Sen. Susan Rubio

(1) Existing law, the Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) Act, authorizes the involuntary commitment and treatment of persons with specified mental disorders. Under the act, when a person, as a result of a mental health disorder, is a danger to themselves or others, or is gravely disabled, the person may, upon probable cause, be taken into custody by specified individuals, including, among others, a peace officer and a designated member of a mobile crisis team, and placed in a facility designated by the county and approved by the State Department of Health Care Services for up to 72 hours for evaluation and treatment. Existing law defines "assessment" for those purposes to mean the determination of whether a person shall be evaluated and treated. This bill would require an assessment to consider reasonably available, relevant information as specified. The bill would also authorize an assessment to be used to assist specified individuals in developing an aftercare plan for an individual, if that individual has agreed to an aftercare plan and can be properly served without being detained. (2) 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 (hereafter LPS conservatorship) . Under existing law, a professional person in charge of an agency providing comprehensive evaluation or a facility providing intensive treatment may recommend a LPS conservatorship for a gravely disabled person in their care if the professional person determines that the person is unwilling to accept, or is incapable of accepting, treatment voluntarily. Under existing law, a professional person in charge of an agency providing comprehensive evaluation or a facility providing intensive treatment or a professional person in charge of providing mental health treatment at a county jail, or their designee, may recommend a conservatorship for a gravely disabled person without that person being an inpatient in a facility providing comprehensive evaluation or intensive treatment if specified conditions are met. This bill would additionally authorize recommendations for an LPS conservatorship if a determination is made that the gravely disabled person has demonstrated an inability to accept voluntary treatment due to apparent incapacity. The bill would expand the list of individuals or entities that may recommend a conservatorship for a gravely disabled person without that person being an inpatient in a facility providing comprehensive evaluation or intensive treatment to include, among others, the county agency providing investigations for conservatorships of the person. (3) Existing law separately provides for the establishment of a conservatorship for a person who is unable to properly provide for their personal needs or is substantially unable to manage their finances (hereafter probate conservatorship) . Existing law requires the officer providing conservatorship investigation, if they concur with the recommendation of the professional person or facility, to petition the superior court in the patient's county of residence to establish a conservatorship. Existing law requires the officer providing conservator investigation to investigate all available alternatives to conservatorship, including, among other things, assisted outpatient treatment, as specified, and the Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment Act program. Existing law requires the officer to recommended conservatorship to the court only if no suitable alternatives are available. Existing law requires the officer to render to the court a comprehensive written report of investigation prior to the hearing and to set forth all alternatives available if the officer recommends either for or against conservatorship. This bill would specify probate conservatorships with or without major neurocognitive disorder powers in the list of available alternatives that the officer providing conservatorship investigation is required to investigate. In a county where probate conservatorship and LPS conservatorship duties are split between separate agencies, the bill would require LPS conservatorship referrals that include the presence of a major neurocognitive disorder to be reviewed by both agencies to ensure the continuity of evaluations. The bill would additionally require an officer providing conservatorship investigation to include a recommended individualized plan for treatment and care drawn from the documented list of less-restrictive alternatives in the written report described above if the officer recommends against an LPS conservatorship. The bill would also make various clarifying changes. By expanding the duties of county agencies that provide services related to probate conservatorships and LPS conservatorships, and by expanding the duties of the county officer providing conservatorship investigation, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (4) Existing law authorizes a conservator of the person, the estate, or 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 for the purpose of providing individualized treatment, supervision, and placement. Existing law requires the creation of an individualized treatment plan within 10 days of the establishment of a conservatorship, as specified. Existing law requires the treatment plan to specify goals for the conservatee's treatment, the criteria by which the accomplishment of those goals can be adjudged, and a plan for reviewing the progress of the treatment. If a treatment plan is not developed or if the conservator fails to report to the court that the conservatee is no longer gravely disabled, existing law requires specified individuals, including a person designated by the county, to refer the matter to the court. Existing law requires the court, upon report by a person designated by the county that the goals have been reached and the person is no longer gravely disabled, to terminate the conservatorship. This bill would require an individualized treatment plan to specify goals for stabilization, the individual's evidenced-based treatment, and movement to a less-restrictive setting. The bill would require those goals to include the criteria by which accomplishment can be judged. The bill would require the treatment plan to be filed with the court, as specified, after it is developed. The bill would require the court to order the treating agency to remedy any perceived defects in a treatment plan if the plan does not meet the specified goals and criteria and would create procedures for remedying those defects and terminating the conservatorship. The bill would authorize the court, upon termination of the conservatorship, to refer the individual to assisted outpatient treatment or CARE court, as specified. This bill would prohibit the court from terminating the conservatorship prior to the end of the conservator's one-year mark if the conservatee cannot be located at any point during that one-year period, except as specified. The bill would require, when a county is filing a petition and the county is aware that the subject of the petition was, within the prior 6 months, a conservatee whose conservatorship was terminated before the one-year termination date, to include in its petition the circumstances that gave rise to the termination. Because this bill would increase the duties on county personnel, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (5) Existing law, the Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment (CARE) Act, authorizes specified people to petition a civil court to create a CARE plan to provide an individualized, appropriate range of community-based services and supports to an eligible individual. Under the CARE Act, all reports, evaluations, diagnoses, and other information filed with the court that are related to the respondent are confidential, except as specified. This bill would authorize that information to be shared only by a court order or as approved by the respondent. If the information is used outside of the above-described proceedings, the bill requires a court order for that information to be shared. This bill would authorize a court, at any point after entry of a CARE agreement or adoption of a CARE plan, to order the respondent to an evaluation under the LPS without a petition from the county if the court believes the respondent has become gravely disabled. The bill would establish the procedures required before a court could issue an order pursuant to these provisions. (6) 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 requires the Governor to create a California Interagency Council on Homelessness for specified purposes, including to create partnerships among various entities, like participants in the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development's Continuum of Care Program, and to identify mainstream resources, benefits, and services that can be accessed to prevent and end homelessness in California. Existing law requires the council to set and measure progress toward goals to prevent and end homelessness among domestic violence survivors and their children and among unaccompanied women in California, as specified. The bill would require initial goals to be established by January 1, 2025, and those goals to be evaluated at least every 2 years to determine whether updated goals are needed. This bill would instead require the council to evaluate the above-described goals at least every year.

