(1) Existing law, the Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment (CARE) Act (the act) , authorizes specified persons, including a person with whom the respondent resides, family members, and first responders, among others, to petition a civil court to create a voluntary CARE agreement or a court-ordered CARE plan and implement services, to be provided by county behavioral health agencies, to provide behavioral health care, including stabilization medication, housing, and other enumerated services, to adults who are currently experiencing a severe mental illness and have a diagnosis identified in the disorder class schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders, and who meet other specified criteria. Existing law, the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, authorizes a conservator of the person, of the estate, or of 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. Existing law requires the officer providing the conservatorship investigation, which may include a public guardian or a county mental health program, to investigate all available alternatives to conservatorship and to recommend conservatorship to the court only if no suitable alternatives are available. Existing law requires a conservatorship under these provisions to terminate after one year and specifies procedures if the conservator determines conservatorship is still required. This bill would authorize a conservator to, upon the termination of a conservatorship, request the court refer the conservatee to CARE court, as specified. (2) The act authorizes services and supports to be provided to adults who are currently experiencing a qualifying severe mental illness and who meet other specified criteria, including that the person is not clinically stabilized in ongoing voluntary treatment and is either unlikely to survive safely in the community without ongoing supervision and the person's condition is substantially deteriorating or the person is in need of services and supports to prevent a relapse or deterioration that would likely result in grave disability or serious harm to the person or others. This bill would authorize the court, beginning July 1, 2028, and if it dismisses a CARE petition because a respondent needs a higher level of services, to order the county to develop an exit plan for the respondent. The bill would require the State Department of Health Care Services, by July 1, 2028, to develop, with input from certain stakeholder groups, a CARE Act model exit plan that identifies appropriate services and ongoing monitoring of an individual with a petition dismissed because the individual needed a higher level of services. This bill would update the definition of a petitioner for the purposes of the act. (3) Existing law requires the Judicial Council to develop a mandatory form or forms to use to file a CARE process petition. Existing law requires the petition to be signed under the penalty of perjury and to contain specified information, including the petitioner's relationship to the respondent and either an affidavit of a licensed behavioral health professional stating the licensed behavioral health professional or their designee has examined or made multiple unsuccessful attempts to examine the respondent within 60 days of submission of the petition, or that the respondent was detained for a minimum of 2 intensive treatments pursuant to state law. This bill would extend the 60-day period for examination of the respondent to 120 days. The bill would also authorize a petition to include evidence that the respondent was either detained for a minimum of 2 involuntary holds in the last 120 days or that they were referred to a full service partnership program more than once, but was not enrolled due to inability or unwillingness to engage in the previous 120 days. (4) Existing law authorizes a court to terminate a respondent's participation in the CARE process if the court determines that the respondent is not participating in the CARE process or is not adhering to their CARE plan, as specified. Existing law authorizes the court to order an evaluation under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, as specified, to ensure the respondent's safety. Existing law requires the court to consider the respondent's failure to successfully complete their CARE plan and the reasons for that failure in a subsequent hearing under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, provided that the hearing occurs within 6 months of the termination of the CARE plan, and creates a presumption that the respondent needs additional intervention beyond the supports and services provided by the CARE plan. This bill would prohibit the court from terminating a respondent's participation in the CARE process solely due to a failure of the county or other local government entity to properly engage with the CARE process. (5) Existing law requires CARE Act proceedings to occur in person unless the court, in its discretion, allows a party or witness to appear remotely through the use of remote technology. Existing law authorizes the respondent to be in person for all hearings. This bill would instead authorize all parties and witnesses to appear remotely through the use of remotely technology. The bill would authorize the court with discretion to order a party or witness to appear in person if necessary. This bill would authorize the parties to agree to an alternative method of service for all subsequent reports and notices after the notice of initial appearance. This bill would require, by January 1, 2028, all counties to establish a process for electronic submission of CARE Act documents using a secured portal. By increasing the duties on county behavioral health agencies, the bill would create a state-mandated local program. (6) Existing law authorizes a provider of health care or a covered entity, as defined, to disclose to the county behavioral health agency any information, including protected health information, and mental health records excluding psychotherapy notes, in its possession about the respondent that is relevant to the county behavioral health agency's provision, coordination, or management or services or supports. Existing law specifies protections for this information and required procedures when such a disclosure is made. This bill would authorize a county behavioral health agency to disclose to a provider of health care or a covered entity any information, including protected health information, and mental health records, excluding psychotherapy notes, in its possession about the respondent that is relevant to the provider or entity's provision, coordination, or management of services and supports. The bill would also specify protections for this information and required procedures when such a disclosure is made. (7) Existing law requires the department to develop, in consultation with specified entities, an annual CARE Act report that includes specified information on CARE Act petitions, including the number of initial appearances, and information compiled from county behavioral health departments and courts. This bill would expand the information on CARE Act petitions to include the number of petitions submitted electronically as well as other specified information. The bill would also expand the data to be compiled from county behavioral health departments and courts to include the number of individuals who were enrolled in a Full Service Partnership program postreferral, among other things. The bill would also require the data collected from county behavioral health departments and courts to be collected for cases involving dismissed respondents, where available. (8) Existing law requires the California Health and Human Services Agency, or a designated department within the agency, to perform specified functions, including engaging an independent, research-based entity to advise on the development of data-driven process and outcome measures to guide the planning, collaboration, reporting, and evaluation of the CARE Act. This bill would require the agency to annually release a list of overperforming counties and shall annually provide written notice identifying areas of concern and opportunities for improvement to underperforming counties. This bill would also establish within the California Health and Human Services Agency the position of a CARE Court Ombudsperson, as specified. (9) 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.
