1. It is presumed the named individual has capacity to enter a supported decisionmaking agreement. This presumption may be rebutted only by clear and convincing evidence. 2. A named individual's use of uncommon methods of communication does not affect the named individual's capacity to enter a supported decisionmaking agreement. 3. A named individual may have more than one supported decisionmaking agreement in effect at the same time. If any two of a named individual's supported decisionmaking agreements are incompatible, the more recent agreement prevails. 4. Two supported decisionmaking agreements are not incompatible solely due to enabling the named individual to get decisionmaking assistance from more than one supporter at the same time for the same decision. 5. A supported decisionmaking agreement does not prevent the named individual from: a. Getting decisionmaking assistance from someone who is not a supporter in a supported decisionmaking agreement; b. Making decisions independently without consulting a supporter; or c. Getting access to and copies of documents and records about the named individual. 6. The existence or contents of a supported decisionmaking agreement may not be used as evidence of incapacity or incompetence. 7. A supported decisionmaking agreement does not give a supporter the ability to act as a surrogate decisionmaker. A supported decisionmaking agreement does not give a supporter the authority to sign documents on behalf of the named individual.
‹ Prev All North Dakota sections Next ›
Lexace provides legal information, not legal advice, and no attorney–client relationship is created. Statute text is provided for general information and may not reflect the most recent amendments; verify against the official state code.