California 20252026 Regular Session Status: Introduced 1 D cosponsors

SB 367 — Mental health.

Last action — Returned to Secretary of Senate pursuant to Joint Rule 56.

  1. 1
    Introduced
  2. 2
    In Committee
  3. 3
    Passed Senate
  4. 4
    Passed Assembly
  5. 5
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill has been introduced in the Senate. Introduced February 13, 2025. It must pass committee before a floor vote.

Next likely step: a committee referral and hearing.

Prognosis

Stalled 28% · moderate confidence

Where this bill stands today.

Odds of enactment

Low

How often bills like it became law.

  • Introduced

    Current position in the legislative process.

  • 1 sponsor

    1 primary, 0 co-sponsors signed on.

  • Single-party support

    Sponsorship is currently within one party (1 D).

  • Cleared a recorded vote

    Passed 3 recorded votes so far.

Prognosis reads this bill's own signals — stage, sponsorship breadth, committee status, recorded votes and cross-state momentum. Odds come from a model trained on which bills have become law.

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 Text

Action History

  1. Returned to Secretary of Senate pursuant to Joint Rule 56.

  2. May 23 hearing: Held in committee and under submission.

  3. Set for hearing May 23.

  4. May 12 hearing: Placed on APPR. suspense file.

  5. Set for hearing May 12.

  6. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  7. From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 12. Noes 1. Page 940.) (April 29).

  8. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on JUD.

  9. Set for hearing April 29.

  10. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on JUD.

  11. From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on JUD. (Ayes 11. Noes 0. Page 737.) (April 9).

  12. Set for hearing April 9.

  13. Re-referred to Coms. on HEALTH and JUD.

  14. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on RLS.

  15. Referred to Com. on RLS.

  16. From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 16.

  17. Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.

Sponsors

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on · 1 voted No

Sponsors (1)

Co-sponsors (0)

None.

Not signed on (121)

121 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 121 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Votes

Do pass as amended, but first amend, and re-refer to the Committee on [Appropriations]

Passed 12 Yea · 1 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 10100
Republican 2000
Total 12100
% of votes cast 92%8%0%0%
How each member voted (13)
Member Party Vote
Allen, Benjamin Democratic Yea
Arreguín, Jesse Democratic Yea
Ashby, Angelique V. Democratic Yea
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Durazo, Maria Elena Democratic Yea
Laird, John Democratic Yea
Stern, Henry I. Democratic Yea
Umberg, Thomas J. Democratic Yea
Wahab, Aisha Democratic Nay
Weber Pierson, M.D., Akilah Democratic Yea
Wiener, Scott D. Democratic Yea
Niello, Roger W. Republican Yea
Valladares, Suzette Martinez Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass as amended, but first amend, and re-refer to the Committee on [Judiciary]

Passed 11 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 9000
Republican 2000
Total 11000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (11)
Member Party Vote
Durazo, Maria Elena Democratic Yea
Gonzalez, Lena A. Democratic Yea
Limón, Monique Democratic Yea
Menjivar, Caroline Democratic Yea
Padilla, Stephen C. Democratic Yea
Richardson, Laura Democratic Yea
Rubio, Susan Democratic Yea
Weber Pierson, M.D., Akilah Democratic Yea
Wiener, Scott D. Democratic Yea
Grove, Shannon Republican Yea
Valladares, Suzette Martinez Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Subjects

public-safety civil-rights healthcare labor
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does SB 367 do?
(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.
Who sponsors SB 367?
SB 367 is sponsored by Allen, Benjamin (Democratic).
What is the current status of SB 367?
This bill has been introduced in the Senate. Introduced February 13, 2025. It must pass committee before a floor vote.
Where can I track SB 367?
Track SB 367 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on SB 367

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of SB 367

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →