Existing law, the Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment (CARE) Act (CARE Act) , authorizes specified persons, including a person with whom the respondent resides, family members, and first responders, among others, to petition a civil court to create a voluntary CARE agreement or a court-ordered CARE plan and implement services, to be provided by county behavioral health agencies, to provide behavioral health care, including stabilization medication, housing, and other enumerated services, to adults who are currently experiencing a severe mental illness and have a diagnosis identified in the disorder class schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders, or bipolar I disorder with psychotic features, and who meet other specified criteria. Existing law requires the Judicial Council to develop a mandatory form for use to file a CARE process petition with the court and any other forms necessary for the CARE process, to be signed under the penalty of perjury, and requires the form to contain certain information, including either a specified affidavit of a licensed behavioral health professional or evidence the respondent was detained for a minimum of two intensive treatments pursuant to specified provisions of law. Existing law, the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPS Act) , generally provides for the evaluation, treatment, and civil commitment of persons with mental health disorders and other specified persons. Existing law authorizes, under a superior court order, an evaluation of a person alleged, as a result of mental disorder, to be a danger to themselves or others or to be gravely disabled, and provides the forms to use for these evaluations. The CARE Act authorizes a court to terminate a respondent's participation in the CARE process if the court determines that the respondent is not participating in the CARE process or is not adhering to their CARE plan, as specified, and authorizes the court to order the court-ordered evaluation under the LPS Act. If the court finds the petitioner has made a prima facie showing that the respondent is, or may be, a person eligible for the CARE program, the court is required to order the county behavioral health agency, or their designee, as specified, to submit a written report to the court with specified information, including, but not limited to, a determination whether the respondent meets, or is likely to meet, the criteria for the CARE process and conclusions and recommendations about the respondent's ability to voluntarily engage in services. Existing law requires the court to, within 5 days of receiving the report, take one of several actions, including dismissing the petition if the court determines that voluntary engagement with the respondent is effective and the individual has enrolled, or is likely to enroll, in behavioral health treatment. This bill would require the written report to include conclusions about whether the respondent is likely to need a higher level of care than is available under the CARE Act and, if so, recommendations about the appropriate level of care and the necessary steps to obtain that level of care for the respondent and remove the authorization for a court to dismiss the petition if the respondent is only likely to enroll in behavioral health treatment. If the court intends to dismiss a petition because the respondent needs a higher level of services, the bill would authorize the court to order the county to conduct a prepetition screening and hold the CARE petition open until the screening is complete. The bill would also make other technical and conforming changes. By requiring a higher level of service on the county, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law requires all hearings regarding these provisions to occur in person unless the court, in its discretion, allows a party or witness to appear remotely. This bill would require the court to allow the hearings to be held remotely, unless otherwise ordered by the court or demanded by the respondent. 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.
Existing law that governs the labor relations of public employees and employers, including, among others, the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act, the Ralph C. Dills Act, provisions relating to public schools, and provisions relating to higher education prohibits employers from taking certain actions relating to employee organization, including imposing or threatening to impose reprisals on employees, discriminating or threatening to discriminate against employees, or otherwise interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees because of their exercise of their guaranteed rights. Those provisions of existing law further prohibit denying to employee organizations the rights guaranteed to them by existing law. This bill would prohibit a public employer from questioning a public employee, a representative of a recognized employee organization, or an exclusive representative regarding communications made in confidence between an employee and an employee representative in connection with representation relating to any matter within the scope of the recognized employee organization's representation. The bill would also prohibit a public employer from compelling a public employee, a representative of a recognized employee organization, or an exclusive representative to disclose those confidential communications to a third party. The bill would not apply to a criminal investigation or when a public safety officer is under investigation and certain circumstances exist.
