make the decision. And I'm not here to make the decision for them. I'm not here to speak for them. I'm here to support them and empower them to make that decision. Just one follow-up. Can the supportive decision also be revoked, same as the power of attorney? Absolutely. Thank you. Representative Richardson.
Thank you, Madam Chair. And actually, your answer answered my question. So thank you. I would say, too, that as a parent of my own children, when they turn 18, we want to make them independent. We want to make sure that even when they don't have developmental disabilities, that they have a path forward. And I, as a parent with it, you know, in your situation with a parent who has a child with developmental disabilities, I really just want to say I admire your willingness to really advocate for and take that step where you're relinquishing some of that power that you have so that you can empower them and they can grow and function as best they can without that overarching or the overreaching. And that's what I hear you saying. So I just thank you for your testimony, and I thank you, Madam Chair, for letting me pontificate. Thank you. Thank you.
In fact, you're fine. I have three daughters myself, and the two that don't have Down syndrome are the ones I would like to have guardianship for the most after they turn 18. Mr. Graham, I had one final question for you. So when your daughter turns 18, is there always a decision of whether or not she will need a guardian? You know, so is the court involved prior to her turning 18, and is the court involved when she turns 18? And I know we have a magistrate coming up next, but I wanted to, from your perspective, all the families you work with, what happens when their kids turn 18?
That's a great question, and I'm glad you asked that. There have been multiple times in my daughter's life, and this really always strikes me because of what I do for a living, where someone has told me my daughter will need a guardian when she turns 18. And it strikes me because it includes a doctor. The three times that's happened that I'm thinking of, it's someone who's never met my daughter. They've never met her. They've never talked to her. They've never looked at her medical history. They've heard that she has Down syndrome, and as a result of that diagnosis, there is an assumption that she will need guardianship as an adult. When she turns 18, no, there's not some automatic court review for whether or not someone has a guardian appointed. Someone has to proactively apply to become their guardian. But I face another danger with my daughter with Down syndrome that I don't face for the other two. And that is the hard reality is that because of her having Down syndrome, it would not be hard for me to find a doctor to sign a statement of expert evaluation saying she does need a guardian. it would not be hard for me to envision some scenario where a third party could anyone alive could apply for guardianship for my daughter and the reality is and I've worked on some committees with some great doctors at some of the fine institutions we have around our states and they would tell you the same thing it's hard for them to have accurate and appropriate evaluations when giving advice to families on whether they fill out those statements of expert evaluation or not. And so is my daughter at greater risk of having a guardian? Absolutely. Absolutely she is. When my wife and I pass and my other daughters step in, there was a question earlier about what that looks like. I always say I want my other daughters to grow up with an expectation that someday they're going to be their sister's care manager, but never their sister's care provider. I want them to step up so they have that role to be their sister's care supporter, but not their sister's care provider. But could other people, at the time of my wife and I's passing, just say, hey, this person has Down syndrome. She should have a guardian. Absolutely. She faces a risk. That's part of why I say we live life in the 1%. She faces a risk in that 1% that none of us face. And that is, and this is to no fault of our judiciary, because we have a great probate judiciary in Ohio, but it would be remarkably easy for someone to get guardianship of my daughter.
All right. Any further questions? We're done with him? You're good. You're good. I'm sorry. Thank you for coming in and sharing your story. Next we have Lisa Wiseman with the Ohio Judicial Conference, who happens to be the Chief Magistrate of the Montgomery County Probate Court. So welcome, Magistrate Wiseman.
Chair White, Vice Chair Salvo, ranking member and members of the House Committee, House Children and Human Services Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to present interested party testimony on Senate Bill 35 on behalf of the Ohio Judicial Conference. My name, again, is Lisa Wiseman. I am Chief Magistrate of Montgomery County Probate Court. I also serve on the Supreme Court of Ohio's Advisory Committee on Children and Families, Subcommittee on Vulnerable Persons, and Workgroup on Outpatient Treatment. Before joining the probate court, I was a board-certified specialist in estate planning, trust, and probate law, advising clients on guardianship and other matters. Senate Bill 35 would codify supported decision-making as a less restrictive alternative to guardianships for adults with developmental disabilities. This recognition would help conserve Ohio's limited guardianship resources and benefit probate courts statewide. The Judicial Conferences Probate Law and Procedure Committee has reviewed Senate Bill 35 and its predecessor multiple times, and we appreciate Senator Serino and Senator Reynolds incorporating our feedback and strengthening the bill by requiring supported decision-making plans to be in writing and to be witnessed by two witnesses or notarized, and by holding supporters to a strict position fiduciary standard. With these improvements, the probate judges have no further concerns with the bill. And thank you for this opportunity to present testimony on Senate Bill 35. And Chair White, in preparation for today's testimony, I did review the first hearing and I did prepare brief responses to a few questions that were asked in that hearing, if they still stand and if that would be helpful and or I'm happy to answer any other questions that the committee might have.
Thank you for coming in. And are there any questions for the witness? Did you want to elaborate at all? If you'd like me to, I can just very quickly summarize some of
the questions that were raised in the first hearing. One of the questions that were raised were whether or not supported decision plans would increase costs for families or burdens on the court And families may incur some costs creating supported decision plans but when appropriate, as we've discussed a lot, supported decision-making plans would reduce or eliminate the need for guardianships, which would thereby lower the cost for families and also court caseloads associated with establishing or maintaining guardianships. Another question that was raised was about whether supported decision-making plans would shift the burden of proof and guardianship proceedings or limit parents' ability to protect their children. And so introducing a supported decision-making plan, if one were created, would not shift the burden of proof and a guardianship. Any applicant that is applying for guardianship of another person is and would remain responsible for proving that a guardianship is necessary. Courts must consider credible evidence of less restrictive alternatives when presented with that evidence. However, if a supported decision-making plan were established and later became ineffective, either because of cognitive decline with age or malfeasance or nonfeasance, the court may determine that that supported decision-making plan is no longer a less restrictive alternative to guardianship and may grant the guardianship.
Can I stop you there, magistrate? So how could you clarify? So we're all on the same page. How's the court going to even know or how are the parents going to know that a supported decision making agreement has been completed?
The way that the court, somebody typically the way the court, the court would not be involved typically unless somebody has brought an action to the court. For example, a guardianship action. So if someone were to create a supported decision-making plan, likely the court would not be involved in the creation of that plan. Likely the court would not be involved unless there became a problem with the plan. So either the principal under the plan, the person with disabilities, they had a decline where they were no longer able to make decisions even with the support of the supporter. Or, as Ms. Henry indicated, if there was a major unusual incident report or other complaint or referral to the DD board or APS or another agency, then to the extent that that were to occur, somebody could apply for guardianship.
In other words, magistrate, the court has no idea, and a parent could have no idea, that their family member had created a supportive decision-making agreement with another individual. Correct? It's not filed with the court.
It is not filed. It's a document that's a legal document, but nobody knows about it unless the individual who arranges it, either party signs it and tells others, correct? That is correct.
Okay, so I guess I would like to ask, if you don't mind, you can't have then a guardianship and a supported decision-making agreement at the same time, or can you? So in a lot of circumstances, if you want to analogize to a power of attorney, for example, in a power of attorney, someone may have a power of attorney, and then somebody applies for guardianship.
And in that situation the guardianship if it is found that the power of attorney no longer is a less restrictive alternative to guardianship when the court appoints a guardian that agent then begins accounting under the power of attorney, begins accounting to the guardian. But the guardian is the ultimate decision maker. That would be the same situation with a supported decision making plan. If a guardian would be appointed, the guardian would step into the shoes of the principal, the person with disabilities. They would be the decision maker. The guardian would be the decision maker.
So, magistrate, you could have both at the same time. It's just the supportive decision maker would be reporting to the guardian, not to the individual with disabilities.
And I have not seen that there is a statute or a portion of the statute that addresses that there could not be both at the same time. So if it were that somebody had a supported decision-making plan and that was not previously terminated or revoked, if a guardianship were to be established, the guardian would have the complete authority to make decisions for the ward even without the supporter's support. But in other words, it doesn't say you can't do it, but how it would functionally operate is that the guardian would be the lead decision maker. And the ultimate, the only decision maker.
