Elder and dependent adults.

Existing law requires the conservator of a person to be responsible for the care, custody, control, and education of the conservatee, except when the court, in its discretion, limits the powers and duties of the conservator, as specified. This bill would require the conservator of an elder or dependent adult to inform the relatives of the conservatee whenever the conservatee dies or is admitted to a medical facility for acute care for a period of 3 days or more and would require the conservator, in the event of the death of the conservatee, to inform the relatives of any funeral arrangements and the location of the conservatee's final resting place. Existing law authorizes a conservator or a trustee of an elder or dependent adult, an attorney-in-fact of an elder or dependent adult, a person appointed as a guardian ad litem for an elder or dependent adult, or another person legally authorized to seek a protective order on behalf of an elder or dependent adult who has suffered physical abuse, neglect, financial abuse, abandonment, isolation, abduction, or other treatment with resulting physical harm or pain or mental suffering, or the deprivation by a care custodian of goods or services that are necessary to avoid physical harm or mental suffering. This bill would allow a relative of the first degree to bring a petition for a visitation order to enjoin a respondent from keeping an elder or dependent adult in isolation from contact with the petitioner. The bill would allow the court to appoint counsel to represent the proposed visitee if the proposed visitee has not retained an attorney or is unable to retain an attorney and requests the appointment of counsel. If an attorney is appointed, the bill would require the court to fix a reasonable sum for the compensation and expenses of the proposed visitee's counsel. The bill would allow the court to order the nonprevailing party to pay the fees and costs of the proposed visitee's counsel and would require the county to pay to the extent the person is unable to pay. By requiring the county to pay these costs, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would make these provisions operative on January 1, 2016, and would repeal these provisions on January 1, 2019. Because a violation of a court order issued pursuant to the above provisions would be punishable as contempt, a misdemeanor, this bill would create a new crime and would thereby 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 with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.