California AB 1663 and the Supported Decision-Making Law: What Changed in 2023

What AB 1663 Changed

Assembly Bill 1663, effective January 1, 2023, was the most significant reform to California's conservatorship and disability decision-making law in decades. The bill added Supported Decision-Making (SDM) to the Welfare and Institutions Code (§§ 21000–21008) and simultaneously amended the Probate Code to require courts to consider SDM before granting any conservatorship.

Before AB 1663, Supported Decision-Making existed as a concept in disability rights advocacy but had no formal legal status in California. Families could create informal support arrangements, but schools, hospitals, banks, and government agencies had no legal obligation to recognize them. The bill changed that.

The Five Core Provisions

1. SDM has legal standing. Under WIC § 21004, an adult with a disability has the right to have one or more adults, including supporters, present in medical, educational, financial, or legal meetings and communications. Third parties — doctors, school districts, banks — may refuse the supporter's presence only if they reasonably believe the requested participation involves fraud, coercion, abuse, or another action they are required to report under the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act.

2. Courts must consider SDM before granting conservatorship. Probate Code § 1800.3 now prohibits courts from appointing a conservator unless the judge makes an explicit finding that the arrangement is the least restrictive alternative necessary. The court must specifically consider whether SDM, powers of attorney, or other voluntary supports could accomplish the same protective purpose.

3. A disability diagnosis does not equal incapacity. The law codifies what advocacy organizations have argued for decades: having a developmental or intellectual disability does not mean a person lacks decision-making capacity. Capacity must be evaluated with the inclusion of available supports — not in isolation.

4. Written SDM agreements have statutory requirements. WIC § 21005 specifies what a valid written SDMA must contain: plain-language description of the support domains, identification of supporters, a statement from each supporter confirming they are not disqualified (no restraining orders, no prior removal as conservator for cause, no findings of abuse), a mandatory warning about the right to report abuse, and signatures before a notary or two disinterested witnesses.

5. SDM agreements should be reviewed every two years. Unlike a power of attorney, which can remain valid until revoked or otherwise terminated, an SDMA should be reviewed every two years and updated as needed under WIC § 21005. An updated written agreement must meet the statute's signature requirements; it does not automatically expire after two years.

Who Benefits From This Law

The primary beneficiaries are adults with developmental and intellectual disabilities whose families would otherwise have defaulted to conservatorship. AB 1663 gives them a legally recognized framework that preserves full civil rights while providing structured support.

The law also benefits families navigating the transition to adulthood. Before AB 1663, many families filed for limited conservatorship simply because it was the only tool with clear legal standing. Now, families can invoke the statutory right to have supporters present in covered meetings and communications, although an SDMA does not give the supporter decision-making authority.

The SCDD and SDM-TAP

The State Council on Developmental Disabilities (SCDD) operates the SDM Technical Assistance Program (SDM-TAP), which provides training, templates, and resources for families and professionals implementing SDM agreements. The SCDD publishes model SDMA templates, training modules, and community education materials — all available at no cost.

The SCDD's role is educational and advisory. They can help families understand the SDM framework, connect them with local facilitators, and provide template agreements. They do not provide legal representation and will not assist with conservatorship filings.

SDM Versus Conservatorship: A Practical Comparison

When SDM Is Not Enough

AB 1663 does not eliminate conservatorship. It requires courts to consider less restrictive alternatives and make a least-restrictive-alternative finding. When a person cannot express preferences even with extensive support, when they face active exploitation that private arrangements cannot prevent, or when critical institutions refuse to honor private documents despite their legal validity, a limited conservatorship may remain necessary.

The California Adult Guardianship & Alternatives Guide includes a WIC § 21005-compliant SDM template alongside the domain-by-domain assessment that helps families determine whether SDM can meet their needs or whether they need to pursue court authority.

The Trajectory of California Law

AB 1663 reflects a national movement toward less restrictive alternatives. Texas, Wisconsin, and DC have enacted similar SDM statutes. California's version is among the most comprehensive, with its recommended two-year review, statutory witness requirements, and explicit integration into the conservatorship hearing process. For families planning today, the law's trajectory is clear: courts will increasingly expect evidence that alternatives were attempted before they will grant conservatorships.

See more California guides →