TN 7 (04-20)
1. SYLLABUS
This opinion settles an issue related to the preferred order of selection of a representative
payee for an adult individual who has a legal guardian and is court committed to the
custody of the state of Idaho. The State of Idaho asserts that a court commitment
order, overrules legal guardianship and the State is the proper fiduciary for these
individuals. This differs from SSA policy of preferred payee order of selection for
adults without a substance about condition found in GN
00502.105B, that states a legal guardian has preference as a payee over a state institution
that has custody of a beneficiary.
2. OPINION
Question Presented
For the purpose of selecting a representative payee for adult beneficiary K~, does
C~, as legal guardian to Mr. J~ prior to his commitment to Idaho state custody, retain
her status as legal guardian under Idaho law following Mr. J~ commitment to Idaho
state custody?
BRIEF ANSWER
Yes, based on an analysis of documents reviewed and Idaho law, C~ remains the legal
guardian for K~ even after his commitment to Idaho state custody. Regardless, the
preference rankings for payees in the regulations “are flexible” and prioritize the
best interest of the beneficiary. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.2021, 416.621. Thus, the agency
has discretion to select a lower priority payee over a higher priority payee if doing
so is in the best interest of Mr.~ and the choice otherwise complies with the statutory
and regulatory requirements.
SUMMARY of FACTs
Mr. J~ is an agency beneficiary previously found incompetent by an Idaho state court.
In 2005, the state court appointed C~ as a legal guardian for Mr. J~. Mr. J~ was later
committed to the custody of the Director of the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare
(DHW) after he was found to lack fitness to proceed as a defendant in criminal proceedings.
In February 2017, Mr. J~ was recommitted to the custody of DHW pursuant to Idaho Code
§ 66-406 for an indeterminate period of time not to exceed three years.
We understand that Mr. J~ is currently in need of a representative payee. We also
understand that the Idaho DHW contends that, because Mr. J~ is in its custody, the
state is entitled to act as his representative payee. DHW employees have not identified
specific legal authority other than Idaho Code § 66-406 as the basis for their contention.
ANALYSIS
A. The agency has discretion to pick a payee that prioritizes the best interest of
the beneficiary, even if such an individual or organization is not highest in the
order
of preference outlined in the regulations.
The Social Security Act authorizes payment of an individual’s benefits to “another
individual, or an organization,” if doing so serves “the interest of any individual”
beneficiary. 42 U.S.C. § 405(j)(1); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.2001, 416.601. Generally, the agency appoints a representative payee
when it has “determined that the beneficiary is not able to manage or direct the management
of benefit payments in his or her interest.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.2001, 416.601.
The regulations set forth an order of preference for the selection of representative
payees. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.2021, 416.621. For beneficiaries 18 years old or older, the
most preferred category of payees is described as “[a] legal guardian, spouse (or
other relative) who has custody of the beneficiary or who demonstrates strong concern
for the personal welfare of the beneficiary.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.2021(a)(1), 416.621(a)(1).
The second preference category is a “friend who has custody . . . or demonstrates
strong concern for the personal welfare of the beneficiary.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.2021(a)(2),
416.621(a)(2). As a third category of preferred payees, the agency regulations list
“[a] public or nonprofit agency or institution having custody of the beneficiary.”
20 C.F.R. §§ 404.2021(a)(3), 416.621(a)(3). The regulations therefore state a preference
for a “legal guardian . . . who demonstrates strong concern for the personal welfare
of the beneficiary” over a public institution with custody in the selection of representative
payees.
The agency regulation’s preferences “are flexible” and prioritize the best interest
of the beneficiary. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.2021, 416.621. Thus, they do not require the
selection of a person or entity falling within a more preferred category over a person
or entity falling within a less preferred category. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.2021, 416.621.
Consequently, regardless of whether Mr. J~'s commitment to state custody in Idaho
altered his relationship with his legal guardian, the agency has discretion to select
as a representative payee the state or Ms. J~, after considering the appropriate factors.
20 C.F.R. §§ 404.2020–.2021, 416.620–.621.
B. Neither the Idaho Code nor the Court orders provided to the agency terminate
C~’s
legal guardianship of
K~.
Although the agency has discretion to choose a representative payee based on the best
interest of the beneficiary, and other factors not relevant here, we analyzed Idaho
law and documents to answer your question of whether the state commitment order terminated
the legal guardianship of Ms. J~ over Mr. J~. Specifically, we examined Idaho Code
§ 66-406, the legal authority DHW identified as the basis for their belief in the
state’s entitlement to act as a representative payee for a beneficiary in state custody.
We have also examined several other provisions within the Idaho Code related to legal
guardianship and commitment, including Idaho Code § 15-5-312, which addresses the
general powers and duties of a guardian of an incapacitated person, and Idaho Code
§ 66-355, which requires a mentally ill person to pay for his or her expenses that
arise in connection with care at a treatment facility. None of the provisions we examined
terminate a legal guardianship when the guardian’s ward is committed to the custody
of the State of Idaho.
To the contrary, Idaho law and documents specific to this matter suggest that Ms.
J~ remains Mr. J~'s legal guardian. Idaho Code § 15-5-318(1) states, “[a] guardianship
terminates upon the death of the ward or upon order of the court.” In the case of
a guardianship for an incapacitated person, the guardian’s authority and responsibility
also terminates if the guardian is found incapacitated, is removed, or resigns. Idaho
Code § 15-5-306(1). Unless the court finds that a different procedure is warranted
“for good cause,” a court may not terminate a guardianship unless it follows “the
same procedures to safeguard the rights of the ward as apply to a petition for guardianship.”
Idaho Code § 15-5-318(3). The procedures applying to a petition for guardianship are
extensive and require a court to make several determinations. Idaho Code §§ 66-404
and 15-5-303(b).
We reviewed two court orders concerning Mr. J~ commitment to State custody: (1) an
Order of Commitment Pursuant to Idaho Code § 18-212,[1] dated December 14, 2010 and (2) an Order of Recommitment, dated February 27, 2017.
Neither of these orders expressly terminate Charlene Jennings’s status as legal guardian.
Nor do these orders reference “good cause” or the procedures and determinations required
to terminate a guardianship.
Further, court docket reports available online indicate C~ has continued filing annual
reports in connection with her status as Mr. J~ legal guardian through August 2019.[2] See Idaho Code § 15-5-312(1)(e) (requiring reporting by guardian). The annual reports
suggest C~ continues to serve as Mr. J~ legal guardian under Idaho law.
Based on our review of Idaho law and the specific court documents presented here,
we conclude C~ continues to serve as Mr. J~ legal guardian, despite not having custody,
and therefore could fall within the highest preference category depending on whether
she demonstrates “strong concern for the personal welfare of the beneficiary,” 20
C.F.R. §§ 404.2021(a)(1), 416.621(a)(1); see
also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.2020, 416.620.
CONCLUSION
Based on the documents reviewed, and an analysis of Idaho law, C~ remains the legal
guardian for K~ even after his commitment to Idaho state custody. Regardless, the
preference rankings for payees in the regulations “are flexible” and prioritize the
best interest of the beneficiary. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.2021, 416.621. Thus, the agency
has discretion to select a lower priority payee over a higher priority payee if doing
so is the best interest of Mr. J~ and the choice otherwise complies with the statutory
and regulatory requirements.