A 'Bill of Right' unveiled for guardianships in New Mexico
The data provided by the state Administrative Office of the Courts is now routinely collected each year. But some seven years ago, New Mexico state courts couldn't say how many people had been appointed guardians to help manage their lives or finances. Tracking was so inconsistent that in Bernalillo County, for instance, two special masters undertook spot checking of cases, and even made home visits, to make sure those under guardianship were still alive.
Guardianship is considered the last resort for a person deemed by a state court judge to lack capacity to make his or her own decisions. A guardian, more often than not, is a family member. But about a quarter of appointed guardians last year were professionals who are paid to make personal and/or property decisions on behalf of an individual, according to the latest review of cases representing the time period from January 2024 to December 2024.
Last year, 5,130 people in New Mexico had legal guardians, the AOC data shows. Fifty-seven percent were men, while 43% were women.
Though guardianships are more typically associated with senior citizens, court case reviews showed the biggest group in New Mexico last year was between 31 and 50 years old. The total in that category was 1,841, followed by 1,342 ages 18 to 30; 1,127 between 51 and 70; and 820 ages 71 and older.
'Treated with dignity'
Several waves of legal reforms have been enacted since 2018, after the Journal began an ongoing investigation into the legal process that critics complained was ripe for corruption given the power granted to court-appointed guardians and conservators.
The ensuing reforms emphasized more oversight and monitoring of guardians and conservators to protect against neglect, abuse and exploitation. Incapacitated people in guardianships were called "protected persons."
Although the guardianship system removes many of a person's fundamental rights, the state Supreme Court has endorsed a "Bill of Rights" setting out what rights the thousands of New Mexicans with court-appointed guardians still retain.
"So many people who are the subject of a guardianship, a protected person, are not in a position to cull the statutes to understand what their rights are," said state Supreme Court Justice Shannon Bacon, a member of an interdisciplinary working group that created New Mexico's Bill of Rights.
She said New Mexico's version tries to simplify the basics and make them easy to read.
For instance, Bacon said, those under guardianships have a right to hire a lawyer. That can be helpful in the sometimes contentious cases, such as those that involve family members or other issues.
Among other rights, protected persons can attend and take part in all court hearings. They also have the right to tell the judge on the case their concerns or complaints about the guardianship and to be included in decision-making.
"If there is a question about what you can do, you have the right to have a qualified person of your choice evaluate your abilities and see if some, or all, of your rights can be restored," the Bill of Rights states.
And protected persons have the right to ask the court to review whether the guardianship should change, continue, or end, and "can ask if your guardian is right for you," states another of the 21 rights outlined.
"It's important to remember they (protected individuals) should be treated with dignity," Bacon added.
Bacon said the new Bill of Rights is posted on the state Supreme Court website, and will be disseminated to New Mexico lawyers and others involved in the guardianship process. "I will be encouraging that district judges post these in their courtrooms," she added.
Other proposed improvements endorsed by the Supreme Court died in committee during the recent state legislative session. One would have set out what should happen when a protected person dies and doesn't have heirs. Another measure that failed pertained to waivers of liability for conservators appointed to make financial decisions.
Bacon said New Mexico has become a leader in enacting guardianship reforms. Nationwide, the American Bar Association estimates from 1 million to 3 million people have had a guardian appointed due to age-related cognitive decline, dementia, disability, traumatic brain injury or other circumstances.
"I'm very proud of what New Mexico has done in changing the structure of adult guardianships," Bacon said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
8 hours ago
- USA Today
Texas AG asks judge to arrest Beto O'Rourke for redistricting battle fundraising
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is asking a judge to jail Beto O'Rourke, claiming the former Democratic congressman violated a court order by fundraising to support the dozens of state Democratic lawmakers who have fled the state amid its redistricting battle. The attorney general's request builds on a previous order, granted by a Texas county judge earlier this month, barring O'Rourke and his nonprofit, Powered by People, from raising money to help fund the Democratic lawmakers' exodus from the state more than a week ago. Paxton claimed in his filing to the Tarrant County court on Aug. 12 that O'Rourke violated the fundraising block by soliciting donations through the Democrats' ActBlue platform. "He's about to find out that running your mouth and ignoring the rule of law has consequences in Texas," Paxton said in a statement released alongside the filing. "It's time to lock him up." Paxton's move is the latest in growing escalations between Democrats and Republicans in the Lone Star state, as the standoff over GOP attempts to redraw congressional boundaries in Texas. The redistricting attempt could add another five Republican seats to Congress ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, and is seen as blatant gerrymandering efforts by Democrats. In response, Democrats decamped the state en masse, many taking refuge in blue-led states like Illinois and New York, to prevent the vote from taking place in Austin, Texas, where the Republicans' firm majority would all but guarantee the revised maps pass. Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott ordered the arrest of the dozens of Democratic lawmakers who have fled while Paxton asked the state Supreme Court to oust them from office over their absence, arguing they abandoned their seats. Texas redistricting: Which states have threatened to redraw their own maps in response to Texas GOP plans? In the first sentence of the court filing, Paxton quoted the former congressman at an Aug. 9 Fort Worth event saying: "There are no refs in this game, f--- the rules," claiming O'Rourke was "disparaging' the previous court order. In response, O'Rourke posted the full clip of his speech at the event to X, saying that Paxton took his words out of context in the filing. In the full recorded video of the speech, O'Rourke is speaking about the Democrats' attempts to put forward their own revised maps in states like California, New Jersey, Maryland, and Illinois, telling the crowd that blue states should redistrict now and "not wait for Texas to move first." "You may say to yourself, 'Well, those aren't the rules,'" O'Rourke says immediately after speaking about the Democrats' redistricting efforts. "There are no refs in this game, f--- the rules, we are going to win. Whatever it takes, we are going to take this to them in every way that we can." O'Rourke said in his post on X on Aug. 12 that the attorney general's office lied in its filing. "We're seeking maximum sanctions in response to his abuse of office," he said. "Taking the fight directly to this corrupt, lying thug." Along with jail time, the attorney general is also requesting O'Rourke be held in contempt and fined $500. Kathryn Palmer is a national trending news reporter for USA TODAY. You can reach her at kapalmer@ and on X @KathrynPlmr.
Politico
11 hours ago
- Politico
Black leaders feel under siege after Trump's DC takeover
None of that appears to have deterred Trump from launching his federal takeover. 'I think this is a moment for the mayor to question whether her strategy, which has been appeasement, has been a success,' said Paul Butler, a Georgetown law professor and former federal prosecutor. He described Trump's actions as a 'bogus declaration' but suggested there is likely little reprieve D.C. officials will gain trying to challenge the president's declaration in court. 'While the court reviews whether he appropriately has this power, the Supreme Court and other lower courts [have] generally allowed him to … proceed with what he wants to do, until they get around to deciding the case,' Butler added. 'It opens the doors to further militarization of the police, not just in the District, but in the other cities that he named.' New York City mayor Eric Adams on addressed the possibility of Trump deploying federal assets to his own city following a string of shootings over the weekend that left at least two dead and eight injured. 'When you have those high profile shootings it sends a signal sometimes across the country that we're dealing with a crime issue in New York, and we're not,' Adams said Tuesday. 'I'm not part of the group that says we don't want to work with the federal government, but we don't need anyone to come in and take over our law enforcement apparatus. We've got this under control.' National Guard troops arrive at the District of Columbia National Guard Headquarters, Tuesday, Aug. 12, 2025, in Washington. | Julia Demaree Nikhinson/AP Trump has ignored the wishes of local officials and deployed federal troops in recent weeks. During the height of federal immigration raids in Los Angeles, which sparked protests that turned violent, Trump federalized some 2,000 California Guard troops against the objections of Mayor Karen Bass, who is Black, and California Gov. Gavin Newsom. Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott told The Recast that Trump's actions in D.C. and his singling out of other Black-led jurisdictions, including his own, is nothing more than a 'diversion and distraction tactic' to shift the focus from a volatile economic climate and the release of materials associated with Jeffrey Epstein, the disgraced financier and convicted sex offender.
Yahoo
15 hours ago
- Yahoo
San Francisco and other cities, following a Supreme Court ruling, are arresting more homeless people for living on the streets
Homelessness is on the rise in the United States, and in some places, it is becoming more common for the police to arrest someone for sleeping or living in a public space. In June 2024, the Supreme Court issued a ruling, Grants Pass v. Johnson, that determined it is constitutional to issue citations to or arrest homeless people, even when there is no available shelter. The ruling reversed earlier federal appeals court rulings from 2019 and 2022 that determined cities cannot enforce anti-camping laws against homeless people if there are not enough shelter beds available for them. The Supreme Court's ruling also determined that the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments does not protect homeless people from laws criminalizing resting in public places. As someone who has spent more than a decade researching homelessness and speaking with unhoused communities, I have seen firsthand how enforcement of such laws imposes unavoidable hardships on homeless people and makes it harder for them to find a stable home. A rise in punitive action against homelessness In 2024, there were an estimated 771,480 people in the U.S. who experienced homelessness on a single night, the highest number ever recorded. Since June 2024, almost 220 local measures have passed that restrict or ban acts like sleeping, sitting or panhandling in public in cities that include Phoenix; Gainesville, Florida, and Reno, Nevada. The rate of unsheltered homelessness, meaning homeless people who are sleeping in places that are not meant for humans to rest in, like parks or cars, is the highest in California. After the Supreme Court's decision, California Gov. Gavin Newsom issued an executive order in July 2024 that directs state agencies and departments to adopt new policies that remove homeless encampments. Those are temporary outdoor living spaces used by homeless people, often on public or private property. Following this executive order, more than two dozen California cities and towns adopted or considered adopting sweeping bans on homeless encampments. Not every leader has embraced this approach of what some observers call criminalizing homelessness. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, for example, rejected criminalizing homelessness as 'backwards' in June 2024. Nevertheless, many cities are enforcing existing and new bans on homeless encampments more aggressively than before the Supreme Court decision – despite evidence that such enforcement is not effective in dealing with the problem of homelessness. The impacts of aggressive enforcement Research shows that arresting someone without a home for sitting, resting or sleeping in a public place does not reduce homelessness. Instead, encampment sweeps and camping bans typically displace people from one area to another, while discarding or destroying their personal belongings in the process, such as identification cards, medications and sleeping gear. This approach also wastes public resources by paying groups to throw away people's belongings instead of investing that money into actual housing solutions, like creating more affordable housing options. Homeless encampment sweeps by police or other government officials are also shown to make people living in camps sicker, leading to increases in hospitalizations and even deaths among those dependent on drugs or alcohol. A punitive shift in San Francisco San Francisco is an example of an American city with a relatively large homeless population that has taken a more aggressive approach to enforcing bans on homeless encampments over the past year. A few weeks after the Supreme Court decision, then-San Francisco Mayor London Breed promised to be 'very aggressive' in removing homeless encampments. She also said that 'building more housing' would not solve the homelessness crisis. City data shows that in the 12 months since the Supreme Court ruling, San Francisco police had arrested more than 1,000 homeless people for living in a public space – a scale of enforcement rarely seen in the city's past. In the year leading up to the ruling, 111 people were arrested for illegal lodging San Francisco identified approximately 8,300 homeless city residents in 2024. In June 2025, I conducted a survey of 150 homeless people in San Francisco. About 10% of those people who gave a reason for a recent arrest reported being jailed for lodging without permission. Another 6% said they were arrested for trespassing. In the same survey, which is part of an ongoing project, 54% of homeless San Francisco residents reported being forced to move from a public space at least once. Another 8% reported being cited for another reason related to trespassing. A less aggressive path in Portland Other western American cities with large homeless populations have taken slightly different approaches to removing homelessness encampments since June 2024. Portland, Oregon, for example, began enforcing a new daytime camping ban in July 2024. But Portland police have only made 11 arrests of homeless people for camping-related violations over the past year. Other homeless people in Portland have received police citations for other offenses, like trespassing. As part of my June 2025 study, I surveyed 150 homeless Portland residents. About 49% of respondents reported having been arrested at some point in their lives. Though no respondents were arrested for camping in a prohibited place, 68% of people I spoke with reported that police or other government officers forced them to leave a public space at some point over the past year. And 13% of those who gave a reason for being cited by police said it was for camping in a prohibited place. Another 11% of homeless people were cited for some other reason related to living without shelter. As part of the study, I also interviewed residents who had been arrested while living on the street. One Portland resident I interviewed – who asked not to be named to preserve their anonymity – told me they lost the chance to rent an apartment because they were arrested in 2023 on a preexisting, unrelated warrant after a police officer checked their ID – just days before they were supposed to pick up their keys. 'Many unhoused people have warrants simply for failing to appear after being cited for sitting or resting in public space,' they said. 'I was supposed to go get the keys and, bam, I got picked up. I was arrested and went to court. Just me being in jail for five, six or five days screwed it all. I didn't show up to get the keys, and then (the landlord) couldn't get ahold of me, and they had no idea what was going on.' The weeklong jail stay not only pushed this person back onto the street, but it also put them back onto a waiting list for housing – where they remain in 2025. Looking ahead The Supreme Court's 2024 ruling did not mandate that cities criminalize homelessness. But it effectively gave cities the green light to do so without fear of violating people's constitutional protections. The effects of this ruling will be further felt with President Donald Trump's July 24, 2025, executive order that ended federal support for approaches like Housing First, a policy that prioritizes providing homeless people with housing, before any other needed help. The order also calls for involuntarily committing homeless people with mental illness to mental health institutions. As more cities consider tougher encampment ordinances, I think it is worth considering if more punitive measures really address homelessness. Decades of evidence suggest they won't. Instead, arresting homeless people often deepens their poverty, increases displacement and diverts public funding away from the real solution – stable, affordable housing. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Stephen Przybylinski, Michigan State University Read more: Supreme Court to consider whether local governments can make it a crime to sleep outside if no inside space is available Many more Denver teens have experienced homelessness than official counts show Supreme Court rules cities can ban homeless people from sleeping outdoors – Sotomayor dissent summarizes opinion as 'stay awake or be arrested' Stephen Przybylinski does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
