BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON HEALTH
Senator Ed Hernandez, O.D., Chair
BILL NO: AB 468
---------------------------------------------------------------
|AUTHOR: |Jones |
|---------------+-----------------------------------------------|
|VERSION: |February 23, 2015 |
---------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------
|HEARING DATE: |June 24, 2015 | | |
---------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------
|CONSULTANT: |Shannon Muir |
---------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT : Wards and conservatees: mental health.
SUMMARY : Deletes the requirement in existing law for the Director of
the Department of State Hospitals to adopt and issue regulations
defining the term "mental health treatment facility" for
purposes of involuntarily placing a ward or a conservatee.
Existing law:
1)Prohibits a ward or conservatee who is subject to a probate
conservatorship from being placed in a mental health treatment
facility against his or her will.
2)Prohibits the spouse of a person who is subject to a health
care conservatorship because he or she cannot make health care
decisions for him- or herself from placing the ward or
conservatee in a mental health treatment facility.
3)Requires the Director of the Department of State Hospitals
(DSH) to adopt and issue regulations defining "mental health
treatment facility".
4)Defines "designated facility" or "facility designated by the
county for evaluation and treatment" as a facility that is
licensed or certified as a mental health treatment facility or
a hospital by the Department of Public Health, and may
include, but is not limited to, a licensed psychiatric
hospital, a licensed psychiatric health facility, and a
certified crisis stabilization unit.
This bill: Deletes the requirement for the Director of DSH to
AB 468 (Jones) Page 2 of ?
adopt and issue regulations defining the term "mental health
treatment facility" for purposes of involuntarily placing a ward
or a conservatee.
PRIOR
VOTES :
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Assembly Floor: |79 - 0 |
|------------------------------------+----------------------------|
|Assembly Judiciary Committee: |10 - 0 |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENTS :
1)Author's statement. According to the author, existing law
(Probate Code §2356) includes a requirement that the Director
of DSH adopt and issue regulations defining "mental health
treatment facility" (until last year, the requirement was for
the Director of the Department of Mental Health (DMH)). This
requirement was included in the statute when it was enacted in
1990, and no such regulations have ever been adopted or, if
adopted, have been repealed. There is no evidence that the
absence of such regulations has had any impact on the
effectiveness of current law. However, the fact the statute
refers to regulations tells a lawyer (or anyone else) trying
to apply the statute that he or she needs to check those
regulations as part of due diligence. This is a waste of the
attorney's time and the client's money because there are no
regulations to find. Removing this language also clarifies to
litigants that the undefined terms carry their common and
ordinary meanings (Halbert's Lumber, Inc. v. Lucky Stores,
Inc. (1992), 6 cal. App. 4th 1233, 1238 [undefined terms in
statutes carry their "ordinary, everyday meaning], not a
different meaning that was to have been developed, but was
not. Eliminating the requirement, therefore, benefits everyone
involved.
2)Background. According to DSH, the responsibility for adopting
a definition of mental health treatment facility was
originally assigned to DMH. After reorganization and
dissolution of DMH, the responsibility was delegated to DSH.
According to DSH, the responsibility is misplaced because it
is only responsible for state hospitals, where patients are
AB 468 (Jones) Page 3 of ?
confined for treatment as mandated by a criminal or civil
court judge, and no other mental health treatment facilities
are under DSH's purview.
Mental health treatment facilities are mentioned in five
sections of California statute. Three of these sections are in
the Probate Code, including the section to which this bill
pertains. The other sections are in the Penal Code and the
Welfare and Institutions Code. None of the sections define
mental health treatment facility, and a regulation to define
the phrase was never promulgated. The section of law that this
bill amends relates to the ability of a probate conservator to
place a conservatee in mental health treatment facility. In
People vs. Karriker (2007), which referred to "mental health
treatment facilities", the court found that a probate
conservator cannot place a conservatee in a locked facility,
suggesting that the court believed that a "mental health
treatment facility" is a locked facility.
3)Prior Legislation. SB 1465 (Committee on Health Chapter 442,
Statues of 2014), among other technical, clarifying changes,
replaced references to DMH in existing law with DSH to reflect
DMH's elimination.
4)Support. The Conference of California Bar Associations (CCBA)
writes in support that no regulations defining mental health
treatment facility have been adopted in the past 24 years, and
no known problems have resulted. The downside to keeping this
requirement in statute is that those trying to apply the
statute have to check regulations as part of due diligence.
The CCBA states that this is a waste of time because there are
no regulations to find.
SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION :
Support: Conference of California Bar Associations (sponsor)
Oppose: None received.
-- END --
AB 468 (Jones) Page 4 of ?