SB 367 California Senate · 2025-2026 Regular Session

Mental health.

Summary
(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 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. (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. 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.
Bill status failed 1 of 4 stages cleared
Introduction
Feb 2025
Committee Review
Floor Vote
Governor
Introduced Feb 13, 2025 Last action Feb 2, 2026
Maddy AI version diff · 5 comparisons

What changed between versions

04/10/25 - Amended Senate 04/21/25 - Amended Senate · 7 edits · Apr 21, 2025
MODERATE
The April 21 amendment to SB 367 makes several substantive changes to the LPS conservatorship framework: it narrows what assessments must consider, tightens the criteria for recommending conservatorship by requiring that self-care inability be caused by grave disability, removes emergency medicine physicians from those who can recommend conservatorship, limits the outcome of appeals on denied recommendations to a new investigation only, and restricts CARE Act information sharing by removing the ability to share with county behavioral health providers.
Scope change
The bill's scope regarding who can initiate LPS conservatorship recommendations was narrowed (removing emergency medicine physicians) while simultaneously broadened in other ways (adding a Probate Code incapacity criterion and expanding physician/psychiatrist categories). The assessment requirement was narrowed to focus on mental health records rather than the person's full life circumstances.
DEFINITION

The definition of what an assessment must consider was narrowed significantly. The old version required consideration of the person's medical, psychological, educational, social, financial, and legal conditions plus their ability to provide for basic personal needs. The new version limits this to 'reasonably available, relevant information including, but not limited to, the history of a person's mental health records and the frequency of prior assessments.'

ELIGIBILITY

The criterion for recommending conservatorship based on inability to follow through with self-care plans now requires that the inability be 'a result of the person being gravely disabled,' adding a causation requirement that was not in the prior version.

A new ground for recommending conservatorship was added: a person who has demonstrated an inability to accept voluntary treatment due to an apparent incapacity as described in Section 811 of the Probate Code.

The list of individuals who can recommend conservatorship outside an inpatient setting was changed. The old 'treating physician' and 'emergency medicine physician' categories were replaced with a single broader category: 'a physician who has provided treatment to the person being recommended for conservatorship for a condition that is contributing to that person being gravely disabled.' A parallel change was made for psychiatrists.

REQUIREMENT

The CARE Act judicial officer's ability to recommend conservatorship now requires a specific finding, made after consultation with a licensed psychiatrist or psychologist meeting certain criteria, that the individual is unlikely to complete the CARE process due to grave disability. Previously no such finding or consultation was required.

ENFORCEMENT

The appeal process when a conservatorship investigation officer does not concur with a recommendation was modified: the appeal is now specifically to the 'LPS court' (rather than just 'mental health court'), and the outcome is limited to returning the case for a new investigation. The court cannot grant the conservatorship directly on appeal.

SCOPE

CARE Act information sharing was made more restrictive. The old version allowed information to be shared with a county behavioral health service provider or as approved by the respondent. The new version removes the county behavioral health service provider pathway, allowing sharing only by court order or as approved by the respondent.

Floor votes

How they voted

No floor votes recorded yet.
Full legislative history

Actions timeline

Total actions
17
Key actions
7
Committee
3
Amendments
6
May 23, 2025
Upper · Passed
May 23 hearing: Held in committee and under submission.
upper
May 1, 2025
Upper · Passed
Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
upper
Apr 30, 2025
Upper · Passed
From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 12. Noes 1. Page 940.) (April 29).
upper
Apr 21, 2025
Upper · Passed
From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on JUD.
upper
Apr 10, 2025
Upper · Passed
Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on JUD.
upper
Apr 10, 2025
Upper · Passed
From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on JUD. (Ayes 11. Noes 0. Page 737.) (April 9).
upper
Apr 2, 2025
Committee
Re-referred to Coms. on HEALTH and JUD.
upper
Mar 24, 2025
Upper · Passed
From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on RLS.
upper
Feb 26, 2025
Committee
Referred to Com. on RLS.
upper
Feb 13, 2025
Introduced
Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.
upper
1 primary · 3 co-sponsors

Sponsors