Existing law, the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act, requires the State Department of Developmental Services to contract with regional centers for the provision of services and supports for persons with developmental disabilities and their families. Existing law, until July 1, 2026, creates the Advisory Council on Improving Interactions between People with Intellectual and Development Disabilities and Law Enforcement, under the Department of Justice, to, among other things, evaluate existing training for peace officers specific to interactions between law enforcement and individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Existing law requires the council to submit a report including recommendations to the Legislature for improving outcomes of interactions with both individuals who have an intellectual or developmental disability and mental health conditions, as specified. This bill would require the State Department of Developmental Services to conduct a statewide evaluation of safety training services provided by regional centers, as specified. The bill would require the department, by July 1, 2028, to submit a report to the Legislature summarizing its findings and recommendations and would require the recommendations to address specified topics, including, among others, recommendations for establishing standardized, statewide protocols for responding to crises involving individuals with intellectual or developmental disabilities. The bill would state the intent of the Legislature to consider, upon receipt and consideration of that report, providing funding to the department for the purpose of developing, implementing, and sustaining safety training services statewide.
Existing law requires a person arrested to be taken before a magistrate without delay and, in any event, within 48 hours after arrest, not including weekends and holidays, as specified. Existing law allows an attorney to visit a prisoner after their arrest, as specified. Under existing law, an officer in charge of the prisoner who willfully refuses or neglects to allow an attorney to visit that prisoner is liable for criminal and civil penalties, as provided. This bill would clarify that the above provisions regarding criminal and civil penalties for officers apply if a prisoner is in a jail, prison, or medical setting. The bill would make other technical changes, as provided.
Existing law authorizes a county to use a children's advocacy center to implement a coordinated multidisciplinary response to investigate reports involving child physical or sexual abuse, exploitation, or maltreatment. Existing law requires a county that utilizes a child advocacy center to meet specified standards, including, among other things, that the children's advocacy center must verify that interviews conducted in the course of investigations are conducted in a forensically sound manner and occur in a child-focused setting designed to provide a safe, comfortable, and dedicated place for children and families. Existing law requires the children's advocacy center or other identified multidisciplinary team member custodian to ensure that all recordings of child forensic interviews be released only in response to a court order, or, upon request, to law enforcement agencies authorized to investigate child abuse or agencies authorized to prosecute juvenile or criminal conduct described in the forensic interview, or to county counsel evaluating an allegation of child abuse. Existing law requires files, reports, records, communications, and working papers used or developed in providing services through a children's advocacy center to be confidential and not public records. Existing law authorizes the members of a multidisciplinary team associated with a children's advocacy center to share with other multidisciplinary team members any information or records concerning the child and family and the person who is the subject of the investigation of suspected child abuse or neglect for the sole purpose of facilitating a forensic interview, case discussion, or providing services to the child or family, as specified. This bill would additionally authorize the members of a multidisciplinary team associated with a children's advocacy center to share with child welfare agencies authorized to investigate child abuse and neglect any information or records, as specified, for the purposes mentioned above.
Existing law requires that the terms of probation granted to a person who has been convicted of domestic violence include, among other things, successful completion of a batterer's program or, if a batterer's program is not available, another appropriate counseling program, as specified. Existing law requires the probation department to design and implement an approval and renewal process for batterer's programs and prescribes the requirements of a batterer's program. Existing law, until July 1, 2026, authorizes the Counties of Napa, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, and Yolo to offer an alternative program for individuals convicted of domestic violence if the program meets specified conditions. This bill would additionally authorize the County of Sacramento to offer an alternative program for individuals convicted of domestic violence. The bill would extend the repeal date of these provisions to July 1, 2030. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Existing law, the Sex Offender Registration Act, requires a person convicted of one of certain crimes, as specified, to register with law enforcement as a sex offender while residing in California or while attending school or working in California, as specified. Existing law, on and after July 1, 2021, authorizes a person to file a petition in the superior court in the county in which they are registered for termination from the sex offender registry on or after their next birthday following the expiration of the mandated minimum registration period. If the district attorney requests a hearing regarding the above-described petition, under existing law, the district attorney is entitled to present evidence regarding whether community safety would be significantly enhanced by requiring continued registration. Existing law requires the court, in determining whether to order continued registration pursuant to the hearing, to consider specified information, including the person's current risk of reoffense as indicated on the State-Authorized Risk Assessment Tool for Sex Offenders (SARATSO) , as specified. This bill would authorize the court to order the petitioner to be present at the hearing described above, as specified. The bill would require the hearing to be heard in the county in which the person is registered. The bill would additionally require the court to consider whether the offender was in a position of trust or authority in relation to the victim and proof of participation in or successful completion of sex offender-specific treatment by the offender in the above-described determination. The bill would require the court to verify, as specified, participation in or completion of treatment. The bill would make other clarifying changes.
