SB367 - Mental health.

Amended IN Senate May 01, 2025 Amended IN Senate April 21, 2025 Amended IN Senate April 10, 2025 Amended IN Senate March 24, 2025 CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE— 2025–2026 REGULAR SESSION Senate Bill No. 367 Introduced by Senators Allen and Stern (Coauthors: Senators Blakespear and Rubio) February 13, 2025 An act to amend Sections 5150, 5150.4, 5352, 5352.6, 5354, and 5976.5 of of, and to add Section 5975.4 to, the Welfare and Institutions Code, relating to mental health. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST SB 367, as amended, Allen. Mental health. (1) Existing law, the Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) Act, authorizes the involuntary commitment and treatment of persons with specified mental disorders. Under the act, when a person, as a result of a mental health disorder, is a danger to themselves or others, or is gravely disabled, the person may, upon probable cause, be taken into custody by specified individuals, including, among others, a peace officer and a designated member of a mobile crisis team, and placed in a facility designated by the county and approved by the State Department of Health Care Services for up to 72 hours for evaluation and treatment. Existing law defines “assessment” for those purposes to mean the determination of whether a person shall be evaluated and treated. This bill would require an assessment to consider reasonably available, relevant information as specified. The bill would also authorize an assessment to be used to assist specified individuals in developing an aftercare plan for an individual, if that individual has agreed to an aftercare plan and can be properly served without being detained. (2) Existing law provides a procedure for the appointment of a conservator for a person who is determined to be gravely disabled as a result of a mental disorder or an impairment by chronic alcoholism (hereafter LPS conservatorship). Under existing law, a professional person in charge of an agency providing comprehensive evaluation or a facility providing intensive treatment may recommend a LPS conservatorship for a gravely disabled person in their care if the professional person determines that the person is unwilling to accept, or is incapable of accepting, treatment voluntarily. Under existing law, a professional person in charge of an agency providing comprehensive evaluation or a facility providing intensive treatment or a professional person in charge of providing mental health treatment at a county jail, or their designee, may recommend a conservatorship for a gravely disabled person without that person being an inpatient in a facility providing comprehensive evaluation or intensive treatment if specified conditions are met. This bill would additionally authorize recommendations for an LPS conservatorship if a determination is made that the gravely disabled person has demonstrated an inability to accept voluntary treatment due to an apparent incapacity, as specified. apparent incapacity. The bill would expand the list of individuals or entities that may recommend a conservatorship for a gravely disabled person without that person being an inpatient in a facility providing comprehensive evaluation or intensive treatment to include, among others, the county agency providing investigations for conservatorships of the person. The bill would also authorize a party that provided a recommendation for conservatorship to appeal to the associated LPS court if the officer providing conservatorship investigation does not concur with the recommendation. The bill would limit the outcome of the appeal to returning the case for a new investigation. (3) Existing law separately provides for the establishment of a conservatorship for a person who is unable to properly provide for their personal needs or is substantially unable to manage their finances (hereafter probate conservatorship). Existing law requires the officer providing conservatorship investigation, if they concur with the recommendation of the professional person or facility, to petition the superior court in the patient’s county of residence to establish a conservatorship. Existing law requires the officer providing conservator investigation to investigate all available alternatives to conservatorship, including, among other things, assisted outpatient treatment, as specified, and the Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment Act program. Existing law requires the officer to recommended conservatorship to the court only if no suitable alternatives are available. Existing law requires the officer to render to the court a comprehensive written report of investigation prior to the hearing and to set forth all alternatives available if the officer recommends either for or against conservatorship. This bill would specify probate conservatorships with or without major neurocognitive disorder powers in the list of available alternatives that the officer providing conservatorship investigation is required to investigate. In a county where probate conservatorship and LPS conservatorship duties are split between separate agencies, the bill would require LPS conservatorship referrals that include the presence of a major neurocognitive disorder to be reviewed by both agencies to ensure the continuity of evaluations. The bill would additionally require an officer providing conservatorship investigation to include a recommended individualized plan for treatment and care drawn from the documented list of less-restrictive alternatives in the written report described above if the officer recommends against an LPS conservatorship. The bill would also make various clarifying changes. By expanding the duties of county agencies that provide services related to probate conservatorships and LPS conservatorships, and by expanding the duties of the county officer providing conservatorship investigation, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (4) Existing law authorizes a conservator of the person, the estate, or the person and the estate to be appointed for a person who is gravely disabled as a result of a mental health disorder or impairment by chronic alcoholism for the purpose of providing individualized treatment, supervision, and placement. Existing law requires the creation of an individualized treatment plan within 10 days of the establishment of a conservatorship, as specified. Existing law requires the treatment plan to specify goals for the conservatee’s treatment, the criteria by which the accomplishment of those goals can be adjudged, and a plan for reviewing the progress of the treatment. If a treatment plan is not developed or if the conservator fails to report to the court that the conservatee is no longer gravely disabled, existing law requires specified individuals, including a person designated by the county, to refer the matter to the court. Existing law requires the court, upon report by a person designated by the county that the goals have been reached and the person is no longer gravely disabled, to terminate the conservatorship. This bill would require an individualized treatment plan to specify goals for stabilization, the individual’s evidenced-based treatment, and movement to a less-restrictive setting. The bill would require those goals to include the criteria by which accomplishment