Existing law establishes the California Community Colleges, administered by the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges, as one of the segments of public postsecondary education in the state. Existing law requires the board to appoint a chief executive officer, known as the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges. Existing law establishes community college districts throughout the state, under the administration of community college district governing boards, and authorizes these districts to provide instruction at the community college campuses they operate. Existing law establishes the Part-Time Community College Faculty Health Insurance Program, which authorizes the governing board of a community college district to provide a program of health insurance for part-time faculty, multidistrict part-time faculty, and their dependents. Existing law requires the chancellor, by June 15 of each year, to apportion to each community college that establishes a program an amount that equals up to12 of the total cost of the individual premiums required to be paid for the health insurance coverage of participating part-time faculty, multidistrict part-time faculty, and their dependents, and to apportion any remaining funds to each community college district that establishes a program and meets certain criteria, up to the total cost of the individual premiums required to be paid for the health insurance coverage of the participants, as provided. If funds appropriated for purposes of the program remain after those apportionments, existing law requires that the balance revert to the General Fund annually, as specified. This bill would instead require that the balance be deposited into the Part-Time Community College Faculty Health Insurance Program Fund, which the bill would create. The bill would continuously appropriate the moneys in the fund to the chancellor for purposes of the above-described apportionments, as specified. This bill would state the intent of the Legislature that, by January 1, 2030, each community college district commence negotiations with the exclusive representatives for part-time community college faculty to offer health insurance benefits to part-time and multidistrict part-time community college faculty and their eligible dependents.
Existing law provides for the regulation of various chemicals, including chemicals contained in drugs, dietary supplements, and food products. This bill would prohibit an entity, as defined, from manufacturing, distributing, or offering for sale in this state a product that contains tianeptine or that is marketed as containing tianeptine. The bill would make a violation of these provisions punishable by a civil penalty not to exceed $2,500 for a first violation and not to exceed $5,000 for each subsequent violation, upon an action brought by the Attorney General, a city attorney, or a county counsel. The bill would entitle a prevailing plaintiff to an award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs.
Existing law generally provides requirements for the licensing of business establishments. Existing law requires a business that provides services to minors, as defined, to provide written notice to the parent or guardian of a minor participating in the service offered by the business regarding the business' policies relating to criminal background checks for employees, as specified. Existing law requires the Department of Justice to maintain state summary criminal history information, as defined, and to furnish this information as required by statute to specified entities, including a human resource agency or an employer. Under existing law, the disclosure of state summary criminal history information to an unauthorized person is a crime. This bill would require a person who provides behavioral health treatment for a behavioral health center, facility, or program to undergo a background check, as specified. By expanding the scope of the crime of unlawful disclosure of state summary criminal history information, 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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Existing law allows a person who was arrested or convicted of a nonviolent offense while they were a victim of human trafficking, intimate partner violence, or sexual violence, to petition the court, under penalty of perjury, for vacatur relief. Existing law requires, to receive that relief, that the crime for which the person was arrested or convicted was a nonviolent offense and that the person establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that the arrest or conviction was the direct result of being a victim of human trafficking, intimate partner violence, or sexual violence. Existing law authorizes the court to vacate the conviction if it concludes that the petitioner was a victim of one of those crimes at the time of the alleged commission of the offense, the arrest was a direct result of being a victim of that offense, and the vacatur is in the best interest of justice. This bill would allow that relief for a person arrested or convicted of any offense, except murder, as specified. Because this bill would authorize more petitions to be filed under penalty of perjury, by expanding the scope of the crime of perjury, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. If a court issues an order for a person who was arrested or convicted of an offense while they were a victim of intimate partner violence or sexual violence, existing law requires the court to order the law enforcement agency having jurisdiction over the offense, the Department of Justice, and any law enforcement agency that arrested the petitioner or participated in the arrest of the petitioner to seal their records of the arrest and the court order to seal and destroy the records within 3 years from the date of the arrest, or within one year after the court order is granted, whichever occurs later, and thereafter to destroy their records of the arrest and the court order to seal and destroy those records. This bill would require the court to also order any law enforcement agency that has taken action or maintains records related to or because of the offense, including, but not limited to, departments of probation, rehabilitation, corrections, and parole, to seal and destroy their records. The bill would require those agencies to seal their records of arrest, conviction, or adjudication and the court order to seal and destroy the records within one year from the date of arrest, or within 90 days after the court order is granted, whichever occurs later. The bill would require the agencies to destroy these records within one year of the date of the court order. By increasing duties on local law enforcement, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would also require the Department of Justice to notify the petitioner and the petitioner's counsel that the department has complied with the order to seal the arrest records by the applicable deadline. Existing law creates an affirmative defense against a charge of a crime that the person was coerced to commit the offense as a direct result of being a victim of human trafficking, intimate partner violence, or sexual violence at the time of the offense and when the person had reasonable fear of harm. Existing law prohibits this defense from being used with respect to a violent felony, as defined. This bill would allow that defense to be used with respect to a violent felony, except for murder, as specified. 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.
