Bill Commons

CA SB 1221

in committee

Lanterman-Petris-Short Act: conservatorships.

California · 2025-2026 Regular Session · upper

Follow this bill’s action updates (Atom)

Subscribe in a feed reader. The feed covers recorded actions from the last 30 days; Bill Commons may record an action after it happened at the legislature.

Quick answers

Did CA SB 1221 pass?

Not yet. CA SB 1221 is in committee and has not come to a final vote. Latest recorded action (2026-05-14): May 14 hearing: Held in committee and under submission.

What is CA SB 1221 about?

(1) Existing law, the Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) Act, authorizes the involuntary commitment and treatment of a person, when the person, as a result of a mental health disorder, is a danger to themselves or others, or is gravely disabled. For the purposes of these provisions, existing law defines "gravely disabled" as a condition in which a person, as a result of a mental health disorder, a severe substance use disorder, or a co-occurring mental health disorder and a severe substance use disorder, is unable to provide for their basic personal needs for food, clothing, shelter, personal safety, or necessary medical care. Existing law also authorizes a conservator of a person, estate, or person and the estate to be appointed for a person who is gravely disabled or impaired by chronic alcoholism, subject to specified procedures. Existing law provides the person for whom conservatorship is sought to have the right to demand a court or jury trial on the issue of whether the person is gravely disabled. Existing law prohibits a person from being tried or adjudged to punishment while that person is mentally incompetent, and establishes a process by which a defendant's mental competency is evaluated. This bill would prohibit a court, for purposes of LPS conservatorship, from determining a person's ability to provide for their basic personal needs based solely on the fact that the person has temporary access to those basic personal needs while incarcerated. The bill would also authorize a district attorney to be present and represent public safety interests at any hearing to determine whether an individual is gravely disabled for purposes of the LPS Act. Existing law requires the court to determine the most appropriate placement for a conservatee who is gravely disabled, as defined. Existing law requires the officer providing conservatorship investigation to investigate all available alternatives to conservatorship, as applicable, and to render to the court a comprehensive, written report of the investigation prior to the hearing, as specified. This bill would authorize the district attorney to review all filed documents regarding the investigation, initiation, termination, or modification of, and to be present and represent public safety interests at all hearings that consider, a conservatorship of a person who is gravely disabled, as defined by being found mentally incompetent and meeting the above-described conditions, to provide input to the court about appropriate placement or interim placement by the public conservator. The bill would require a copy of the conservatorship investigation report to be transmitted to the district attorney if the investigation was initiated as part of a determination of mental competence for trial. The bill would authorize the district attorney, if the individual has been appointed a conservator under specified provisions, to challenge the recommendation of the public conservator after the conservatorship investigation for an abuse of discretion in a contested hearing before a judge. The bill would prohibit the district attorney from using the information contained in these reports in subsequent criminal proceedings, except as specified. To the extent the bill imposes a higher level of service on county agencies that prepare and transmit conservatorship investigation reports and on a district attorney to receive those reports, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would authorize a county with a population size of 750,000 or greater to consider prioritizing the placement of specified conservatees in a state hospital run by the State Department of State Hospitals if at least 40 of those conservatees are waiting for placement in a state hospital. The bill would also authorize the placement to be on an interim basis at a county detention facility pending acceptance into a facility that achieves the purposes of treatment of the conservatee and protection of the public. The bill would require the conservatee to receive treatment services in accordance with the conservatorship plan within the detention facility pending permanent placement and would require the court to review the conservator's placement efforts every 60 calendar days. 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 CA SB 1221?

Stern is the primary sponsor of CA SB 1221.