Existing law establishes the Instructional School Gardens Program for the promotion, creation, and support of instructional school gardens through the allocation of grants, and through technical assistance provided, to school districts, charter schools, or county offices of education. Existing law requires the State Department of Education to administer the program, as provided. This bill would revise and recast the Instructional School Gardens Program by, among other things, reestablishing the program under the administration of the Department of Food and Agriculture for the promotion, creation, and support of instructional school gardens through the allocation of grants and the provision of technical assistance to support instructional school garden programming in school districts, county offices of education, and charter schools. The bill would require the department to convene a working group consisting of the department, the State Department of Education, the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, and instructional school garden community-based organizations. The bill would require the working group to advise and assist the Department of Food and Agriculture in carrying out the program, as provided. The bill would establish the Instructional School Gardens and Maintenance Fund in the State Treasury and would require moneys in the fund to be available, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to the department for purposes of the program, as specified. This bill, contingent upon an appropriation or receipt of sufficient private funds, as specified, for its purposes, would require the department, on or before July 1, 2026, and in consultation with the working group, to develop a competitive grant process, including selection criteria, goals, prioritizations, and guidelines, for purposes of the program, as provided. The bill would require eligible applicants to be local educational agencies or other entities that have an established track record of operating outdoor, experiential learning programs in schools and that are in partnership, as defined, with at least one local educational agency, and would require applicants to designate one of 2 grant categories for each proposed schoolsite, as provided, and to submit a plan and measurable outcomes for a program of experiential, outdoor instruction that meet specified requirements. Before developing the competitive grant process, the bill would require the department to hold at least 2 public meetings to gather public input on the development of the competitive grant process.