Okay. My only other question for you, I guess, is do you believe that, you know, the liability for the person who becomes the supportive decision maker,
So there's liability versus protections for both the individual and the supported decision maker. So who is more fully protected? And when you say that this is going to help with limited guardian resources more effectively and positively impact the probate courts,
I would like you to elaborate on that statement. So address, if you could, the liability versus the protections for both parties. and then how you're saying this is going to help limited guardian resources and positively impact the probate courts. So that's part of why you guys are supporting it.
Well, just to clarify, the judicial conference is neutral. So we are not a proponent or an opponent of the bill. So right now there are a lot of situations where individuals with disabilities are making decisions with the assistance of other individuals. But those individuals do not have the authority that this bill would provide. So they don't have the authority necessarily to communicate with providers and obtain that information. So this would provide that authority for them. And then to the extent that there is any exploitation, then that to the extent that other care providers were to witness that, there is mandatory reporting, as Ms. Hendry indicated, and those referrals would be made and appropriate action would be taken. One of those could be emergency guardianships or guardianship filings. Right now, there is, as Mr. Graham indicated, there is a, most of the time when individuals have children with disabilities, there's almost an expectation that guardianship is required when they turn 18 because they, a lot of times, that individual decisions there is a fear of liability and so there is not a respect for their decisions I have seen instances where individuals with disabilities have a guardianship in place and then later on, through additional support and additional services, they have become fully competent, and we've been able to terminate the guardianship. To the extent that supported decision-making is or would be a lesser restrictive alternative and provide for the ability for an individual with disabilities to make their own decisions with the support of others that was respected by medical providers and financial institutions and so forth, then that would be a lesser restrictive alternative to guardianship, which would reduce the cases that are before the probate court. it would also reduce the burden on last resort guardians. So individuals, I mean, in a lot of situations, the individuals with disabilities have family members who can apply for guardianship, but that is not always the case. And so when that's not the case, we have to look at other guardianship organizations like APSE or other last resort guardians. And it's very difficult. There are very few last resort guardians.
Thank you. And Rep Brewer for a final question. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Supportive decision-making versus guardianship. Supportive decision-making may say, I want to go to hospital A. Guardian says, I want to go to hospital B. Who's going to be the correct person? Because you're supporting the person. They say they want to go, but the guardianship is saying B. who would be the, what hospital would be correct, A or B? I'm not saying, I'm just saying, how do we come to that? Yes, so I do think it would be rare that, just to clarify again,
I don't think it would be an ordinary course where somebody's going to have both supported decision-making plan and a guardianship. But if that were the case, the guardian's decision controls. So it would be, I think, in your example, A.
And the last question, you can revoke the power of attorney. and it has to be revoked, go through the court or something like that. That is correct.
But the supportive decision is how do we know it's been revoked or not been revoked?
What would be the burden to say, I revoke it, and support a person to say, no, you're not. You know what I'm saying?
Best interest. So if there were a guardianship in place, whether or not it's a power of attorney or it would be a supported decision-making plan, in addition to a guardianship, If there was malfeasance or nonfeasance on behalf of the supporter, then they would file a motion to terminate the supported decision-making plan, or at least that's what happens with powers of attorney. They would file a motion to e-load limit or terminate a power of attorney. I would see it happening the same way with supported decision-making. And it would be up to the court's determination upon hearing evidence on whether or not it was in the best interest of the ward to terminate either the power of attorney or supported decision-making plan.
I'm sorry, I'm just trying to make sure. You know, the replication of it. What if the person with a disability wants to end the supportive decision-making process?
they can do that without going to court under the belt
what I'm saying is who's the burden the supportive person may say no they didn't and this person who has a supportive state yes we do you know i'm saying there could be i don't i want to make sure that you know the supportive person one is being also being heard but also not being taken advantage of at the same time so i'm just making sure you know because you you have it but there's nothing to legally say you
revoked it or anything there's no court to go to you could just easily just well i would encourage them to do that in writing first of all again supported decision making plans can only be created by individuals with disabilities who still have the requisite capacity to enter into them. And to the extent that they would want to revoke that, I would encourage them to do that in writing as well, just like the supported decision-making plan.
