BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 193
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 6, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Jimmy Gomez, Chair
AB
193 (Maienschein) - As Amended April 14, 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Health |Vote:|16 - 0 |
|Committee: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| |Judiciary | |10 - 0 |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: YesReimbursable:
Yes
SUMMARY:
This bill allows a probate court to recommend a
Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) conservatorship for an individual
for whom a conservatorship has been established under the
AB 193
Page 2
Probate Code, subject to a hearing attended by the proposed
conservatee or the proposed conservatee's counsel, as specified.
It also requires the officer providing conservatorship
investigation to file a copy of his or her report with the court
making the recommendation in the probate conservatorship within
30 days of the recommendation.
FISCAL EFFECT:
1)Potential state-reimbursable mandate costs, conservatively in
the hundreds of thousands of dollars annually, as this bill is
likely to compel a greater number of conservatorship
investigations and reports. These costs are likely to be
state-reimbursable.
2)In addition, counties could incur significant unknown costs
associated with a larger number of conservatees, potentially
resulting in cost shifting from one segment of local
government to another. These costs are not state-
reimbursable.
COMMENTS:
1)Purpose. According to the author, many seriously mentally ill
persons who might benefit from an LPS conservatorship cannot
obtain it because their condition does not rise to the level
of creating a "danger to themselves or others," as is required
to trigger the "5150" and the eventual LPS process. This
AB 193
Page 3
bill, therefore, would create an additional means by which an
LPS conservatorship may be recommended to the county
conservatorship investigator.
2)Background. California has two types of conservatorships.
Probate conservatorships - established under the Probate Code
- are established for adults who cannot adequately care for
basic personal needs. Most probate conservatee are elderly
persons, but can also include younger adults with severe
developmental disabilities. Conservatorships established
under the Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) Act, on the other hand,
are for persons who are gravely disabled by mental illness or
who pose a threat to themselves or others. LPS
conservatorships are created when a psychiatric facility in
which the prospective conservatee is held makes a
recommendation to the county conservatorship investigator, who
in turn may petition a superior court for the conservatorship.
A probate conservatorship does not allow the conservator to
compel medical treatment on behalf of the conservatee if the
conservatee refuses. The LPS conservator, on the other hand,
may, if the court order so provides, compel psychiatric
treatment and placement in a locked facility for a conservatee
who is unwilling to accept voluntary treatment.
Individuals can only enter an LPS conservatorship through a
the "5150 hold" process, specified in Welfare and Institutions
Code 5150, whereby an officer or clinician may involuntarily
detain a person suspected to have a mental disorder that makes
him or her a danger to self, a danger to others, and/or is
AB 193
Page 4
gravely disabled. An individual enters into an LPS
conservatorship via an initial 72-hour 5150 hold for
assessment, evaluation, and crisis intervention, which is then
extended for a period of 14 or 30 days. After this period, if
warranted, an authorized individual may recommend that the
county conservatorship investigator petition the superior
court for a year-long LPS conservatorship. This bill would
bypass the requirement for a 5150 hold and associated
statutory protections by allowing a probate court to directly
recommend an LPS conservatorship to the county conservatorship
investigator, for someone already in a probate
conservatorship.
It is important to note this bill does not permit the court to
establish an LPS conservatorship on its own motion; rather,
this bill permits the court to make a recommendation, based on
medical evidence, to the county conservatorship investigator.
It would still be up to the investigator, if he or she concurs
with the court, to act on that recommendation and petition a
superior court for an LPS conservatorship.
3)Opposition. The California State Association of Counties
(CSAC) and the California Behavioral Health Directors
Association (CBHDA), and the Urban Counties Caucus oppose this
bill, citing primarily workload and cost burdens on an
overburdened public guardian system. Opposition believes the
probate court authority to compel investigations will be used
liberally and lead to many more unnecessary and inappropriate
investigations.
AB 193
Page 5
4)Prior Legislation. AB 1725 (Maienschein) of 2014 was similar
to this bill. It was held on the Suspense File of this
committee.
Analysis Prepared by:Lisa Murawski / APPR. / (916)
319-2081