Existing law permits a court, on its own motion or the motion of any party, to enter a prefiling order prohibiting a vexatious litigant from filing any new litigation in propria persona without first obtaining leave of the presiding judge of the court where the litigation is proposed to be filed. Existing law permits a presiding judge or a presiding justice to allow a vexatious litigant's filing only under specified circumstances and permits the presiding judge to condition the filing upon the furnishing of security. Existing law defines a "vexatious litigant" for these purposes to include, among other things, a person who, after being restrained by a domestic violence restraining order, and while that order is still in place, commenced, prosecuted, or maintained one or more litigations against a person protected by the restraining order. Existing law authorizes a person protected by a restraining order issued after a hearing pursuant to the above-described provisions to file a petition, without fee, to have the person who is the subject of that order declared a vexatious litigant if, while the restraining order is still in place, they commence, prosecute, or maintain litigation against the person protected by the restraining order in an action that is determined to be meritless and caused the person protected by the order to be harassed or intimidated. Existing law establishes the Domestic Violence Prevention Act for the purpose of preventing acts of domestic violence, abuse, and sexual abuse and providing for a separation of the persons involved in the domestic violence for a period sufficient to enable those persons to seek a resolution of the causes of the violence. Existing law authorizes a court to issue a protective order enjoining a party from engaging in specified acts, including threatening or harassing the other party or disturbing the peace of the other party. Existing law provides that disturbing the peace of the other party refers to conduct that includes coercive control, which includes unreasonably engaging in, among other things, isolating the other party from friends, relatives, or other sources of support. Existing law makes an intentional and knowing violation of a protective order punishable as a misdemeanor. Existing law declares the intent of the Legislature to, among other things, promote the health and safety of domestic violence survivors and their children. Existing law recognizes that litigation abuse is the use of legal or bureaucratic procedures by abusive partners to continue to attack, harass, intimidate, coercively control, or maintain contact with a former partner through the legal system. Existing law limits and controls discovery in family law proceedings to the least intrusive methods, as specified. Existing law authorizes a court to issue, after notice and a hearing, orders enjoining a party from engaging in specified behavior, including contacting, attacking, or threatening another party, and excluding the party from a family dwelling. Existing law further provides that when determining whether to make those orders, the court must consider whether its failure to make any of those orders may jeopardize the safety of specified parties. This bill, the Reclaim Act, would remove the requirement that the domestic violence restraining order still be in place for purposes of a person being declared a vexatious litigant, and instead would apply when the restraining order is in effect, has expired, or has been modified or terminated. The bill would, rather than requiring a determination whether the prior litigation was meritless and caused the protected person to be harassed or intimidated, instead require the court to determine whether a prior litigation was determined to be frivolous or solely intended to abuse, intimidate, or maintain contact with the protected person. The bill would also expand the definition of a vexatious litigant to include a person who following a conviction, including a conviction following a plea of nolo contendere, of a crime that involves domestic violence, as defined, commenced, prosecuted, or maintained litigation against the victim that is determined to be frivolous or solely intended to abuse, intimidate, or maintain contact with the victim. This bill would authorize, in an action filed by the person convicted of the crimes against the victim of those crimes, the victim to file a petition, without fee, to have the person who was convicted of those crimes to be declared a vexatious litigant. This bill would prohibit a plaintiff in a civil action, who has been deemed to be a vexatious litigant on the basis of the above-described provisions and who is the subject of a restraining order protecting the defendant, from seeking information from the defendant in discovery that is protected by the restraining order without prior authorization from the court. The bill would allow the court to grant a motion for disclosure of information protected by the restraining order only upon a showing of good cause by the plaintiff, as prescribed. The bill would authorize a defendant who receives a discovery request in violation of these provisions to disregard the request without filing a motion for a protective order and would prohibit the court from issuing sanctions against a defendant who disregarded such a request in good faith. This bill would additionally authorize a court to issue an ex parte order enjoining a party from commencing litigation that is frivolous or solely intended to abuse, intimidate, or maintain contact with the other party. By expanding the scope of enjoined activities under a protective order, the violation of which is a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would authorize, if, on or after the date a protective order is issued, the respondent and the petitioner are engaged in a legal proceeding initiated by the respondent, the petitioner to request a court order preventing the respondent from seeking discovery, as specified. The bill would authorize the court to consider the scope of the protective order and whether the information sought, or the discovery method selected, appears intended to circumvent the protective order. This bill would also make a legislative finding recognizing that litigation abuse may emotionally or financially harm domestic violence survivors with unnecessary, irrelevant, or intrusive discovery. 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 requires the adopted course of study for grades 1 to 6, inclusive, to include certain areas of study, including, among others, health. Existing law requires the adopted course of study for grades 7 to 12, inclusive, to offer courses in specified areas of study, including, among others, English, social sciences, and mathematics. This bill, with respect to the adopted course of study for grades 1 to 6, inclusive, would require the health area of study to also include mental health education, as provided. The bill, with respect to the adopted course of study for grades 7 to 12, inclusive, would add mental health education, as provided, to the adopted course of study. To the extent this bill would impose additional duties on local educational agencies or local officials, the 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 the statutory provisions noted above.