May I interject then, Magistrate? If, in fact, you just said the person has to have the capacity to do that, but there's no court involved deciding whether or not they have the capacity to do it. So that's where, you know, and then you mentioned the authority of the person that is the supportive decision maker. So they're getting an authority, you said, to get things from others. We're just trying to understand kind of the guardrails and how if we need to put any more guardrails so that there is kind of somebody seeing this. And it's not like I'm a person and I want a decision, supportive decision making agreement. But then I don't anymore.
But yet that person is doing these things to me that no one's seen yet to report to a court. Like what's the eyes on this and the transparency that would protect the person? We just need a better understanding. To clarify, the supporter does not have the authority to make the decisions nor take action, the actual action on behalf of the individual with disabilities. The individual with disabilities has to make the decision. And I think the persons who would be seeing it would be the persons who the individual with disabilities is making the decision with. So medical providers, financial institutions, and so forth. And so if they saw, or home health providers and so forth that are around the individual with disabilities. And so if they had concerns, they could make the appropriate referral.
Thank you.
and could you please clarify then, how would the medical provider and the financial institution know that there's a supportive decision maker in the scheme of things? I guess they wouldn't always know that there is, but in a lot of circumstances, I believe that they would be seeing the plan. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for your testimony and for taking the time to answer. our questions. You know, when I was reviewing the summary of the bill, one of the things it said is that a supported decision-making plan must be signed and acknowledged by the principal voluntarily without coercion or undue influence. And I'm wondering, how do you observe that? How do you measure that? How do you know that they have not had undue influence in their supported decision-making or their plan? Right. And so, again, these are not, the court is not
involved in the creation But I believe that is one of the reasons why the probate judges did feel strongly about the fact that there needed to be two witnesses or a notary public And so that there were some safeguards in that respect And so that the principal is signing it in front of other individuals, other than just the supporter that they are nominating.
And follow up. So when they come before you, you're making that assumption that all that has happened, that they were not under any coercion, that that supported plan is actually the plan of the principal, of the individual who may be trying to represent themselves or be concerned about an issue?
We would not be taking a position on that as the court unless it was raised. So, again, we are not going to be involved with the supported decision-making plan unless some sort of action is brought before the court, which would likely be that there has been a determination made by the applicant for guardianship that the supported decision-making plan no longer represents a less restrictive alternative to guardianship. Otherwise, it would not be in front of our court. or if there was a referral to another agency and some action was brought before our court or another court on the issue of undue influence or coercion or something to that effect, exploitation, those types of issues.
Just as a final statement, then you would have to look at the preponderance of the evidence to be able to make that determination.
We would look at the evidence and then apply the appropriate standard, burden-approved standard, and make a determination on what action, if any, needed to be taken on that supported decision-making plan. Thank you.
Vice Chair Salvo had one final question.
Thank you, Chairwoman. And this is probably a simple question. So when the principal has the supported decision-making document drawn up and it's notarized, they're the one that holds that. so it's not given to any other folks. I'm just trying to figure out how that is used whenever they're able to say, hey, this is who I'm choosing to support me in my decisions.
I think that determination would be likely, like with most legal documents, would be up to the principal. Whether or not they would, if an attorney helped draft it up, if it would be kept in the attorney's office with copies given to the principal, or whether or not the principal would keep the original themselves. But I would anticipate that it would be expected that, well, that decision would be up to the principal on whether or not they kept it or an attorney or somebody else kept it.
Okay. Thank you.
Thank you very much for your patience with us as we're trying to understand all the complexities. Really appreciate it.
Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity.
Okay. We have one final witness today, And that is, well, actually two. Alicia Hopkins, who's an interested party. Is Alicia here? Okay. And then we have Caroline Laraman. Laraman. Thank you.