(1) Existing law, the Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment (CARE) Act (the act) , authorizes specified persons, including a person with whom the respondent resides, family members, and first responders, among others, to petition a civil court to create a voluntary CARE agreement or a court-ordered CARE plan and implement services, to be provided by county behavioral health agencies, to provide behavioral health care, including stabilization medication, housing, and other enumerated services, to adults who are currently experiencing a severe mental illness and have a diagnosis identified in the disorder class schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders, and who meet other specified criteria. Existing law, the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, authorizes a conservator of the person, of the estate, or of 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. Existing law requires the officer providing the conservatorship investigation, which may include a public guardian or a county mental health program, to investigate all available alternatives to conservatorship and to recommend conservatorship to the court only if no suitable alternatives are available. Existing law requires a conservatorship under these provisions to terminate after one year and specifies procedures if the conservator determines conservatorship is still required. This bill would authorize a conservator to, upon the termination of a conservatorship, request the court refer the conservatee to CARE court, as specified. (2) The act authorizes services and supports to be provided to adults who are currently experiencing a qualifying severe mental illness and who meet other specified criteria, including that the person is not clinically stabilized in ongoing voluntary treatment and is either unlikely to survive safely in the community without ongoing supervision and the person's condition is substantially deteriorating or the person is in need of services and supports to prevent a relapse or deterioration that would likely result in grave disability or serious harm to the person or others. This bill would authorize the court, beginning July 1, 2028, and if it dismisses a CARE petition because a respondent needs a higher level of services, to order the county to develop an exit plan for the respondent. The bill would require the State Department of Health Care Services, by July 1, 2028, to develop, with input from certain stakeholder groups, a CARE Act model exit plan that identifies appropriate services and ongoing monitoring of an individual with a petition dismissed because the individual needed a higher level of services. This bill would update the definition of a petitioner for the purposes of the act. (3) Existing law requires the Judicial Council to develop a mandatory form or forms to use to file a CARE process petition. Existing law requires the petition to be signed under the penalty of perjury and to contain specified information, including the petitioner's relationship to the respondent and either an affidavit of a licensed behavioral health professional stating the licensed behavioral health professional or their designee has examined or made multiple unsuccessful attempts to examine the respondent within 60 days of submission of the petition, or that the respondent was detained for a minimum of 2 intensive treatments pursuant to state law. This bill would extend the 60-day period for examination of the respondent to 120 days. The bill would also authorize a petition to include evidence that the respondent was either detained for a minimum of 2 involuntary holds in the last 120 days or that they were referred to a full service partnership program more than once, but was not enrolled due to inability or unwillingness to engage in the previous 120 days. (4) Existing law authorizes a court to terminate a respondent's participation in the CARE process if the court determines that the respondent is not participating in the CARE process or is not adhering to their CARE plan, as specified. Existing law authorizes the court to order an evaluation under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, as specified, to ensure the respondent's safety. Existing law requires the court to consider the respondent's failure to successfully complete their CARE plan and the reasons for that failure in a subsequent hearing under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, provided that the hearing occurs within 6 months of the termination of the CARE plan, and creates a presumption that the respondent needs additional intervention beyond the supports and services provided by the CARE plan. This bill would prohibit the court from terminating a respondent's participation in the CARE process solely due to a failure of the county or other local government entity to properly engage with the CARE process. (5) Existing law requires CARE Act proceedings to occur in person unless the court, in its discretion, allows a party or witness to appear remotely through the use of remote technology. Existing law authorizes the respondent to be in person for all hearings. This bill would instead authorize all parties and witnesses to appear remotely through the use of remotely technology. The bill would authorize the court with discretion to order a party or witness to appear in person if necessary. This bill would authorize the parties to agree to an alternative method of service for all subsequent reports and notices after the notice of initial appearance. This bill would require, by January 1, 2028, all counties