can be judged. The bill would require the treatment plan to be filed with the court, as specified, after it is developed. The bill would require the court to order the treating agency to remedy any perceived defects in a treatment plan if the plan does not meet the specified goals and criteria and would create procedures for remedying those defects and terminating the conservatorship. The bill would authorize the court, upon termination of the conservatorship, to refer the individual to assisted outpatient treatment or CARE court, as specified. This bill would prohibit the court from terminating the conservatorship prior to the end of the conservator’s one-year mark if the conservatee cannot be located at any point during that one-year period, except as specified, and, in a hearing within 6 months of the prior termination, would create a presumption that the conservatee requires additional intervention if the previous conservatorship was terminated prior to the successful completion of the treatment plan goals. specified. The bill would require, when a county is filing a petition and the county is aware that the subject of the petition was, within the prior 6 months, a conservatee whose conservatorship was terminated before the one-year termination date, to include in its petition the circumstances that gave rise to the termination. Because this bill would increase the duties on county personnel, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (5) Existing law, the Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment (CARE) Act, authorizes specified people to petition a civil court to create a CARE plan to provide an individualized, appropriate range of community-based services and supports to an eligible individual. Under the CARE Act, all reports, evaluations, diagnoses, and other information filed with the court that are related to the respondent are confidential, except as specified. This bill would authorize that information to be shared only by a court order or as approved by the respondent. If the information is used outside of the above-described proceedings, the bill requires a court order for that information to be shared. This bill would authorize a court, at any point after entry of a CARE agreement or adoption of a CARE plan, to order the respondent to an evaluation under the LPS without a petition from the county if the court believes the respondent has become gravely disabled. The bill would establish the procedures required before a court could issue an order pursuant to these provisions. (6) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above. Digest Key Vote: MAJORITY Appropriation: NO Fiscal Committee: YES Local Program: YES Bill Text The people of the State of California do enact as follows: SECTION 1. Section 5150 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read: 5150. (a) If a person, as a result of a mental health disorder, is a danger to others or to themselves, or is gravely disabled, a peace officer, professional person in charge of a facility designated by the county for evaluation and treatment, member of the attending staff, as defined by regulation, of a facility designated by the county for evaluation and treatment, designated members of a mobile crisis team, or professional person designated by the county may, upon probable cause, take, or cause to be taken, the person into custody for a period of up to 72 hours for assessment, evaluation, and crisis intervention, or placement for evaluation and treatment in a facility designated by the county for evaluation and treatment and approved by the State Department of Health Care Services. The 72-hour period begins at the time when the person is first detained. At a minimum, assessment, as defined in Section 5150.4, and evaluation, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 5008, shall be conducted and provided on an ongoing basis. Crisis intervention, as defined in subdivision (e) of Section 5008, may be provided concurrently with assessment, evaluation, or any other service. (b) When determining if a person should be taken into custody pursuant to subdivision (a), the individual making that determination shall apply the provisions of Section 5150.05, and shall not be limited to consideration of the danger of imminent harm. (c) The professional person in charge of a facility designated by the county for evaluation and treatment, member of the attending staff, or professional person designated by the county shall assess the person to determine whether the person can be properly served without being detained. If, in the judgment of the professional person in charge of the facility designated by the county for evaluation and treatment, member of the attending staff, or professional person designated by the county, the person can be properly served without being detained, the person shall be provided evaluation, crisis intervention, or other inpatient or outpatient services on a voluntary basis. This subdivision does not prevent a peace officer from delivering an individual to a designated facility for assessment under this section. Furthermore, the assessment requirement of this subdivision does not require a peace officer to perform any additional duties other than those specified in Sections 5150.1 and 5150.2. (d) If a person is evaluated by a professional person in charge of a facility designated by the county for evaluation or treatment, member of the attending staff, or professional person designated by the county and is found to be in need of mental health services, but is not admitted to the facility, all available alternative services provided pursuant to subdivision (c) shall be offered, as determined by the county mental health director. (e) If, in the judgment of the professional person in charge of the facility designated by the county for evaluation and treatment, member of the attending staff, or the professional person designated by the county, the person cannot be properly served without being detained, the admitting facility shall require an application in writing stating the circumstances under which the person’s condition was called to the attention of the peace officer, professional person in charge of the facility designated by the county for evaluation and treatment, member of the attending staff, or professional person designated by the county, and stating that the peace officer, professional person in charge of the facility designated by the county for evaluation and treatment, member of the attending staff, or professional person designated by the county has probable cause to believe that the person is, as a result of a mental health disorder, a danger to others or to themselves, or is gravely disabled. The application shall also record whether the historical course of the person’s mental disorder was considered in the determination pursuant to Section 5150.05. If the probable cause is based on the statement of a person other than the peace officer, professional person in charge of the facility designated by the county for evaluation and treatment, member of the attending staff, or professional person designated by the county, the person shall be liable in a civil action for intentionally giving a statement that the person knows to be false. A copy of the application shall b [Text truncated for display. Full text available on Congress.gov.]