Assembly Health Committee, Tuesday, April 14, 2026

14 April 2026

Derzeit keine Kapitel verfügbar

Assembly Health Committee Di., 14. Apr. 2026 California State Assembly

Ihren Sitzungen folgen

47:46 - 47:47

Redner 1

What are we doing?

48:21 - 51:00

Redner 2

Good afternoon and welcome to the Assembly Health Committee's hearing on Tuesday, April 14. Before we begin, I want to make sure everyone understands our committee procedures to ensure we maintain order and run a fair and efficient hearing with the goal of hearing as much from the public within the limits of our time. We seek to protect the rights of all who participate in the legislative process so that we can have effective deliberation on the critical issues facing California. Rules of conduct by members of the public include no engaging in conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of this hearing engaging in personal attacks of the members of this committee, authors, staff, or other witnesses talking or loud noises noises from the audience. Please be aware that violations of these rules may subject you to removal or other enforcement processes.

If you are providing witness testimony at this hearing, all witnesses will be testifying in person. Main support in opposition will be allowed two main witnesses for a maximum of two minutes each. As a reminder, primary witnesses in support must be those accompanying the author or who otherwise have registered a support position with the committee and the primary witnesses in opposition must have their opposition registered with the committee per the instructions on our website. All other supports in opposition can be stated at the standing mic when called upon to simply state your name, affiliation, and position. All testimony comments are limited to the bill at hand.

For our housekeeping items, the Speaker has appointed Assembly Member Rogers to substitute for Assembly Member Celeste Rodriguez for today's hearing. On the consent, the following bills are proposed for consent for today's hearing. Any member of the committee may remove a bill from the consent agenda: Item 12, AB 2,348 by Bonta, with a motion of due pass as amended to appropriations item 13, AB two thousand three and sixty eight by Bonta, with a motion of due pass as amended to appropriations item number 14, AB 2,442 by Patterson, with a motion of due pass to judiciary item number 15, AB two thousand four and eighty six by Addis, with a motion of due pass to appropriations item 16, AB 2,562, by Dixon, with a motion of due pass to appropriations item 17, AB 2,704, by Addis, with a motion of due pass to education Item No. 18, AB 2,706 by Soria, with a motion of due pass to Appropriations and Item No. 20, AB 2,756, by Arons, with a motion of due pass as amended to Appropriations.

With that, we will start as a subcommittee and hear from the only author that is in the hearing room right now and is also Item No. Two on the Agenda AB eighteen twenty five by Krell.

51:19 - 55:01

Redner 3

Hi. Good afternoon, members and chair. I'm here today to present Assembly Bill eighteen twenty five, which makes vital improvements and adds clarity to California's offenders with mental health disorders, OMHD, program. I'd like to thank the committee staff for their excellent work on this bill, and I'm happy to accept the committee amendments. As explained by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the OMHD program was created to provide a mechanism to detain and treat persons with severe mental health disorder who reached the end of their prison term but are still dangerous to others as a result of their mental health disorder.

To gain OMH declassification, CDCR and the Board of Parole Hearings actually has to show that an individual meets all of these six factors: that the person has a severe mental health disorder, that the person used forced violence or caused severe bodily injury in the commission of the crime for which they were sentenced, that the severe mental disorder was the cause or an aggravating factor in the commission of the crime for which they were sentenced, that the person's severe mental disorder is not or cannot be kept in remission without treatment, that the incarcerated person had been in treatment for ninety days or more days within the year of parole or release. And then finally, and this is the important one, that the incarcerated person as a result of their severe mental health disorder represents a substantial danger of physical harm to others. And the substantial danger of physical harm part has been part of the reason for this bill because that's been difficult. But once someone's diagnosed and designated as an OMHD, they must serve their parole at a state hospital and receive mental health treatment. If they can be safely and effectively treated in the community, the OMHD may be transitioned to the conditional release program, which is known as CONREP.

If the person disagrees with their classification, they can appeal. And if that fails, they can actually continue to appeal to Superior Court. If an individual is successful in their challenge, they must be released with an exit plan within thirty days directly into the community, and then they would not be transitioned into ConRep. So they won't be receiving the treatment in the community if they successfully appeal. So recent events reveal that there's been clear gaps in this process because of the way these court challenges can play out and because of the vagueness of some of the terminology here.

Specifically, the requirement of representing a substantial danger of physical harm has been interpreted in a way that's allowed offenders who have severe conditions to successfully challenge their status in court and reenter society, even though they still pose a serious risk to themselves and to others. Furthermore, once those individuals are released via a superior court challenge, they don't have the structured pathway to effectively be in the community. They don't have the mental health treatment. They don't have the resources that they would have if they had gotten that designation. So Assembly Bill eighteen twenty five takes a multilayered approach and it addresses these issues by requiring specific criteria to be evaluated when determining what constitutes a substantial danger of physical harm.

And then it also defines more clearly what the exit plan is and expands Medi Cal eligibility for this exit plan. This ensures that those who need treatment receive it while prioritizing the safety of our communities. It also further ensures consistency in the OMHD program and makes certain that no individual is left behind in this. With me today to testify in support is Doctor. Erin Meyer on behalf of the California State Association of Psychiatrists.

Stellen Sie eine Frage zu diesem Video – ich analysiere das Transkript, um Ihnen zu antworten.