to establish a process for electronic submission of CARE Act documents using a secured portal. By increasing the duties on county behavioral health agencies, the bill would create a state-mandated local program. (6) Existing law authorizes a provider of health care or a covered entity, as defined, to disclose to the county behavioral health agency any information, including protected health information, and mental health records excluding psychotherapy notes, in its possession about the respondent that is relevant to the county behavioral health agency's provision, coordination, or management or services or supports. Existing law specifies protections for this information and required procedures when such a disclosure is made. This bill would authorize a county behavioral health agency to disclose to a provider of health care or a covered entity any information, including protected health information, and mental health records, excluding psychotherapy notes, in its possession about the respondent that is relevant to the provider or entity's provision, coordination, or management of services and supports. The bill would also specify protections for this information and required procedures when such a disclosure is made. (7) Existing law requires the department to develop, in consultation with specified entities, an annual CARE Act report that includes specified information on CARE Act petitions, including the number of initial appearances, and information compiled from county behavioral health departments and courts. This bill would expand the information on CARE Act petitions to include the number of petitions submitted electronically as well as other specified information. The bill would also expand the data to be compiled from county behavioral health departments and courts to include the number of individuals who were enrolled in a Full Service Partnership program postreferral, among other things. The bill would also require the data collected from county behavioral health departments and courts to be collected for cases involving dismissed respondents, where available. (8) Existing law requires the California Health and Human Services Agency, or a designated department within the agency, to perform specified functions, including engaging an independent, research-based entity to advise on the development of data-driven process and outcome measures to guide the planning, collaboration, reporting, and evaluation of the CARE Act. This bill would require the agency to annually release a list of overperforming counties and shall annually provide written notice identifying areas of concern and opportunities for improvement to underperforming counties. This bill would also establish within the California Health and Human Services Agency the position of a CARE Court Ombudsperson, as specified. (9) 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.
Existing law, the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act, requires the State Department of Developmental Services to contract with regional centers for the provision of services and supports for persons with developmental disabilities and their families. Existing law, until July 1, 2026, creates the Advisory Council on Improving Interactions between People with Intellectual and Development Disabilities and Law Enforcement, under the Department of Justice, to, among other things, evaluate existing training for peace officers specific to interactions between law enforcement and individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Existing law requires the council to submit a report including recommendations to the Legislature for improving outcomes of interactions with both individuals who have an intellectual or developmental disability and mental health conditions, as specified. This bill would require the State Department of Developmental Services to conduct a statewide evaluation of safety training services provided by regional centers, as specified. The bill would require the department, by July 1, 2028, to submit a report to the Legislature summarizing its findings and recommendations and would require the recommendations to address specified topics, including, among others, recommendations for establishing standardized, statewide protocols for responding to crises involving individuals with intellectual or developmental disabilities. The bill would state the intent of the Legislature to consider, upon receipt and consideration of that report, providing funding to the department for the purpose of developing, implementing, and sustaining safety training services statewide.
This measure would designate the week of May 24, 2026, to May 30, 2026, inclusive, as California OB-GYN Week to recognize the essential contributions of obstetricians and gynecologists (OB-GYNs) to the health care system and the critical role they play in delivering comprehensive, preventive, and primary care services, and to encourage the continued recognition and support of OB-GYNs to ensure access to high-quality, equitable health care for all Californians.
This measure, in order to support ongoing public education and to encourage vaccination, screening, and linkage to care, would declare June 2026 as Hepatitis B Awareness Month in California in alignment with national and global awareness activities, and encourage state agencies, local health jurisdictions, community-based organizations, health care providers, and other stakeholders to observe this month with appropriate educational and outreach activities focused on hepatitis B prevention, testing, treatment, and health equity.
