BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó




                   Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
                            Senator Kevin de León, Chair


          SB 940 (Jackson) - California Conservatorship Jurisdiction Act.
          
          Amended: March 10, 2014         Policy Vote: Judiciary 7-0
          Urgency: No                     Mandate: No
          Hearing Date: April 28, 2014                            
          Consultant: Jolie Onodera       
          
          This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.
          
          
          Bill Summary: SB 940 would establish the California  
          Conservatorship Jurisdiction Act (CCJA), effective January 1,  
          2016, which would provide jurisdictional and procedural guidance  
          on conservatorship proceedings between California and other  
          states, as specified.

          Fiscal Impact: 
              Potentially significant ongoing costs (General Fund*) for  
              court investigator duties related to conservatorships  
              mandated by the CCJA and currently unfunded under existing  
              processes imposed by the Omnibus Conservator and  
              Guardianship Reform Act of 2006.  
              One-time minor costs of less than $50,000 (General Fund*)  
              to the Judicial Council to create forms and develop rules of  
              court to implement the CCJA.
              Likely significant future cost savings (General Fund*) to  
              the courts through operational efficiencies created by  
              streamlining the conservator transfer process, facilitating  
              enforcement of out-of-state conservatorship orders through  
              registration, and reducing potential jurisdictional disputes  
              through the establishment of clear guidelines. 
          *Trial Court Trust Fund

          Background: In 2011, pursuant to Assembly Concurrent Resolution  
          49 (Evans) Res. Chapter 98/2009, the California Law Revision  
          Commission (CLRC) began studying the Uniform Adult Guardianship  
          and Protective Proceedings Jurisdiction Act (UAGPPJA) for  
          potential adoption by California. In its December 2013 report of  
          recommendations to the Legislature, the CLRC stated:

              In California, a conservatorship is a proceeding in  
              which a court appoints someone to assist an adult with  
              personal care or financial transactions because that  







          SB 940 (Jackson)
          Page 1


              adult lacks the ability to handle those matters without  
              assistance. These types of court proceedings are  
              becoming common across the United States, because the  
              population of the country is aging. At the same time,  
              the population is highly mobile. Individuals frequently  
              move from one state to another, own property or conduct  
              transactions in more than one state, and spend time in  
              multiple locations. Due to these developments, a number  
              of problems relating to conservatorships are occurring:  
               jurisdictional disputes; issues relating to  
              transferring a conservatorship from one state to  
              another; requests for recognition of a conservatorship  
              that was established in another state.

              The UAGPPJA was approved by the Uniform Law Commission  
              in 2007 to address these problems. It provides a set of  
              rules for resolving jurisdictional disputes, a  
              streamlined process for transfer of a conservatorship,  
              and a registration procedure to facilitate recognition  
              of a conservatorship that was established in another  
              state. The goal of the act is to alleviate the burdens  
              of handling a conservatorship situation that involves  
              more than one state. A large majority of states have  
              enacted UAGPPJA, including all three of California's  
              neighbors (Arizona, Oregon, and Nevada). California has  
              not yet done so, however, because the uniform act uses  
              different terminology than California and requires some  
              adjustments to be workable in California. The Law  
              Revision Commission studied UAGPPJA to determine  
              whether and, if so, in what form, the act should be  
              enacted in California. After conducting extensive  
              research and analysis, and receiving input from a broad  
              range of stakeholders, the Commission recommends that  
              UAGPPJA be enacted in California, with a number of  
              modifications to protect California policies and ensure  
              that the act works smoothly in this state.

          This bill seeks to implement the final version of the UAGPPJA  
          recommended by the CLRC through the establishment of the  
          California Conservatorship Jurisdiction Act.  

          Proposed Law: This bill would enact the CCJA, to become  
          operative on January 1, 2016. Authority for the Judicial Council  
          to develop court rules and forms as necessary for the  








          SB 940 (Jackson)
          Page 2


          implementation of the CCJA would be effective January 1, 2015.  
          The significant provisions of the CCJA are summarized as  
          follows:
           
          Jurisdictional procedures
                Establishes specific provisions to assist state courts  
              determine appropriate jurisdiction for proposed  
              conservatees. 
               Jurisdiction would be determined through a three-tier  
              hierarchy: home state, significant-connection state, and  
              neither home state nor significant-connection state.  
               When the court is neither the home state nor a  
              significant-connection state, the court may exercise  
              jurisdiction in certain limited circumstances. In  
              determining whether the reviewing court or another state is  
              a more appropriate forum, the reviewing court would have to  
              consider specified criteria, including but not limited to  
              the location of the proposed conservatee's family and other  
              persons required to be notified of the conservatorship  
              proceeding; the length of time the proposed conservatee at  
              any time was physically present in the state and the  
              duration of any absence; the location of the proposed  
              conservatee's property; and the extent to which the proposed  
              conservatee has ties to the state such as voting  
              registration, state or local tax return filing, vehicle  
              registration, driver's license, social relationship, and  
              receipt of services.
               CCJA would not apply to proceedings involving minors,  
              persons involuntarily committed to a mental health facility  
              or involuntary mental health care, and would provide express  
              limitations on its application to a conservatee with  
              dementia.

