California 2013-2014 Regular Session Status: In Committee

AB 1725 — Conservatorship hearings.

Last action — From committee without further action.

Track this bill free

No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.

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

This bill died with 2013-2014 Regular Session. It reached “In Committee” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.

This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.

Summary

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 and requires an officer, including a county public guardian or a county mental health program, to conduct a conservatorship investigation and render a written report to the court of his or her investigation. Under existing law, a professional person in charge of an agency providing comprehensive evaluation or a facility providing intensive treatment for a gravely disabled person may recommend a conservatorship for that person, and the agency is required to disclose any records or information that may facilitate an investigation. Existing law requires the officer providing conservatorship investigation, when he or she concurs with the recommendation of the professional person or facility, to petition the superior court in the patient's county of residence for a conservatorship. This bill would authorize the court, after a hearing attended by the proposed conservatee or the proposed conservatee's counsel, or both, to recommend a conservatorship to the officer providing conservatorship investigation when the court, in a conservatorship proceeding under the Probate Code, determines, based on evidence presented to the court, including medical evidence, that a person, for whom a conservatorship has been established under the Probate Code, may be gravely disabled as a result of a mental disorder or impairment by chronic alcoholism and is unwilling to accept, or is incapable of accepting, treatment voluntarily. This bill would also require the court to appoint counsel to a proposed conservatee if he or she cannot afford counsel. This bill would require the officer providing conservatorship investigation to petition the superior court in the patient's county of residence to establish conservatorship if he or she concurs with the recommendation of the court, and to file a copy of his or her report with the court within 30 days of the court's recommendation. This bill would require an existing probate conservator, if conservatorship is recommended by the court, to disclose any records or information that may facilitate the investigation. This bill would also make conforming changes. By expanding the duties of the county officer providing conservatorship investigation, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. 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 these statutory provisions.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. From committee without further action.

  2. In committee: Set, second hearing. Held under submission.

  3. In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.

  4. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  5. Read second time and amended.

  6. From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 9. Noes 1.) (April 29).

  7. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on JUD. (Ayes 16. Noes 0.) (April 22). Re-referred to Com. on JUD.

  8. In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.

  9. Referred to Coms. on HEALTH and JUD.

  10. From printer. May be heard in committee March 20.

  11. Read first time. To print.

Sponsors

  • Maienschein · Primary

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

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

Sponsors (1)

  • Maienschein

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 and be re-referred to the Committee on Judiciary.

Passed 16 Yea · 0 Nay · 3 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 15003
Democratic 1000
Total 16003
% of votes cast 84%0%0%16%
How each member voted (19)
Member Party Vote
Ammiano — Not Voting
Maienschein — Yea
Mansoor — Yea
Ridley-Thomas — Yea
Gomez — Yea
Lowenthal — Yea
Chesbro — Yea
Bonilla — Not Voting
Chávez — Yea
Nazarian — Yea
Pan — Yea
Rendon — Yea
Wagner — Yea
Waldron — Yea
Wieckowski — Not Voting
Jim Patterson — Yea
Lorena Gonzalez — Yea
Roger Hernández — Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

Subjects

public-safety civil-rights health-insurance
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 AB 1725 do?
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 and requires an officer, including a county public guardian or a county mental health program, to conduct a conservatorship investigation and render a written report to the court of his or her investigation. Under existing law, a professional person in charge of an agency providing comprehensive evaluation or a facility providing intensive treatment for a gravely disabled person may recommend a conservatorship for that person, and the agency is required to disclose any records or information that may facilitate an investigation. Existing law requires the officer providing conservatorship investigation, when he or she concurs with the recommendation of the professional person or facility, to petition the superior court in the patient's county of residence for a conservatorship. This bill would authorize the court, after a hearing attended by the proposed conservatee or the proposed conservatee's counsel, or both, to recommend a conservatorship to the officer providing conservatorship investigation when the court, in a conservatorship proceeding under the Probate Code, determines, based on evidence presented to the court, including medical evidence, that a person, for whom a conservatorship has been established under the Probate Code, may be gravely disabled as a result of a mental disorder or impairment by chronic alcoholism and is unwilling to accept, or is incapable of accepting, treatment voluntarily. This bill would also require the court to appoint counsel to a proposed conservatee if he or she cannot afford counsel. This bill would require the officer providing conservatorship investigation to petition the superior court in the patient's county of residence to establish conservatorship if he or she concurs with the recommendation of the court, and to file a copy of his or her report with the court within 30 days of the court's recommendation. This bill would require an existing probate conservator, if conservatorship is recommended by the court, to disclose any records or information that may facilitate the investigation. This bill would also make conforming changes. By expanding the duties of the county officer providing conservatorship investigation, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. 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 these statutory provisions.
Who sponsors AB 1725?
AB 1725 is sponsored by Maienschein.
What is the current status of AB 1725?
This bill died with 2013-2014 Regular Session. It reached “In Committee” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
Where can I track AB 1725?
Track AB 1725 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 1725

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 AB 1725

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

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

Track this bill →