The Personal Income Tax Law allows various credits against the taxes imposed by that law. This bill would allow a credit against those taxes for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2026, and before January 1, 2031, in an amount equal to the unreimbursed amount paid or incurred by a qualified teacher during the taxable year for instructional materials and classroom supplies, as defined, not to exceed $250. The bill would define qualified teacher as a teacher in a public, charter, or private school offering instruction in kindergarten or any of grades 1 to 12, inclusive, for at least 900 hours during a school year. Existing law requires any bill authorizing a new tax expenditure to contain, among other things, specific goals that the tax expenditure will achieve, detailed performance indicators, and data collection requirements. This bill also would include additional information required for any bill authorizing a new tax expenditure. This bill would take effect immediately as a tax levy.

This measure would strongly condemn and denounce mass immigration raids that target immigrant workers and families in California and the engagement of the military in immigration enforcement operations and in response to community protests. This measure would affirm support for safeguarding the rights and safety of all Californians, regardless of immigration status, and support, among other things, the expansion of legal services and emergency response resources to protect workers, children, and families affected by immigration enforcement.

Maddy summarySCR 103 designates the week of July 20-26, 2025, as "Probation Services Week" in California. This concurrent resolution recognizes the work of probation services professionals across the state. It is a symbolic observance with no new laws, regulations, or direct impact on individuals or policies. The bill does not alter existing statutes or create obligations for any entity.

Existing law, the Sex Offender Registration Act (act) , requires a person convicted of specified crimes to register with law enforcement as a sex offender while residing in California or while attending school or working in California, as specified. Existing law establishes 3 tiers of registration based on specified criteria, for periods of at least 10 years, at least 20 years, and life, respectively, for a conviction of specified sex offenses. Existing law exempts from mandatory registration under the act a person convicted of certain offenses involving minors if the person is not more than 10 years older than the minor and if that offense is the only one requiring the person to register. A willful failure to register, as required by the act, is a misdemeanor or felony, depending on the underlying offense. This bill would require offenders convicted of engaging in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor who is more than 3 years younger than the offender or, if the offender was 21 years of age or older, engaging in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor who is under 16 years of age, if the offense occurred on or after January 1, 2026, to register for 10 years as a tier one offender under the act, unless the offender was not more than 10 years older than the minor and if that offense is the only one requiring the offender to register. By expanding the scope of a crime, 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, the Medical Practice Act, generally prohibits the practice of medicine without a physician's and surgeon's certificate issued by the Medical Board of California. The Medical Practice Act authorizes a person who meets certain eligibility requirements to apply to the board for a special faculty permit, which authorizes the holder to practice medicine without a physician's and surgeon's certificate only within a medical school itself, in any affiliated institution of the medical school, or in an academic medical center and any affiliated institution in which the permitholder is providing instruction as part of the medical school's or academic medical center's educational program and for which the medical school or academic medical center has assumed direct responsibility. Existing law defines "academic medical center" for these purposes as a facility that meets certain requirements. Among those requirements, existing law requires the facility to train a minimum of 250 resident physicians annually and to be accredited by both the Western Association of Schools and Colleges and the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. This bill would modify the requirements for a National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center to qualify as an academic medical center by, instead, requiring the facility to train 25 resident or fellow physicians annually and exempting the facility from the Western Association of Schools and Colleges accreditation requirement. Existing law requires the board to establish a review committee to review and make recommendations to the board regarding applicants applying for special faculty permits and requires the review committee to include one representative to represent academic medical centers in California. Existing law authorizes the board to approve up to 5 applications for special faculty permits submitted by academic medical centers in any calendar year. This bill would require the individual representing academic medical centers to be from a facility that trains a minimum of 250 resident physicians in Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education accredited residencies on an annual basis. The bill would authorize the board to approve up to 5 applications for special faculty permits submitted by each academic medical center in any calendar year.