Chair White and members of the committee, Vice Chair Salvo. I recommend where I let his left, I understand. But thank you very much for this opportunity to testify. I am a parent and co-guardian of two adults, son and a daughter with developmental disabilities. And I am here as an interested party because my children's rights are affected by this legislation and I appreciate all the detailed questions that you are asking I think from the questions we can see that there a lot of unknowns here that need to be worked out before any sort of bill that affects some of the most vulnerable people in Ohio is passed Substitute Senate Bill 35 codifies a practice whereby an adult may enter into a contract, and that's what this is, it's a legal contract, to appoint supporters to help make and implement decisions. And this is so regardless of whether the individual with developmental disabilities has the capacity to make a decision, has the capacity to vet the supporters, or even understands the nature and effect of the agreement. I've heard multiple times today that this substitute bill requires someone to be of sound mind. I urge you to read the bill. I urge you to have your lawyers read the bill. That's not what this bill says. Section 5123.682A does not, it's the only thing that mentions sound mind, and it does not require a person to be of sound mind. So please take a look at that. I am a lawyer as well. I don't think this would ever hold up if someone were to challenge this in court. People who are mentally incompetent can enter into these agreements. The only thing that this requires is that if you are of sound mind, you have to act with informed choice. That's a whole other problem because there's nobody on the other side able to give the informed choice like in a doctor-patient relationship. So that whole thing is a bunch of malarkey in a nice way. And it doesn't require adults who aren't of sound mind, they don't mention it here, but they don't require them to act with informed choice because if they're mentally incompetent, they can't act with informed choice. So this whole paragraph is incredibly cynical, and as a parent of children with developmental disabilities, I find it insulting because it puts people at risk.
Okay.
So it allows people who aren't competent to enter into these contracts. Once they're entered into these contracts, the supporters can access their personal data, their financial data, and can access their personal medical data. and they can do any actions, and that's the language in the bill, very broad, permissive language, any actions in the contract. So that means that if they wanted to, if they put it in the contract, they could implement decisions, they could sign documents, it's whatever they want. These are documents, there's not a set document, anyone can make it whatever contract they want. Now, there is absolutely no oversight over this process. No probate court is involved. And as you've indicated when you asked, the probate court doesn't even know this is happening. If there is a guardian, they don't know what's happening. If there are friends or families that are associated, they may not know what's happening. And once that contract's formed, it is the adult with DD's responsibility to ensure proper performance. Okay? So they have to determine if they're being unduly influenced. And if they are, they need to end that contract. And they need to do that on their own. And Representative Brewer, you asked those very good questions. They can do it on their own by notifying the supporter. But if there is a power imbalance, that is a very difficult thing to do. And as we all know, there can be power imbalances here. Now, if they're financially harmed, it's up to the person with DD, they the ones that have standing to file a civil lawsuit Now I don know if anyone tried to file a civil lawsuit but it not an easy thing to do Okay So as you can see this bill places significant responsibility on a population of Ohioans widely considered to be vulnerable, tens of thousands of whom have intellectual disability, meaning mental retardation, and many of those are incompetent but maybe never have been deemed incompetent because there's been no adjudication by a probate court because no one bothered to file a guardianship application. Now, this bill treats people with developmental disabilities with less care than any other Ohioan. It treats people with disabilities with less care than you or I. Okay? We, if we want to get decision-making help, must be mentally competent to sign a power of attorney. Individuals with developmental disabilities do not have to be mentally competent to enter into a supported decision-making agreement. Additionally, Substitute Senate Bill 35 even puts adults with DD under guardianship at risk. The bill is silent as to how an SDM contract interacts with guardianship. So Representative Brewer, you asked, again, very good questions. How do we handle this? If there's an SDM, does the guardian even know it's in place? No, it may happen. The guardian doesn't even know it's in place. And if it is in place, who is the decision maker? We don't know. The guardian isn't the ultimate decision maker. It's really the court that's the ultimate decision maker. We are an agent of the court. We're supposed to be the ultimate decision maker. But these are all very good questions that no one's figured out. and there is no language in the bill to explain how this will work. This is a huge opportunity for a nice lawsuit here. Thank you.
We were a little bit over, so if you want to wrap it up, that would be great. Okay.
