AB 1105 expands probate conservatorship powers for people diagnosed with major neurocognitive disorders (for example, dementia) so a conservator can obtain court authorization to place the conservatee in facilities that use secured perimeters or delayed‑egress locks and to authorize medications for disorder‑related care. The bill conditions those powers on specific court findings and professional declarations, requires attorney representation for the conservatee at the hearing, and builds in an annual investigator review and objection process.
The measure also directs the State Department of Social Services and the State Department of Public Health to harmonize and expand existing facility regulations to cover all major neurocognitive disorders and the different facility types that use secured perimeters or delayed‑egress devices, with a deadline and allowance for emergency rules. For practitioners and administrators, AB 1105 creates a clearer legal path — and new procedural burdens — for placing and medicating conservatees who pose safety risks tied to neurocognitive decline.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill authorizes conservators, with a court’s clear and convincing finding, to place conservatees who have a major neurocognitive disorder into facilities that use a secured perimeter or delayed‑egress locks and to authorize medications for treatment of the disorder. It requires a supporting clinical declaration, attorney representation for the conservatee, annual court‑investigator review, and regulatory updates by state agencies.
Who It Affects
This affects conservatees diagnosed with major neurocognitive disorders, their family or professional conservators, residential care facilities for the elderly, intermediate care and skilled nursing facilities that use secured perimeters or delayed‑egress devices, county probate courts, and the State Departments of Social Services and Public Health.
Why It Matters
AB 1105 standardizes a legal route for restricting movement and authorizing medication in high‑risk dementia cases while layering procedural safeguards. For providers it clarifies acceptable placements and imposes regulatory compliance; for courts and counties it creates new evidentiary and oversight work; for families it changes the balance between safety and personal liberty.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 1105 creates a discrete statutory pathway for a conservator to request court authority to (1) place a conservatee who has a major neurocognitive disorder into certain types of locked or secured facilities and (2) authorize medications appropriate to treating that neurocognitive condition. The bill ties both powers to the same basic set of protections: the court must find, by clear and convincing evidence, that the conservatee has a DSM‑defined major neurocognitive disorder, lacks capacity to consent, exhibits specified mental function deficits under Section 811, would benefit from the placement or medication as shown by clinical evidence, and that the proposed placement is the least restrictive option.
To support those findings, a petition must include a declaration from a licensed physician or a licensed psychologist (the psychologist must have at least two years’ experience diagnosing major neurocognitive disorders). The conservatee must have an attorney at the hearing, and the conservatee generally must be produced in court unless excused.
If the court grants the authority, any move to a different type of secured facility requires further court approval, except where emergency procedures under Section 2354 apply.The bill excludes certain settings — it bars placing conservatees in mental health rehabilitation centers or ‘institutions for mental disease’ under Welfare and Institutions Code references — and preserves existing law for estate conservatorships and emergency medical powers. It also imposes an annual investigatory requirement: the court investigator must report on whether the granted powers remain warranted, advise the conservatee of their right to object, and trigger attorney follow‑up; the conservatee may challenge or seek termination under existing petition rules.
Finally, the State Department of Social Services and the State Department of Public Health must update and harmonize regulations to cover all major neurocognitive disorders and the different facility types using secured perimeters or delayed‑egress locks, with a January 1, 2027 deadline and authority to adopt emergency regulations sooner.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The court may authorize placement or medication only after finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that the conservatee has a DSM‑defined major neurocognitive disorder, lacks capacity to consent, would benefit from the placement/medication, and that the placement is the least restrictive alternative.
A licensed physician or licensed psychologist must file a declaration supporting the petition; the psychologist must have at least two years’ experience diagnosing major neurocognitive disorders.
The conservatee must be represented by counsel at the hearing (Chapter 4, Part 1 §1470), and the conservatee must be produced in court unless excused under Section 1893.
The court investigator must annually report on the continued appropriateness of powers granted under this section, inform the conservatee of the right to object, and trigger attorney action—within 30 days the conservatee’s attorney must file a petition or a written report.
The State Department of Social Services and the State Department of Public Health must update and align regulations governing secured‑perimeter and delayed‑egress facilities to cover all major neurocognitive disorders by January 1, 2027, and may adopt emergency regulations before that date.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Findings and legislative intent
This section states the Legislature’s view that people with major neurocognitive disorders have unique care needs and that adding specific conservatorship powers can reduce costs and safeguard dignity. It also signals legislative concern about prior misuse of psychotropic medications and frames the subsequent provisions as narrowly tailored to require specified protections before medications or secured placements are authorized.
Authority to place in secured‑perimeter facilities and required court findings
The bill lists the facility types where a conservator may place a conservatee if authorized: residential care facilities for the elderly (ref. Health & Safety §1569.2 and Title 22 §87705 care plan), residential facilities (§1502 H&S), intermediate care facilities (§1250 H&S), and skilled nursing facilities (§1250 H&S) that employ secured perimeters or delayed‑egress locks. Placement is available only after the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, the DSM‑defined diagnosis, incapacity to consent with Section 811 mental function deficits, clinical demonstration that the conservatee needs or would benefit from a restricted environment, and that the placement is the least restrictive alternative.
