Guardian petitions and medical reviews must consider other options

Petitioners must say they provided information about less restrictive options, and a physician must assess whether those options can meet the person's needs. These requirements apply when someone petitions for a guardian for a proposed protected person. The physician's assessment must also identify the person's limits and explain how they affect the person's safety and basic needs. The petitioner must provide the assessment before the court makes its finding under NRS 159.054.

Guardians of the person must explain in their reports why other options are not being considered instead of guardianship. The reports cover the protected person's condition and the guardian's work. Reports are due each year, within 10 days after a move to a secured residential long-term care facility, and at other times the court orders.

A petitioner may ask the court to end or change a guardianship if the protected person has entered another option in its place. A protected person, guardian, or another person may petition about a guardianship of the person, the estate, or both. The petitioner must prove this basis by clear and convincing evidence. The court may also grant a petition if ending or changing the guardianship is in the person's best interests. The court considers this basis when deciding a petition to end or change a guardianship.

People seeking to transfer a guardianship or conservatorship order to Nevada must show that other options were considered and explain why they are not reasonable. These rules apply to petitions to transfer a guardianship or conservatorship from another state to Nevada. A court may deny the transfer if it finds that other options were not considered in Nevada or the other state. A denial does not prevent a new petition for guardianship in Nevada.

Protected people have the right to learn about options that may be less restrictive than guardianship. This right applies to each protected person.