Furthermore, this bill provides no restrictions on who may become a supporter. This bill actually allows conflicted people like county board case managers and ICF case managers to be supporters. They're the most conflicted people I know because they have an incentive financial to either drive you into the community or drive you to an ICF. There's no business for somebody who's as regulated as highly as these are by the government to be supporters. Complete conflict of interest. And it also doesn't include people who could be convicted of crimes of financial harm or other abuse from being supporters. People could be the worst person in the world and they could become supporters. Now, I want to say, in closing, that this bill, I have looked at every single supported decision-making law in every state that has one. This bill, I believe, is the most permissive bill in terms of the less protections of anyone in any state. And that surprises me, because I don't really consider Ohio citizens, given the way guardianship is handled in the state, to be wanting to not protect people with developmental disabilities. I think this is completely not reflective of the people of Ohio, and that scares me.
Okay. Well, thank you. Thank you very much for your testimony. Are there any questions for this witness? Yes, Representative Brewer.
Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Thank you, Madam Chair. You said you saw a lot of states. Has anybody gotten it right? Is there something we should be looking at? because I'm very concerned, as you said, having someone who may have been convicted of some type of financial crime or something being able to be one of those people. So has anybody gotten it right? That's my question.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Every state has recognized is that there's total vulnerabilities with this bill. Every state approaches it differently. Some states do not allow people who have been convicted of certain crimes. Some states require reporting. That's the other thing. There's nothing in this bill to require mandatory reporting. Nothing. It doesn't even require third parties who suspect that there could be something bad going on to report. Other states do have that language in here. other states don't allow conflicts of interest people who have been paid so it's so surprising that this bill has gotten this far and again as a parent it scares me of two children that are completely vulnerable
Any other questions for this witness? Representative Richardson
I want to thank you so much clearly you're a really protective guardian you are very passionate I think my question for you is can you I mean despite what you were just saying in the big picture can you consider that there is definitely a space to have the supported decision Do you think there's a path where we could scribe this where it would really, really help, let's say, your own children at some point in the future?
You could make this bill better, but you still can't protect people that have no involved family members on a regular basis. I urge you to read Kim White's testimony, who is a lifelong professional in the DD community, and she's seen it all. She's investigated sex abuse cases. She's been a waiver home provider and an ICF provider and an SSA in the county boards, a case manager. And she will give you examples of the type of things that can happen. We are not with our children 100% of the time. and so they can be easily, easily co-opted by people and there's been instances where people co-opt them and then they turn them against their family members and once that happens it very hard to undo because of the power imbalance So I think it works in an informal basis where people just like the young lady who testified with Down syndrome, she's using supported decision-making right now. There's been no action by the Ohio General Assembly. So she's asking her friends and families for advice. But what this does is puts people with developmental disabilities, many of them in a contract that they don't understand, and putting them possibly in a power imbalance in a relationship. It's differently in a guardianship, because if I'm doing a bad job, you can go to the court and say, Caroline Larman is a terrible guardian. She needs to be removed. There's no process like that here.
Any other questions for this witness? Ms. Larman, I did want to ask you, so some of the things you said, others said the opposite. So we'll have to kind of take a look at that and sort of see where we're at with the process. Like, these are excluded, they're not excluded. So maybe we can look at opportunities. I did want to just say for the record though it sounds like you more an opponent or an interested party Which one actually are you well i guess i an opponent um i an interested party though because i spent my whole day here and i never heard so many negative things about guardianship in my entire life so when people say guardianship's not going to be harmed it's going to be harmed here it's already been harmed i've never people have been talking about it as the worst thing in the world and i also want to let everyone know that a guardian is required we are trained to always listen to our loved one to the extent that they can provide the information. Every decision we make is in their best interest, and it is made by consulting them to the extent possible. So guardians are also using supported decision making in everything we do. And thank you for your passion and your care and your advocacy. I thank everybody in this room who came in and sat through this hearing, and here we are at 521. But thank you for your testimonies today, and we appreciate it. And so this will conclude the second hearing on Senate Bill 35. Are there any others who want to testify or any of business before this committee before we adjourn? All right, we're adjourned.