BILL ANALYSIS �
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Kevin de Le�n, 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