Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 28-65-302 (2026)

Decisions requiring court approval

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

1. No guardian appointed prior to October 1, 2001, shall make any of the following decisions without filing a petition and receiving express court approval:
  1. Consent on behalf of the incapacitated person to abortion, sterilization, psychosurgery, or removal of bodily organs except when necessary in a situation threatening the life of the incapacitated;
  2. Consent to withholding life-saving treatment;
  3. Authorize experimental medical procedures;
  4. Authorize termination of parental rights;
  5. Prohibit the incapacitated person from voting;
  6. Prohibit the incapacitated person from obtaining a driver's license; or
  7. Consent to a settlement or compromise of any claim by or against the incapacitated person or his or her estate.
2. No guardian appointed on or after October 1, 2001, shall make any of the following decisions without filing a petition and receiving express court approval:
  1. Consent on behalf of the incapacitated person to abortion, sterilization, psychosurgery, or removal of bodily organs except when necessary in a situation threatening the life of the incapacitated;
  2. Consent to withholding life-saving treatment;
  3. Authorize experimental medical procedures;
  4. Authorize termination of parental rights;
  5. Authorize an incapacitated person to vote;
  6. Prohibit the incapacitated person from obtaining a driver's license; or
  7. Consent to a settlement or compromise of any claim by or against the incapacitated person or his or her estate.
However, the provisions of subdivision (a)(2) of this section shall not apply to written requests under § 20-17-214.

History. Acts 1985, No. 940, § 26; A.S.A. 1947, § 57-845; Acts 1999, No. 1536, § 7; 2001, No. 1689, § 1.

Research References

U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev.

Survey of Legislation, 2001 Arkansas General Assembly, Probate Law, 24 U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. 631.

Matthew L. Brunson, Family Law—Providing for Those Who Cannot Provide for Themselves: A Proposal for the Arkansas General Assembly to Follow in the Footsteps of an Already Expansive Guardianship Law and Grant Guardians the Right to File for Divorce on Behalf of a Ward, 38 U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. 271 (2016).

Case Notes

Applicability.

A guardian is authorized to employ legal counsel in connection with the discharge of his duties, and the hiring of an attorney is not among those decisions made by a guardian that always requires prior court approval. Johnson v. Guardianship of Ratcliff, 72 Ark. App. 85, 34 S.W.3d 749 (2000).

Subdivision (a)(1)(G) of this section did not apply where the guardian, in signing the investment agreements, did not consent to a settlement or compromise, the claims subject to the arbitration agreement that the guardian had signed had yet to be decided, and thus, no settlement or compromise existed. Carmody v. Raymond James Fin. Servs., 373 Ark. 79, 281 S.W.3d 721 (2008).

Change of Residence.

Changing the ward's residence is not among the statutory list of guardian decisions that always require prior court approval. King v. Beavers, 148 F.3d 1031 (8th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1002, 119 S. Ct. 513 (1998).

Jurisdiction of Probate Courts.

Probate courts are courts of limited and specific jurisdiction, and they have only the powers conferred by the Constitution or by statute or powers necessarily incidental to those specifically granted. Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs. v. Estate of Hogan, 314 Ark. 19, 858 S.W.2d 105 (1993).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 1993–2008 · leading case: Carmody v. Raymond James Fin. Servs., Inc., 281 S.W.3d 721 (Ark. 2008).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Carmody v. Raymond James Fin. Servs., Inc., 281 S.W.3d 721 (Ark. 2008). · cites it 11× “Accordingly, we hold that the circuit court did not err in its statutory interpretation of Ark. Code Ann. § 28-65-301 (a)(3). HVC’s estate next argues that Betts, as guardian of HVC, entered into a binding arbitration agreement in violation of Ark.”

Hardie v. Est. of Davis, 848 S.W.2d 417 (Ark. 1993). · cites it 2× “Also, Ark. Code Ann. § 28-65-302 (7) (1987) lists “consent to a settlement or compromise of any claim by or agáinst the incapacitated person or his estate” as a type of action which guardians must petition and obtain express court approval to carry out.”

Johnson v. Guardianship of Ratcliff, 34 S.W.3d 749 (Ark. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “Moreover, the hiring of an attorney is not listed among those decisions made by a guardian that always requires prior court approval as provided in Ark. Code Ann. § 28-65-302 (Supp. 1999). Even if the guardian acted precipitously, he was subsequendy made the guardian of the…”

Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs. v. Est. of Hogan, 858 S.W.2d 105 (Ark. 1993). “§ 28-65-107(a) (1987) repeats the provision for exclusive jurisdiction of probate courts in matters of guardianship, and § 28-65-302(7) provides specifically that a guardian, with probate court approval, may consent to a settlement of a claim by the ward.”

Gray v. Gladney Ctr., 87 S.W.3d 797 (Ark. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “Ark. Code Ann. § 28-65-302 (a)(l)(D) (Supp.”

— Ark. Code Ann. § 28-65-302(7) — 1 case

— Ark. Code Ann. § 28-65-302(a)(1)(G) — 1 case

Carmody v. Raymond James Fin. Servs., Inc., 281 S.W.3d 721 (Ark. 2008). “Accordingly, we hold that the circuit court did not err in its statutory interpretation of Ark. Code Ann. § 28-65-301 (a)(3). HVC’s estate next argues that Betts, as guardian of HVC, entered into a binding arbitration agreement in violation of Ark.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.