April 4, 2025
Honorable Caroline Menjivar
Chair, Senate Health Committee
California Senate
1021 O Street, Room 1200
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: SB 331 (Menjivar) as amended 03/24/25 – OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED
Dear Chair Menjivar:
On behalf of Disability Rights California (DRC), we write to express our opposition to SB 331 unless amended. This bill would significantly expand eligibility for involuntary commitment.
SB 331 defines “mental health disorder” as a condition outlined in the current edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Under current law, “mental health disorder” is not defined in statute or regulation. Notably, there was a definition in regulation similar to that proposed by this bill but that regulation was repealed.
The definition of mental health disorder is important for determining eligibility for involuntary commitment, as there must be a nexus between an individual’s mental health disorder and harmful behaviors to meet involuntary commitment criteria.1
The DSM includes a broad range of conditions, many of which are concerning when considered as potential grounds for involuntary commitment under SB 331. The DSM-5-TR, the most recent version, lists 265 conditions, including developmental disabilities, substance disorders, caffeine use disorder, restless leg syndrome, female sexual interest/arousal disorder, and erectile disorder.2 The historical discrimination within the DSM, reflecting societal attitudes, cannot be overlooked. For example, the first two versions of the DSM classified “homosexuality” as a mental disorder, and the current edition includes “gender dysphoria.” Clearly, the DSM includes conditions that are inappropriate for involuntary commitment.
In practice, “mental health disorder” is generally understood to refer to conditions appropriate for inpatient psychiatric treatment, as supported by state and federal law. This understanding aligns with the Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) Act, which mandates that individuals involuntarily committed receive appropriate treatment services to “promote the potential of the person to function independently” in the least restrictive environment.3 Involuntarily institutionalizing people who cannot be treated for the condition for which they are held is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.4
We believe this provision should be removed from the bill but if that is not acceptable we would like to work with you on language.
Our remaining concerns center primarily on the process by which the bill seeks to permit an original petitioner to continue in that role after the initial court appearance. There are several sections in the bill where this is addressed, and we find it confusing to use the term “nonsubstituted petitioner” as we try to understand the meaning of each instance. We understand the bill will be amended to require the respondent’s consent and we do see that as an improvement.
For the reasons outlined above, we respectfully oppose SB 331 unless
amended.
Sincerely,
Deb Roth
Senior Legislative Advocate
Disability Rights California
Samuel Jain
Senior Policy Attorney
Disability Rights California
cc: Reyes Diaz, Principal Consultant, Senate Health Committee
1 Welfare & Institutions Code § 5150(a).
2 American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed. 2013), table of contents available at: https://www.psychiatry.org/File%20Library/Psychiatrists/Practice/DSM/APA_DSM-5-Contents.pdf
3 Welfare & Institutions Code § 5325.1(a).
