BILL ANALYSIS �
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 937|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 937
Author: Wieckowski (D)
Amended: 5/8/13 in Assembly
Vote: 21
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 6-1, 6/11/13
AYES: Evans, Walters, Corbett, Jackson, Leno, Monning
NOES: Anderson
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 68-3, 5/16/13 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Conservators and guardians: personal rights of
conservatees
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill provides that a conservator's control of a
conservatee not extend to personal rights retained by the
conservatee, including, but not limited to, the right to receive
visitors, telephone calls, and personal mail, unless
specifically limited by a court order.
ANALYSIS :
Existing law:
1. Authorizes a court to appoint a conservator of the person to
act on behalf of a person (conservatee) who is unable to
provide for his/her own personal needs or to appoint a
conservator of the estate to act on behalf of a conservatee
CONTINUED
AB 937
Page
2
who is incapable of managing his/her own property or other
financial assets. (Probate Code (PROB) Section 1800 et seq.)
2. Authorizes the appointment of a temporary conservator to act
on behalf of the conservatee pending the appointment of a
permanent conservator. Unless the court orders otherwise,
existing law provides the temporary conservator with only
those powers and duties that are necessary to provide for the
temporary care of the conservatee and to preserve and protect
the property of the conservatee from loss or injury. (PROB
Section 2250)
3. Provides the conservator with the care, custody and control
of the conservatee, unless the court determines that it is
appropriate in the circumstances of the particular
conservatee; the court may limit the powers and duties of the
conservator by an order, which may be subsequently modified
or revoked, stating the specific power that the conservator
has or does not have with respect to the conservatee and
reserving specified powers to the conservatee. (PROB Section
2351)
This bill clarifies that, although a conservator has the care,
custody, and control of the conservatee, this control does not
extend to personal rights retained by the conservatee,
including, but not limited to, the right to receive visitors,
telephone calls, and personal mail, unless specifically limited
by court order.
Background
In California, if an adult is unable to manage his/her financial
matters, a conservator of the estate may be appointed by a court
to manage the adult's (conservatee) financial matters. If the
adult is unable to manage his/her medical and personal
decisions, a conservator of the person may be appointed.
Similarly, a guardian of the estate or person may be appointed
for a minor child (ward).
When a conservator is appointed, the conservator is charged with
the care, custody and control of the conservatee. However, the
court determines the powers and duties of the conservator and
may limit the conservator's powers and duties according to the
needs of the conservatee. The court also determines the powers
CONTINUED
AB 937
Page
3
and duties retained by the conservatee for his/her own care.
Prior Legislation
AB 1950 (Pacheco, Chapter 565, Statutes of 2000), among other
things, limited the power and duty of a guardian or conservator
to hire or refer any business to an entity in which he/she has a
financial interest unless the court so ordered.
AB 759 (Friedman, Chapter 79, Statutes of 1990) revised and
recast PROB and continued, without modification, the prior
statute regarding the powers and duties of the conservator or
guardian.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local:
No
SUPPORT : (Verified 6/12/13)
California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform
Consumer Advocates for Residential Care Facilities for the
Elderly Reform
OPPOSITION : (Verified 6/12/13)
State Association of Public Administrators, Public Guardians,
and Public Conservatees
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The author writes:
The existing Probate Code is silent on any limitations a
conservator has. The result is that many conservators and
others incorrectly determine that the phrase "has the care,
custody, and control of" to be absolute control over the
conservatee. They then use their incorrect belief of absolute
control to completely isolate conservatee from the outside
world. No visitors, no phone calls, no mail from life
partner, family, friends, neighbors, clergy, and/or advocates.
AB 937 clarifies the Probate Code to state that in a
conservatorship, the conservatee still retains personal rights
such as the right to receive visitors, telephone calls and
mail, unless these rights are limited by court order or need
to be limited to protect the conservatee from abuse.
CONTINUED
AB 937
Page
4
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The State Association of Public
Administrators, Public Guardians, and Public Conservators (SAPA)
argues that this bill "creates a difficult situation where a
public conservator or guardian cannot prevent abusers and
predators that may not have been listed in the original court
order from visiting the conservatee. AB 937 fails to properly
balance a conservatee's personal rights to receive visitors and
the need to protect them from abuse. . . . Our client's concern
with AB 937 is that a conservator would have to wait for
specific court authority before denying an abusive individual
visitation rights to a conservatee. Meanwhile, the conservatee
must continue to suffer at the hands of their abuser until the
court acts." SAPA states that it would support changes to
existing law that allow conservators to take immediate action to
prevent abuse but require the courts to rule in a timely manner
if such action is appropriate. Furthermore, SAPA would support
a quicker court appeals process, whereby an individual denied
visitation rights could get their appeal heard by the court in a
timely fashion.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 68-3, 5/16/13
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Ammiano, Atkins, Bigelow, Bloom,
Blumenfield, Bocanegra, Bonilla, Bonta, Bradford, Brown,
Buchanan, Ian Calderon, Campos, Chau, Ch�vez, Chesbro, Cooley,
Dahle, Daly, Dickinson, Eggman, Fong, Fox, Frazier, Beth
Gaines, Garcia, Gatto, Gomez, Gordon, Gorell, Gray, Hagman,
Hall, Harkey, Roger Hern�ndez, Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Levine,
Linder, Lowenthal, Maienschein, Medina, Mitchell, Mullin,
Muratsuchi, Nazarian, Nestande, Olsen, Pan, Patterson, Perea,
V. Manuel P�rez, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Rendon, Salas, Skinner,
Ting, Torres, Wagner, Weber, Wieckowski, Wilk, Williams,
Yamada, John A. P�rez
NOES: Donnelly, Logue, Mansoor
NO VOTE RECORDED: Allen, Conway, Grove, Holden, Melendez,
Morrell, Stone, Waldron, Vacancy
AL:k 6/12/13 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED
AB 937
Page
5
CONTINUED