Change of placement and emergency exceptions
If the court has authorized placement, moving the conservatee to a different type of covered facility generally requires additional court approval; the bill preserves the existing emergency placement procedures (via Section 2354) subject to other statutory limits. This constrains conservators from unilaterally moving conservatees between secured facility types and forces courts to evaluate whether a new placement meets the least‑restrictive standard.
Authority to authorize medications and religious exemption
Subdivision (d) permits a conservator to authorize medications for treatment of the major neurocognitive disorder only after the same set of court findings required for placement. Subdivision (e) preserves a religious‑practice exception: if the conservatee adheres to a faith that relies on prayer alone, the court may require treatment by an accredited religious practitioner rather than medication. Subdivision (f) excludes placement into certain mental‑health institutions, maintaining a boundary between this conservatorship pathway and existing mental health facility regimes.
Petition mechanics and required clinical declaration
Petitions to exercise these powers follow Section 2357 rules but add procedural requirements: the conservatee must have counsel under the state’s assigned counsel provisions; the conservatee must be produced at the hearing unless excused; and the petition must be supported by a declaration from a licensed physician or psychologist, with the psychologist required to have at least two years’ experience in diagnosing major neurocognitive disorders. The section also specifies who may file the petition (people listed in Section 1891).
Annual investigator review, objection rights, and termination path
The court investigator must annually investigate and report under Sections 1850–1851 and specifically advise the conservatee of the right to object to the powers granted under this section. If the investigator or conservatee raises concerns, a copy goes to the conservatee’s attorney; if none is appointed the court must appoint one, and that attorney must act within 30 days by either filing a petition or reporting that a petition would be inappropriate. Petitions to terminate the granted authority proceed under Section 2359.
Regulatory update requirement and emergency rulemaking
The State Department of Social Services and the State Department of Public Health must coordinate updates to their regulations (including Title 22 §87705) to expand applicability to all forms of major neurocognitive disorders and to create consistent protections for facility types that use secured perimeters or delayed‑egress devices. The agencies must complete this by January 1, 2027, and may promulgate emergency regulations earlier—an important implementation lever that will determine facility practices and resident safeguards.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Healthcare across all five countries.
Explore Healthcare in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Conservatees with major neurocognitive disorders who pose safety risks: gain a legally sanctioned pathway for placement and targeted medical treatment intended to reduce harm that family or caregivers cannot safely manage.
- Family or professional conservators: receive clearer statutory authority and evidentiary standards to seek secure placements or medications when community options fail, reducing legal uncertainty when urgent safety interventions are needed.
- Residential, intermediate, and skilled nursing facilities that use secured perimeters or delayed‑egress devices: obtain statutory clarity that courts may authorize placements into their settings, potentially increasing appropriate admissions and clarifying care‑plan expectations.
- County probate courts and court investigators: receive a defined procedure and evidentiary standard for handling high‑risk neurocognitive conservatorship matters, which can streamline decision‑making despite increasing caseload specificity.
Who Bears the Cost
- Families and conservators: may bear higher placement and ongoing care costs if secured facilities are recommended, and face the administrative burden of preparing petitions and funding required evaluations.
- Facilities: must adapt to harmonized regulations, care‑plan requirements, and potential increased oversight tied to secured perimeters and delayed‑egress devices, which can require infrastructure upgrades and training.
- Counties and probate systems: face increased workload for hearings, required conservatee production in court, and annual investigator reporting duties; underfunded courts and investigator offices will likely see resource strain.
- State agencies (DSS and CDPH): must draft and implement new, coordinated regulations by a statutory deadline and potentially issue emergency rules, consuming regulatory staff and stakeholder engagement resources.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between protecting individuals who, because of severe cognitive decline, are at real risk of harm in unsecure community settings, and protecting those same individuals’ liberty and bodily autonomy; empowering conservators and courts to impose secured placements and medications can reduce immediate safety risks but risks institutionalizing people or authorizing pharmacologic control absent robust, well‑resourced oversight.
AB 1105 aims to thread a narrow needle — protecting people with progressive cognitive decline who risk harm while preserving legal safeguards — but it raises several implementation and policy questions. First, the statute relies on a DSM diagnosis and Section 811 mental‑function criteria; how clinicians and judges apply those clinical standards in practice will determine whether the process protects liberty or becomes a routinized admission path.
The two‑year experience minimum for psychologists narrows who can supply declarations, and in rural or underserved areas that may delay filings or push courts to rely on physicians with uneven geriatric expertise.
Second, the bill authorizes placement into facilities that use secured perimeters or delayed‑egress technology but leaves substantial definitional and operational work to the agencies’ forthcoming regulations. Critical details — what constitutes a secured perimeter, permitted uses of delayed‑egress locks, monitoring standards, restraint and seclusion limits, medication‑administration oversight, and staff training requirements — will be set in rulemaking; those decisions will shape whether the statute meaningfully raises resident protections or simply legalizes restrictive settings.
Finally, the new annual investigator duty and attorney reply deadlines create a procedural safeguard but also a bottleneck: underfunded investigator offices, overloaded appointed counsel rosters, and county budget constraints could limit effective oversight, shifting the balance toward placement continuation by default rather than active review.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.