BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 468|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CONSENT
Bill No: AB 468
Author: Jones (R)
Introduced:2/23/15
Vote: 21
SENATE HEALTH COMMITTEE: 8-0, 6/24/15
AYES: Hernandez, Nguyen, Mitchell, Monning, Nielsen, Pan,
Roth, Wolk
NO VOTE RECORDED: Hall
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 79-0, 4/13/15 (Consent) - See last page for
vote
SUBJECT: Wards and conservatees: mental health
SOURCE: Conference of California Bar Associations
DIGEST: This bill 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.
ANALYSIS:
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
AB 468
Page 2
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
adopt and issue regulations defining the term "mental health
treatment facility" for purposes of involuntarily placing a ward
or a conservatee.
Background
According to DSH, the responsibility for adopting a definition
of mental health treatment facility was originally assigned to
the Department of Mental Health (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
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
AB 468
Page 3
place a conservatee in a locked facility, suggesting that the
court believed that a "mental health treatment facility" is a
locked facility.
Comments
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 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 existing 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.
Prior Legislation
SB 1465 (Committee on Health, Chapter 442, Statutes of 2014),
among other technical, clarifying changes, replaced references
to DMH in existing law with DSH to reflect DMH's elimination.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal
Com.:NoLocal: No
SUPPORT: (Verified6/29/15)
AB 468
Page 4
Conference of California Bar Associations (source)
OPPOSITION: (Verified6/29/15)
None received
ARGUMENTS IN 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.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 79-0, 4/13/15
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Baker, Bigelow, Bloom,
Bonilla, Bonta, Brough, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chang,
Chau, Chávez, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Dahle,
Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Cristina
Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez,
Gordon, Gray, Grove, Hadley, Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin,
Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Kim, Lackey, Levine, Linder, Lopez, Low,
Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Melendez, Mullin,
Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Olsen, Patterson, Perea,
Quirk, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago,
Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber,
Wilk, Williams, Wood, Atkins
NO VOTE RECORDED: Harper
Prepared by:Shannon Muir / HEALTH /
6/30/15 13:48:18
AB 468
Page 5
**** END ****