Description

(1) Existing law, the Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) Act, authorizes the involuntary commitment and treatment of a person, when the person, as a result of a mental health disorder, is a danger to themselves or others, or is gravely disabled. For the purposes of these provisions, existing law defines "gravely disabled" as a condition in which a person, as a result of a mental health disorder, a severe substance use disorder, or a co-occurring mental health disorder and a severe substance use disorder, is unable to provide for their basic personal needs for food, clothing, shelter, personal safety, or necessary medical care. Existing law also authorizes a conservator of a person, estate, or person and the estate to be appointed for a person who is gravely disabled or impaired by chronic alcoholism, subject to specified procedures. Existing law provides the person for whom conservatorship is sought to have the right to demand a court or jury trial on the issue of whether the person is gravely disabled. Existing law prohibits a person from being tried or adjudged to punishment while that person is mentally incompetent, and establishes a process by which a defendant's mental competency is evaluated. This bill would prohibit a court, for purposes of LPS conservatorship, from determining a person's ability to provide for their basic personal needs based solely on the fact that the person has temporary access to those basic personal needs while incarcerated. The bill would also authorize a district attorney to be present and represent public safety interests at any hearing to determine whether an individual is gravely disabled for purposes of the LPS Act. Existing law requires the court to determine the most appropriate placement for a conservatee who is gravely disabled, as defined. Existing law requires the officer providing conservatorship investigation to investigate all available alternatives to conservatorship, as applicable, and to render to the court a comprehensive, written report of the investigation prior to the hearing, as specified. This bill would authorize the district attorney to review all filed documents regarding the investigation, initiation, termination, or modification of, and to be present and represent public safety interests at all hearings that consider, a conservatorship of a person who is gravely disabled, as defined by being found mentally incompetent and meeting the above-described conditions, to provide input to the court about appropriate placement or interim placement by the public conservator. The bill would require a copy of the conservatorship investigation report to be transmitted to the district attorney if the investigation was initiated as part of a determination of mental competence for trial. The bill would authorize the district attorney, if the individual has been appointed a conservator under specified provisions, to challenge the recommendation of the public conservator after the conservatorship investigation for an abuse of discretion in a contested hearing before a judge. The bill would prohibit the district attorney from using the information contained in these reports in subsequent criminal proceedings, except as specified. To the extent the bill imposes a higher level of service on county agencies that prepare and transmit conservatorship investigation reports and on a district attorney to receive those reports, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would authorize a county with a population size of 750,000 or greater to consider prioritizing the placement of specified conservatees in a state hospital run by the State Department of State Hospitals if at least 40 of those conservatees are waiting for placement in a state hospital. The bill would also authorize the placement to be on an interim basis at a county detention facility pending acceptance into a facility that achieves the purposes of treatment of the conservatee and protection of the public. The bill would require the conservatee to receive treatment services in accordance with the conservatorship plan within the detention facility pending permanent placement and would require the court to review the conservator's placement efforts every 60 calendar days. 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.

Introduced
2026-02-19
Latest action
2026-05-14 — May 14 hearing: Held in committee and under submission.
Bill type
bill
Last updated
—

Subjects

Sponsors

  • Sternauthor

Committees

Not provided by source.

Action timeline

Newest first

  1. 2026-05-14

    May 14 hearing: Held in committee and under submission.

  2. 2026-05-08

    Set for hearing May 14.

  3. 2026-05-04

    May 4 hearing: Placed on APPR. suspense file.

  4. 2026-04-28

    Set for hearing May 4.

  5. 2026-04-27

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

    amendment-passage,reading-1,reading-2,referral-committee

  6. 2026-04-23

    From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 5. Noes 0. Page 3983.) (April 21).

    amendment-passage,committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable,referral-committee

  7. 2026-04-17

    Set for hearing April 21.

  8. 2026-04-16

    Re-referred to Com. on PUB. S.

    referral-committee

  9. 2026-04-16

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

    amendment-passage,reading-1,reading-2,referral-committee

  10. 2026-04-15

    From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on RLS. (Ayes 8. Noes 0. Page 3901.) (April 15).

    amendment-passage,committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable,referral-committee

  11. 2026-04-13

    Set for hearing April 15.

  12. 2026-04-06

    April 8 hearing postponed by committee.

  13. 2026-03-19

    Set for hearing April 8.

  14. 2026-03-04

    Referred to Coms. on HEALTH and JUD.

    referral-committee

  15. 2026-02-20

    From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 22.

  16. 2026-02-19

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

    introduction,reading-1,referral-committee

Versions

  • 02/19/26 - Introduced — 2026-02-19Compare
  • 04/16/26 - Amended Senate — 2026-04-16Compare
  • 04/27/26 - Amended Senate — 2026-04-27Compare
  • SB1221Compare
  • (document, no version)Compare

Documents

Votes

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

    2026-04-15 · pass · 8-0

    Member-level votes (11)
    • Grove: yes
    • Durazo: yes
    • Caballero: yes
    • Padilla: yes
    • Rubio: yes
    • Gonzalez: yes
    • Valladares: yes
    • Weber Pierson: yes
    • Menjivar: other
    • Pérez: other
    • Smallwood-Cuevas: other
  • Do pass as amended, but first amend, and re-refer to the Committee on [Appropriations]

    2026-04-21 · pass · 5-0

    Member-level votes (6)
    • Arreguín: yes
    • Caballero: yes
    • Seyarto: yes
    • Wiener: yes
    • Pérez: yes
    • Cortese: other
  • Placed on suspense file

    2026-05-04 · pass · 7-0

    Member-level votes (7)
    • Dahle: yes
    • Cervantes: yes
    • Wahab: yes
    • Richardson: yes
    • Seyarto: yes
    • Cabaldon: yes
    • Grayson: yes

Related bills

No related bills recorded for this bill.

Official source

Attribution

Data from openstates_bulk_csv, retrieved 2026-07-24T01:34:27.960412Z

Inspect retained evidence for changes recorded after evidence tracking began:

Session-wide evidence can include changes to other bills:

Use this data

Every field on this page is available from the free public API — no key or licence required. Fetch this bill as JSON: GET /api/v1/bills?jurisdiction=CA&identifier=SB 1221. See the API docs or the MCP server for AI assistants.

Known limitations

  • Sponsor party and chamber affiliation are not yet captured by this API.
  • Committee referrals are not yet captured.
  • Some documents have no extracted text yet, so version comparison may be limited.

See the methodology page for data sources and limitations.