Is My Judgment in Your Best Interest? How Decisions Are Made in Guardianships and a Suggested Reform

Glenda Martinez and J. Alan Smith met on social media in 2008, got engaged in 2009, and then Smith got into a car accident in 2010 that left him with head trauma. Smith’s daughter filed a petition to appoint a guardian for him, which led to a long legal battle. This case highlighted the conflict between protecting vulnerable people and upholding their rights. This conflict has led to changes in Florida guardianship law, and it’s important for guardians and lawyers to understand how to make decisions for wards. A guardian is appointed by the court to make decisions for someone who can’t do it themselves, and they have to act in the person’s best interests. As a guardian, you have to be loyal to the person you are taking care of. This means you should try to figure out what they would want and make decisions based on that, even if it’s not what you would do or what seems right to most people. However, sometimes you also have to make decisions that are in the person’s best interests, even if it’s not what they would have wanted. It’s like a parent making decisions for a child. It’s a big responsibility, but you have to do your best to do what’s right for the person you are helping. When a guardian has to make decisions for someone under their care, they have to follow certain standards. In Florida, two main standards are used: the best interest standard and the substituted judgment standard. The best interest standard means making decisions that are best for the person, while the substituted judgment standard means making decisions as the person would have if they were able to. There are also other standards that could apply, but they are not supported by Florida law. It’s important for guardians to know when to use each standard when making decisions for the person they are responsible for. Under current Florida law, when a guardian has to make decisions for someone they are taking care of, they have to decide whether to use the best-interest standard or the substituted-judgment standard. The best-interest standard means the guardian has to choose what is best for the person they are taking care of. The substituted-judgment standard means they have to choose what the person would have wanted if they were still able to make decisions. A new rule from the Department of Elder Affairs, called Rule 58M-2.009 Standards of Practice, adds more rules for professional guardians in Florida. It says that professional guardians should consider what their ward would have wanted, unless it would harm the ward’s health. This means that professional guardians must use the substituted-judgment standard as their main guide for making decisions for their ward. Under the OPPG standards, guardians must make decisions based on what is best for the person they are taking care of. This includes considering the person’s past choices and weighing the evidence of their preferences. The authors believe that all guardians, whether professional or not, should use the same standards when making decisions for their wards. If there is any conflict between these standards and Florida law, the law should take precedence. If there is no specific law for a decision, then common law should be reviewed. Finally, Rule 58M-2.009 provides guidance for professional guardians, but the authors believe it applies the substituted-judgment standard too broadly. In the Lefebvre v. North Broward Hospital case, a woman was in the hospital involuntarily and there was a dispute about whether to end her pregnancy. The court said that usually, someone making decisions for a patient must make choices based on what the patient would want. But in this case, there were specific laws about ending pregnancies that needed to be followed. This shows that, in general, when someone can’t make decisions for themselves, the person making choices for them should try to make the same choices the patient would make if they could. If a person can’t make decisions for themselves because they’re too sick or old, a court can decide if their guardian can give their money or property to their family or change their will, but only if it’s what the person would have wanted. The court can also decide if the guardian can make big decisions, like getting a divorce for the person or making medical choices, but they have to make sure it’s the best thing for the person. A guardian can make decisions for a person they take care of, but they have to get court approval for important things. The guardian has to make decisions based on what is best for the person they’re taking care of, not just what they think is best. For example, they might have to go to court if they want to make changes to the person’s trust or if they want to move the person to a different place to live. But everything they do has to be in the best interest of the person they’re taking care of. The court held that the best-interest standard applies when deciding whether to terminate a guardianship. When a guardian is unable to determine what decision a ward would have made, the best-interest standard is the default for decision-making. The authors suggest that guardians should consider the ward’s desires and best interests when making decisions on their behalf. The proposed reform aims to create a clear and uniform decision-making standard for guardians in Florida. It would prioritize the ward’s wishes and best interest when making decisions, and provide guidelines for guardians to follow. This would help reconcile the current conflict between the law and professional guardian standards. In the meantime, guardians must be aware of the requirements for court approval for certain decisions and act accordingly. Guardianship law in Florida has been changing, and the guardian of a person who can’t make their own decisions can only do what the court allows. The person under guardianship is the main focus of the law, and the guardian has to act in their best interest. The court has to appoint a guardian that the person would want, and the law balances the person’s rights with the state’s interests in things like healthcare and benefits. The guardian can’t make decisions that go against what the person would want. In addition to the two main standards for guardians, there is a third standard that says a guardian should only be appointed if it’s in the best interests of the person they would take care of. There are also laws that say guardians must consider the wishes of the person they’re taking care of when making decisions. There are some concerns with certain laws about how guardians are appointed and how their decisions are made. When a guardian needs to make a decision about the ward’s estate or contracts, they should consider the ward’s wishes, their condition, their finances, and the needs of their family and friends. If there are disagreements, a court can decide what’s best for the ward. If the ward has given someone power of attorney, that person’s authority might be suspended during legal proceedings. The court may also need to consider how divorce or other changes in the ward’s life affect their estate. The laws about guardianship should be updated to make sure they are consistent. J. Eric Virgil and Stacy B. Rubel are lawyers who work at a law firm in Coral Gables. They focus on helping with things like wills, trusts, and guardianship. They are involved in different committees and groups related to this area of law. This column is written on behalf of the Elder Law Section.

Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/is-my-judgment-in-your-best-interest-how-decisions-are-made-in-guardianships-and-a-suggested-reform/