           Transfer of conservatorships to other states
                Provides new procedures and considerations for a  
              California court to determine whether or not to transfer an  
              established conservatorship to another state or to accept  
              the transfer from another state. The CCJA would only permit  
              a transfer between California and another "state," as  
              defined, that has enacted the transfer procedure of the  
              UAGPPJA. 
               Creates a conservatorship transfer process that is an  
              integrated procedure, requiring issuance of four court  
              orders, as specified. As the bill requires action in both  








          SB 940 (Jackson)
          Page 3


              the transferring state and the accepting state, the transfer  
              process cannot be completed unless both states have enacted  
              the UAGPPJA transfer procedure.
               A conservatorship could not be transferred to California  
              without the assent of a California court (through issuance  
              of a provisional order accepting the transfer and a final  
              order accepting the transfer). Provides a California court  
              the ability to deny a conservatorship that could be another  
              state's attempt to "dump" a conservatorship.
               Precludes the transfer of a conservatorship into  
              California if the conservator in the transferring state is  
              ineligible, under the law of the transferring state, to  
              serve in California. 
               Does not change the existing responsibilities of  
              California's public conservators. The conservatees whose  
              conservatorships could be transferred to California under  
              the CCJA are the same ones who would be entitled to  
              establish a new conservatorship in California under existing  
              law. 
               After a conservatee is transferred to California, that  
              person would be a California citizen, with a California  
              conservatorship. 
               Transfers of conservatorships would not apply to an adult  
              with a developmental disability, or to any proceeding in  
              which a person is appointed to provide personal care or  
              property administration for an adult with a developmental  
              disability.
           
          Registration and recognition of conservatorship orders from  
          other states
                Authorizes courts to charge a fee of $30 for the  
              registration of a conservatorship established pursuant to  
              the CCJA. Fees collected to be distributed to the Trial  
              Court Trust Fund, as specified.
               At least 15 days before registering a conservatorship in  
              this state, would require the conservator to provide notice  
              of intent to register to specified parties.

           Treatment of federally recognized Indian tribes
                Provides that the CCJA jurisdictional provisions would not  
              apply to a proposed conservatee who is a member of an Indian  
              tribe with jurisdiction.
               Provides for various definitions regarding federally  
              recognized Indian tribes.








          SB 940 (Jackson)
          Page 4


               Prohibits the court from dismissing a petition if the  
              tribal court expressly declines to exercise its jurisdiction  
              with regard to the proposed conservatee.
          
          Prior Legislation: ACR 49 (Evans) Res. Chapter 98/2009 required  
          the CLRC to study the UAGPPJA for potential adoption by  
          California.

          AB 1363 (Jones) Chapter 493/2006 established the Omnibus  
          Conservatorship and Guardianship Reform Act of 2006, which  
          significantly restructured the courts' review of  
          conservatorships and imposed new duties on court investigators. 

          Staff Comments: The CCJA seeks to provide guidance to reduce  
          jurisdictional disputes, establish a streamlined process for the  
          transfer of conservatorships from one state to another, and  
          facilitate enforcement of out-of-state conservatorship orders  
          through a registration process. To the extent these goals are  
          realized would serve to create significant court efficiencies  
          and result in significant cost savings not only to the courts in  
          state costs, but to conservators, conservatees, and others  
          affected by the conservatorship process. The Judicial Council  
          has indicated one-time minor costs to develop the rules of court  
          and forms necessary to implement the CCJA.

          The Omnibus Conservatorship and Guardianship Reform Act of 2006  
          (the Act) significantly restructured the state's conservatorship  
          and guardianship system by increasing the frequency of courts'  
          review of conservatorships and imposing new duties on court  
          investigators. At the time, the Judicial Council estimated  
          significant costs to meet the mandates of the Act. Specifically,  
          the additional workload to perform new court investigator duties  
          was estimated to cost several million dollars annually.  
          Subsequently, in response to the severe budget reductions  
          imposed on the court system, SB 78 (Committee on Budget) Chapter  
          10/2011, the Public Safety budget trailer bill, amended the Act  
          to provide that superior courts were not required to perform the  
          duties required in the Act, including but not limited to the  
          additional duties placed on court investigators, unless an  
          appropriation is provided by the Legislature that is identified  
          for this purpose. The Judicial Council has indicated that no  
          appropriation has been provided to date. 

          This bill imposes various duties on court investigators within  








          SB 940 (Jackson)
          Page 5


          the conservatorship transfer process of the CCJA. These are many  
          of the same duties currently required under the Act that are  
          conditional upon funding being provided. While Section 1851.1(g)  
          of this bill provides for workload relief to courts for  
          specified court investigator duties, there are additional court  
          investigator duties that are not similarly covered. In order to  
          ensure the provisions of this bill do not impose an unfunded  
          mandate on the courts, all applicable provisions of the Act that  
          contain operative language conditional on funding should be  
          similarly referenced in this bill.

          Recommended Amendments: To remove the potentially significant  
          unfunded mandate on the courts and ensure the provisions of this  
          bill will only require the level of court investigator duties  
          that courts were mandated to perform prior to the enactment of  
          the Act, the following amendments are recommended:

             1.   On page 14, in line 34, strike and replace "Section 1826  
               or 1851" with "Sections 1826, 1850, 1851, 2250, 2253, and  
               2620 and the addition of Sections 2250.4 and 2250.6"
             2.   On page 14, in line 35, after the comma insert "and the  
               addition of Section 1051 enacted by Chapter 492 of the  
               Statutes of 2006,"

          The following technical amendments are also recommended:

             3.   On page 9, in lines 31 and 32, strike and replace "1822,  
               Section" with "1822 or"
             4.   On page 10, in line 2, strike and replace "Section 2002"  
               with "2002"
             5.   On page 11, in line 21, strike and replace "Section  
               2002" with "2002"
             6.   On page 35, in line 8, strike and replace "both" with  
               "all"
             7.   On page 39, in line 39, strike and replace "conservatee"  
               with "conservator"
             8.   On page 42, between lines 15 and 16, insert:
               SEC. 28 The provisions of this act are severable. If any  
               provision of this act or its application is held invalid,  
               that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or  
               applications that can be given effect without the invalid  
               provision or application.










          SB 940 (Jackson)
          Page 6