Mental health: involuntary holds.
If enacted, AB 2853 would significantly shape the procedures and regulations surrounding mental health evaluations and involuntary commitments in California. By standardizing these guidelines, the bill aims to reduce discrepancies in how different counties apply the existing laws, thus promoting fairness and consistency. This is particularly pertinent for families and individuals who may find themselves in crisis situations, as it seeks to streamline the process for involuntary holds and establish clearer protocols for mental health evaluations.
Assembly Bill 2853 seeks to amend Section 5400 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, focusing primarily on mental health and the conditions surrounding involuntary holds. The bill mandates that the State Department of Health Care Services establish guidelines to ensure the uniform application of the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act across counties. This involves determining the criteria for assessing if an individual is gravely disabled or poses a danger to themselves or others. Additionally, the bill aims to set a maximum duration for which an individual may be held for evaluation, particularly regarding a 72-hour involuntary hold.
The sentiment regarding AB 2853 appears to be largely positive among mental health advocacy groups and professionals in the field who support measures that improve clarity and fairness in the involuntary commitment process. Stakeholders involved in mental health care delivery express the belief that clearer guidelines will help protect the rights of individuals while ensuring that necessary interventions can be implemented effectively. However, there may be concerns regarding the implications of increased evaluations and the balance of individual rights versus public safety.
Notable points of contention around AB 2853 could emerge from discussions about the potential for increased involuntary holds based on the definitions set forth in the guidelines. Critics may argue about the subjective nature of defining 'gravely disabled' and what constitutes a danger, leading to fears over the broad application of involuntary holds. Furthermore, the need for stakeholder input in crafting the guidelines suggests that the balance of interests among mental health advocates, law enforcement, and consumer rights groups will require careful consideration to avoid conflict.