Practice Areas
Estate Planning
Practice Areas
Los Angeles County changed how it decides who qualifies for a conservatorship on January 1, 2026. The shift comes from SB 43, a state law that rewrote the legal definition of “gravely disabled” for the first time in more than fifty years, according to the LA County Department of Mental Health. If you’re weighing whether to seek a conservatorship for a parent or an adult child, or you’re worried a relative might already meet the new standard, here’s what actually changed and what didn’t.
For decades, California’s Lanterman-Petris-Short Act let a court find someone “gravely disabled” only if a mental health disorder left them unable to provide their own food, clothing, or shelter. Someone whose life was falling apart from addiction alone, no matter how severe, generally didn’t meet that bar. Families watching a son or daughter cycle through overdoses and psychiatric holds without the law ever recognizing the danger ran into this gap constantly.
SB 43, signed by Governor Newsom in October 2023, rewrote Welfare and Institutions Code section 5008(h) to add two things to the definition of “gravely disabled”:
The bill also expands what evidence a court can consider in a conservatorship proceeding and adds new state reporting requirements. But the definition change above is what actually moves the needle for most families weighing this decision.
The law let counties phase in the new definition on their own timeline, and Los Angeles held off until January 1, 2026, giving its Department of Mental Health and Department of Public Health more than two years to build training, evaluation tools, and public materials before applying the new standard countywide, per the county’s own LPS Act and SB 43 page. A case evaluated under the old, narrower definition in December 2025 gets evaluated under the new one now. County behavioral health departments across the state have called this the most significant rewrite of California conservatorship law in over fifty years, and Los Angeles is one of the state’s largest counties putting it into practice.
If a family member’s substance use has reached the point where they genuinely can’t feed, clothe, house, or medically care for themselves, and less restrictive help hasn’t worked, this is the first time California law has explicitly said that pattern alone can support a conservatorship. That matters for families who have spent years watching a loved one deteriorate with no legal path to intervene.
It’s not a lower bar across the board, though. “Severe substance use disorder” is a specific clinical term tied to diagnostic criteria for a severe disorder, not casual or even heavy use. The person still has to be unable to meet basic needs as a direct result, and a judge still has to make that finding on the evidence presented. SB 43 widened who can qualify. It didn’t remove the underlying rule that conservatorship stays a last resort.
This is the question that comes up most often, and it’s worth answering directly: using drugs, even heavily, does not by itself make someone eligible for a conservatorship. The statute requires a diagnosed severe substance use disorder that leaves the person unable to meet basic needs on their own. A person who’s using but still holding a job, keeping an apartment, and managing their own meals and medical care doesn’t meet the standard, no matter how much a family wishes otherwise. The law targets a specific, severe outcome: someone who can no longer function well enough to survive without help, not a pattern of behavior a family finds alarming or dangerous.
That distinction matters practically. A court investigator evaluating a case under the new standard still has to document the specific basic needs the person can’t meet and connect that failure to the diagnosed disorder. A general assertion that “he’s been using for years and it’s out of control” doesn’t satisfy that, on its own, under either the old definition or the new one.
SB 43 didn’t just expand eligibility and stop there. The same law requires investigators to consider less restrictive alternatives, including Assisted Outpatient Treatment and California’s CARE Court program, before a conservatorship petition moves forward, according to the county’s own SB 43 community presentation materials. If your family is looking at a conservatorship right now, expect the investigator’s report to address why a lighter-touch option wasn’t enough, not just why conservatorship is warranted.
Trying to figure out whether a parent’s or adult child’s situation actually meets the new standard, or whether a lighter option should be tried first? Schedule a consultation with Salvo Law and we’ll walk through the specific facts of your situation, not a general summary of the law.
If you’re the one weighing whether to file, start with a candid clinical picture. Has your relative actually been diagnosed with a severe substance use disorder, or a co-occurring mental health and substance use condition, by someone qualified to make that call? That diagnosis is the anchor for everything that follows in the petition.
If you’re on the other side of this, worried a family member’s existing conservatorship might get challenged, or that a new petition against you might lean on the expanded definition, the same logic applies. The county still has to show a specific inability to meet basic needs, not just point to substance use in the abstract.
LA County’s own SB 43 materials are written for the public and available in several languages, and they’re worth reading before your first court date. Turning “does my situation actually meet this standard” into a filed petition, or a defense against one, is where this gets specific to your family fast.
If you’re in the San Fernando Valley and trying to sort out where your family’s situation actually stands under the new rules, call Salvo Law at 818-676-9572. We’ll tell you plainly whether a conservatorship fits your family’s facts, or whether a less restrictive option should come first.