An act to amend Section 2356.5 of the Probate Code, relating to conservatorships.
AB 1105 would amend Probate Code Section 2356.5 to expand the authority of a conservator to place a conservatee with a major neurocognitive disorder in additional secured settings. Under current law, that authority is tied primarily to secured perimeter residential care facilities for the elderly; this bill would also allow placement in secured residential facilities, intermediate care facilities, and skilled nursing facilities that use a secured perimeter, a delayed egress lock, or both. The bill keeps the existing court-protection framework, requiring clear and convincing evidence that the conservatee has a qualifying disorder, lacks capacity to consent, needs or would benefit from the secured placement, and that the placement is the least restrictive appropriate option.
The bill also preserves and clarifies procedural safeguards around changes in placement and treatment. A later move to a different type of secured facility would generally require court approval unless the move is an emergency or the relevant regulations have not yet been adopted for that facility type. The bill continues to allow a conservator, with court findings, to authorize medication for treatment of a major neurocognitive disorder, and it retains existing exceptions for adherents of religions that rely on prayer alone for healing. It also states that the section does not apply to mental health rehabilitation centers or institutions for mental disease, and it does not alter other probate court powers over residence or medical treatment in cases not involving a major neurocognitive disorder.
AB 1105 would further direct the State Department of Social Services and the State Department of Public Health to update regulations by January 1, 2027, including regulations governing secured facilities for people with major neurocognitive disorders. Those updates would expand the regulatory framework to all forms of major neurocognitive disorders and create consistent protections for residents’ rights, health, and safety across residential facilities, intermediate care facilities, and skilled nursing facilities. The departments would also be authorized to issue emergency regulations before that deadline.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill history is strongly supportive and noncontroversial. The measure received unanimous “do pass” votes in committee and on the floor early in the process, and it was advanced on a consent-calendar track, suggesting broad agreement on the need to update conservatorship placement rules for dementia-related care. The later procedural posture—held under submission and placed on suspense file—appears tied to fiscal or appropriations processing rather than substantive opposition.
The main points of contention, to the extent they appear in the text, are policy safeguards rather than partisan disagreement. The bill addresses concerns about abuse of conservatorship powers and psychotropic medication by requiring court findings, attorney representation, annual court investigation, and a least-restrictive-placement standard. It also raises implementation questions by conditioning some placement changes on future regulations, which may be why the bill directs state agencies to promulgate new rules before the expanded authority is fully operational.
This bill would amend Probate Code Section 2356.5, expanding the types of secured facilities where a conservator may seek to place a conservatee with a major neurocognitive disorder and clarifying when court approval is required for later transfers. It would also require coordinated regulatory updates by the Department of Social Services and the Department of Public Health, affecting licensing and resident-protection rules for secured residential, intermediate care, and skilled nursing facilities. The bill primarily affects probate conservators, conservatees, courts, physicians/psychologists providing supporting declarations, and state regulators overseeing long-term care and residential care settings.
The bill appears to have broad bipartisan or at least cross-committee support, with unanimous votes at multiple stages and placement on the consent calendar early in the process. There is no evidence in the provided materials of organized opposition or divided debate. The later suspense-file and held-under-submission actions suggest administrative or fiscal caution, but not substantive resistance to the policy itself.
The central policy tension is between expanding conservator placement options for people with major neurocognitive disorders and preserving individual rights and oversight. Support for the bill is grounded in the need for more placement flexibility in secured settings and clearer regulatory standards, while the safeguards in the text reflect concern about involuntary placement, overbroad conservatorship authority, and misuse of psychotropic medication. Another practical issue is timing: the bill ties some authority to future regulations, so agencies and facilities may need to wait for updated rules before all placements are fully available.