BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1836
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB
1836 (Maienschein)
As Amended March 31, 2016
Majority vote
------------------------------------------------------------------
|Committee |Votes|Ayes |Noes |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
|Health |15-0 |Wood, Maienschein, | |
| | |Burke, Campos, | |
| | |Cooley, | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | |Roger Hernández, | |
| | |Lackey, Nazarian, | |
| | |Olsen, | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | |Ridley-Thomas, | |
| | |Rodriguez, Santiago, | |
| | |Steinorth, Thurmond, | |
| | |Waldron | |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
|Judiciary |10-0 |Mark Stone, Wagner, | |
| | |Alejo, Chau, Chiu, | |
| | |Gallagher, | |
| | | | |
AB 1836
Page 2
| | | | |
| | |Cristina Garcia, | |
| | |Holden, Maienschein, | |
| | |Ting | |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
|Appropriations |20-0 |Gonzalez, Bigelow, | |
| | |Bloom, Bonilla, | |
| | |Bonta, Calderon, | |
| | |Chang, Daly, Eggman, | |
| | |Gallagher, Eduardo | |
| | |Garcia, Roger | |
| | |Hernández, Holden, | |
| | |Jones, Obernolte, | |
| | |Quirk, Santiago, | |
| | |Wagner, Weber, Wood | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Permits a probate court to recommend a
Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) conservatorship for an individual
for whom a conservatorship has been established under the
Probate Code, subject to a hearing attended by the proposed
conservatee or the proposed conservatee's counsel, as specified.
Specifically, this bill:
1)Authorizes a court to recommend an investigation in a
proceeding under the Probate Code, as specified, if a
conservatorship has already been established under the Probate
Code and after an evidentiary hearing has been attended by the
conservatee and the conservatee's counsel, and if the court,
in consultation with a licensed physician or psychologist
providing comprehensive evaluation or intensive treatment,
determines, based on evidence presented to the court,
including medical evidence, that the conservatee may be
gravely disabled as a result of a mental disorder or
impairment by chronic alcoholism and is unwilling to accept,
or is incapable of accepting, treatment voluntarily
AB 1836
Page 3
2)Requires the court to appoint counsel if a conservatee cannot
afford counsel relating to the proceedings in 1) above.
3)Requires the officer providing conservatorship investigation
to file a copy of his or her report with the court making the
recommendation for conservatorship in 1) above.
4)Authorizes the officer providing conservatorship investigation
to petition the superior court in the patient's county of
residence to establish conservatorship pursuant to an
investigation conducted pursuant to 1) above.
5)Requires a conservator to disclose any records that may
facilitate an investigation pursuant to 1) above and requires
a copy of the investigation report to be transmitted to the
recommending court.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee:
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.
AB 1836
Page 4
COMMENTS: According to the author, probate courts today are
hampered in their ability to ensure proper care and treatment of
conservatees who suffer from a mental illness, and there are a
significant number of people who are not getting the care and
treatment they need. Under the LPS Act, the individuals
authorized to initiate conservatorship proceedings do not
include probate judges or family members. The author contends
that this creates a gap in treatment availability, making it
harder for individuals who are not already hospitalized but
whose problems stem from mental illness, alcoholism, or drug
abuse, and thus cannot qualify for treatment under the Probate
Code. By allowing probate judges to initiate LPS
conservatorship proceedings, this bill is intended to remove
obstacles to treatment for these individuals.
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 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.
Conservatorships governed by the Probate Code are the most
common type of conservatorship. Probate conservatorships can be
established for adults who are unable to provide properly for
their personal needs for physical health, food, clothing, or
shelter. A petition for probate conservatorship can be filed by
a spouse, domestic partner, or family member of the proposed
conservatee, any interested state or local agency, the
conservatee himself or herself, or any other interested person
or friend. For conservatees with dementia, current law allows
AB 1836
Page 5
the conservator to place the conservatee in a locked nursing or
residential care facility and authorize the administration of
medications to treat dementia, provided that the court makes
specified findings. However, current law does not contain
provisions that allow a probate conservator to place a
conservatee in a locked facility for any reason other than
dementia.
An LPS conservatorship, which lasts for a year before it must be
reinitiated and reapproved, is typically sought after an
individual has received 72-hour evaluation and treatment and
14-day intensive treatment and continues to be gravely disabled.
The process begins when the professional staff of the
psychiatric facility, after having evaluated and treated the
individual, makes a recommendation of conservatorship to the
county conservatorship investigator. The county conservatorship
investigator is then required to conduct a comprehensive
investigation and file a petition for conservatorship only if,
after considering all available alternatives to conservatorship,
there are no suitable alternatives available.
The sponsors of this bill, the Conference of California Bar
Associations, write in support that this bill will help close a
gap in existing law that prevents existing probate conservatees
who have become gravely disabled and/or a "danger to themselves
or others" from being evaluated for possible LPS conservatorship
because they cannot enter the LPS process through the
traditional (Welfare & Institutions Code Sections) "5150"
process. This bill would do this by permitting a court, after
considering medical evidence at a hearing which the proposed
conservatee has a right to attend, to order evaluation for a
probate conservatee to determine whether an LPS conservatorship
is appropriate.
The Coalition for Elder and Dependent Adult Rights argue in
opposition to this bill stating that it opens yet another door
AB 1836
Page 6
for expensive investigations, assessments, and many billable
hours for conservators and attorneys and that conservatorships
are fraught with abuse and that courts fail to provide
oversight.
Analysis Prepared by:
Paula Villescaz/ HEALTH / (916) 319-2097 FN:
0003217