California has a history of using “conservatorships” for extortion, child and elderly abuse. The most famous case was that of the abuse of Brittany Spears by her father and the courts. Now changes are being made.
“Senate Bill 43 by state Senator Susan Talamantes Eggman, a Stockton Democrat, expands the legal definition of “gravely disabled” when determining if someone can be involuntarily detained.
It’s an update of the existing Lanterman-Petris-Short Act. Existing law allows for involuntary detention if someone is a danger to themselves or others, or is “gravely disabled.” The new definition of “gravely disabled” now includes the inability of someone to care for their personal safety or medical needs due to severe substance abuse disorder, a mental health disorder and severe substance use disorder, or chronic alcoholism.
Counties can opt to delay implementing the new definition until January 2026.”
But the new law allows for an overly broad, subjective determination, still blackmailing those who have their lives stolen by greedy relatives or friends. This needs to stop.
California makes big changes to conservatorship rules
The new law expands the definition of “gravely disabled,” widening the criteria for who can be involuntarily detained.
ALAN RIQUELMY, Courthousenews, 10/10/23 https://www.courthousenews.com/california-makes-big-changes-to-conservatorship-rules/
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (CN) — A bill signed Tuesday by California Governor Gavin Newsom updates the state’s conservatorship law for the first time in over 50 years and sets the stage for related ballot measures expected to reach voters in March.
Senate Bill 43 by state Senator Susan Talamantes Eggman, a Stockton Democrat, expands the legal definition of “gravely disabled” when determining if someone can be involuntarily detained.
It’s an update of the existing Lanterman-Petris-Short Act. Existing law allows for involuntary detention if someone is a danger to themselves or others, or is “gravely disabled.” The new definition of “gravely disabled” now includes the inability of someone to care for their personal safety or medical needs due to severe substance abuse disorder, a mental health disorder and severe substance use disorder, or chronic alcoholism.
Counties can opt to delay implementing the new definition until January 2026.
Eggman, chair of the Senate Health Committee, said the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act was written at a time when public policy was to “warehouse” mentally ill people. An update was needed.
“Like many things that are decades old, it has long been time to make some adjustments to the law to address the realities we are seeing today on our streets,” Eggman said in a statement. “SB 43 maintains the strong due process protections provided in the LPS Act, while expanding the criteria for making a ‘gravely disabled’ determination, so that the most severely ill can get the help they need and the dignity they deserve.”
Conservatorship is considered a final resort to help get people with significant behavioral health needs the resources and support they require. It starts with a county mental health department asking a court to appoint someone to direct someone’s care. That direction, for a limited time, is intended to stop the cycle of crises like arrest, imprisonment and psychiatric hospitalization.
“California is undertaking a major overhaul of our mental health system,” Newsom said in a statement. “The mental health crisis affects us all, and people who need the most help have been too often overlooked. We are working to ensure no one falls through the cracks, and that people get the help they need and the respect they deserve.”
Costs to county mental health programs because of the law are unknown. The Medi-Cal program is expected to reimburse those county programs tens of millions of dollars because of SB 43, and Medi-Cal reimbursements to county behavioral health agencies could be between $11 billion and $12.2 billion a year, according to an analysis of the bill.
Phebe Bell, director of the Nevada County Behavioral Health Department, said she’s concerned over a lack of housing for people with substance use disorders placed under a conservatorship.
California has many substance use programs with facilities, though they’re for people who attend willingly, Bell said.
“How do we solve that?” Bell asked. “What does that look like?”
That concern was echoed by the California Society of Addiction Medicine, which said the law had no provision to assure proper bed space and treatment providers for those under a conservatorship.
Two measures expected to reach voters in March would enact further changes to how the state handles mental health.
SB 326, also written by Eggman, would revise the Mental Health Services Act and the Behavioral Health Services Act, if approved by voters. Counties would be able to use Behavioral Health Services Act money for treating primary substance use disorders. The bill would also change how Mental Health Services Act funds are distributed.
Assembly Bill 531 — written by Assembly member Jacqui Irwin, a Thousand Oaks Democrat — would create the Behavioral health Infrastructure Bond Act of 2024, if passed by voters. This would authorize over $6 billion in bonds to finance permanent supportive housing for veterans and others. It would also fund locked and unlocked behavioral health treatment facilities for unhoused people, or people at risk of being unhoused, who have behavioral health issues.
Additionally, the CARE Court program will be implemented statewide in 2024. The program connects someone with an untreated mental illness, and often drug abuse issues, with a court-ordered plan for up to two years. The plan is managed by a team that can include clinically, prescribed interventions, supportive services and a framework for housing.
Newsom signed a host of other bills on Tuesday. The last day for him to sign or veto bills is Saturday.
SB 76 — written by state Senator Scott Wiener, a San Francisco Democrat — will allow local restaurants and bars to sell alcohol when an outdoor festival is in the area. Currently, outside vendors can sell alcohol, though existing businesses within the festival area are prohibited from selling.
Also related to alcohol is AB 416, written by Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi, a Torrance Democrat. This bill will allow a business with a license to sell wine to also sell shochu, a Japanese spirit that has no more than 24% alcohol by volume. Such license holders already can sell soju, a Korean spirit.
AB 261 by Assemblymember Ash Kalra, a San Jose Democrat, names the California golden chanterelle (Cantharellus californicus) as the state’s official mushroom.
Do we really want to give the government more power over us; who decides other than more DEMS in MORE power? Do we want to throw more money at the problem after the government has already poured thousands and thousands at it to no avail? Has anyone done research on how dangerous a conservator-ship is? How it is abused by the appointment conservators?? All one has to do is look at the DEMS who have written all these proposed laws to know it is dangerous.