Supported Decision-Making Agreement Hawaii

What Act 284 Changed

On July 3, 2025, Governor Josh Green signed HB 320 into law as Act 284, codified under HRS Chapter 349F. Hawaii joined the growing number of states recognizing Supported Decision-Making (SDM) as a formal, statutory alternative to court guardianship.

Before Act 284, families had two broad options when a young adult with a disability turned 18: voluntary powers of attorney (which require full capacity to execute) or court guardianship (which strips rights). SDM fills the gap between these extremes by creating a legal framework for supported autonomy — the young adult makes their own decisions, with help from trusted supporters who assist with understanding and communicating choices.

Who Qualifies

Under HRS § 349F-2, a "qualified adult" is any person 18 or older who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, a psychiatric or emotional disability, or an aging-related impairment. The definition is intentionally broad — it covers intellectual disabilities, autism, traumatic brain injury, mental health conditions, and age-related cognitive decline.

The adult must enter the agreement voluntarily, without coercion or undue influence. If someone is being pressured into an SDM agreement by a family member or caregiver, the agreement is voidable.

What Supporters Can and Cannot Do

An SDM agreement designates members of the adult's "supportive community" — family, friends, mentors, or service providers — who assist with specific decision-making areas.

Supporters can:

• Help access, collect, and understand medical, educational, and financial information
• Attend appointments, meetings, and hearings alongside the adult
• Help the adult evaluate options and weigh consequences
• Assist the adult in communicating their decisions to third parties

Supporters cannot:

• Make decisions on behalf of the adult
• Sign contracts, medical consents, or legal documents for them
• Override the adult's choices
• Receive financial compensation for serving as a supporter

The adult retains full decision-making authority. The supporter's role is assistance, not substitution.

Execution Requirements

A valid Hawaii SDM agreement must meet these requirements under HRS § 349F-4:

1. Be in writing
2. List the names, contact information, and specific roles of all supporters
3. Describe which decision-making areas the supporters will assist with
4. Be signed by the qualified adult
5. Be signed or acknowledged by each supporter
6. Be executed in the presence of two disinterested adult witnesses or a Hawaii notary public

There is no mandatory state form — the statute permits "any form" that includes these elements. Having the agreement notarized rather than witnessed is often simpler and provides stronger proof of authenticity.

Third-Party Acceptance

One practical concern families raise: will doctors, schools, and banks actually accept an SDM agreement?

Act 284 addresses this directly. HRS § 349F-5 limits civil and criminal liability for third parties who act in good faith reliance on a validly executed SDM agreement. A hospital that allows a supporter to help the adult understand treatment options, or a bank that permits a supporter to be present during financial conversations, is protected from liability claims.

If a third party refuses to recognize the agreement, the family can point to the specific statutory protections. The Hawaii Disability Rights Center (HDRC) and Legal Aid Society of Hawaii can intervene when institutions wrongly reject valid SDM agreements.

SDM vs. Guardianship: When Each Applies

SDM works when the adult can make choices — even difficult ones — when information is presented in accessible ways and a trusted supporter helps them process it. The key question is whether the adult can reach and communicate a decision with support, not whether they can do it alone.

Guardianship remains necessary when the individual has severe cognitive limitations that prevent them from making or communicating any consistent choice, even with maximum support. It is also needed when the individual faces active financial exploitation or abuse that voluntary tools cannot stop.

An SDM agreement cannot coexist with a court guardianship in overlapping domains. Under HRS § 349F-2(a), if a court later appoints a guardian, the guardianship overrides the SDM agreement to the extent their authority overlaps. This means families should try SDM first — if it proves insufficient, guardianship can be pursued later, but not the other way around without modifying the court order.

Critically, HRS § 349F-4(e) specifies that entering into an SDM agreement cannot be used as evidence of incapacity. Trying SDM first does not weaken a later guardianship petition.

Our Hawaii Adult Guardianship & Alternatives Guide includes an SDM agreement template built to Hawaii's Act 284 requirements, plus scripts for presenting the agreement to schools, doctors, and banks.

See more Hawaii guides →