Existing law establishes various privacy protections relating to the collection, use, sale, or distribution of personal information, images, or video recordings, including restrictions relating to the retention, access, use, sale, or sharing of images or video recordings collected through the operation of an in-vehicle camera. This bill would prohibit a security surveillance company, as defined, from distributing, selling, or otherwise authorizing a third party to access, use, or distribute content obtained from a consumer's security surveillance system without first obtaining the express consent of the consumer and the adult residents of a residential rental property or upon receipt of an order of a court or arbitrator.
This bill designates the week of April 19 to April 25, 2026, as Crime Victims' Rights Week. The primary purpose is to formally recognize and highlight the rights and needs of individuals who have been affected by crime. It does not create new laws or alter existing legal procedures but serves as a commemorative resolution to raise awareness during a specific time period.
Existing law, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, except as specified, makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer with 5 or more employees to include on any application for employment, before the employer makes a conditional offer of employment to the applicant, any question that seeks the disclosure of an applicant's conviction history, to consider the conviction history of the applicant until after the employer has made a conditional offer of employment to the applicant, or to distribute information about an arrest not followed by conviction, referral to or participation in a pretrial or posttrial diversion program, or convictions that have been sealed, dismissed, expunged, or statutorily eradicated or any conviction for which the convicted person has received a full pardon or has been issued a certificate of rehabilitation while conducting a conviction history background check in connection with an application for employment, as specified. This bill would define the term "conviction or arrest record," for these purposes. The bill would include among those things that it is unlawful for an employer with 5 or more employees to do while conducting a conviction history background check in connection with an application for employment, asking any question that directly or indirectly seeks consent for a conviction history background check or requesting consent for or beginning a conviction history background check before providing the applicant with a list of all essential job duties, requiring a job applicant to cover the cost of a conviction history background check, or requiring any time before or after the conditional job offer, that an applicant self-disclose conviction history or provide the employer with any documentary evidence related to conviction history or rehabilitation, as specified. Existing law requires an employer that intends to deny an applicant a position of employment solely or in part because of the applicant's conviction history to make an individualized assessment of whether the applicant's conviction history has a direct and adverse relationship with the specific duties of the job that justify denying the applicant the position considering specified factors. This bill, instead, would prohibit an employer from denying an applicant a position of employment or taking any other adverse action solely or in part because of the applicant's conviction history unless the employer first, reasonably and in good faith, demonstrates via an individualized assessment, that the applicant's conviction history has a direct and adverse relationship with the specific duties of the job that justifies denying the applicant the position and it complies with a specified process. The bill would require the employer to commit the results of the individualized assessment to writing if it makes a decision to deny a position of employment or takes any adverse action. The bill would specify that it is not an adverse action for an employer to temporarily suspend an employee, with pay and for a reasonable amount of time, while the employer complies with the requirements of these provisions. Existing law makes these provisions inapplicable to a position as a farm labor contractor, as specified or to a position where an employer or agent thereof is required by any state, federal, or local law to conduct criminal background checks for employment purposes or to restrict employment based on criminal history. This bill would remove the exemption for farm labor contractors.
Existing law prohibits the state from seeking or obtaining a criminal conviction or sentence on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin, as specified. Existing law allows a defendant to establish a violation of these provisions under specified circumstances, including when a longer or more severe sentence was imposed on the defendant than was imposed on other similarly situated individuals convicted of the same offense and other specified conditions are met. This bill would instead compare the defendant to similarly situated individuals who have engaged in similar conduct, as specified. The bill would make these provisions apply to disparities in plea negotiating and diversion, among other things. Existing law authorizes a defendant in these cases to file a motion requesting disclosure to the defense of all evidence relevant to a potential violation of these provisions, as specified. This bill would additionally authorize a defendant to request any data that has been previously disclosed pursuant to those provisions in another criminal case, and require the court to grant that request, unless the data has no relevance to the current charges. The bill would also revise and recast definitions for these provisions.
