Governor Gavin Newsom has signed two bills aimed at expanding access to California's mental health court, known as CARE Court, which was established in 2023 to assist individuals with severe mental illness. However, two more ambitious bills proposing significant changes to the program did not advance through the legislature.
Read More
The signed legislation, from Senators Catherine Blakespear, a Democrat, and Steven Choi, a Republican, seeks to streamline the process for first responders to refer individuals to CARE Court and allows relatives of participants to share pertinent information with care teams. Blakespear described these measures as “incremental improvements” to assist those in need.
Despite these new measures, Bills SB 1016 and SB 28, which aimed to facilitate pathways for those unable to voluntarily engage with CARE Court into conservatorship, failed to pass. These proposals intended to ensure that individuals too ill to consent to treatment could still receive help. They sparked controversy and faced opposition from groups like Disability Rights California, which argued that coercive treatment can be harmful.
Assemblymember Buffy Wicks pointed to the high costs of these proposals and indicated that insufficient understanding of CARE Court’s effectiveness contributed to their downfall. She noted that the legislature lacked detailed insights into what improvements were needed.
The latest state data indicates that CARE Court has not reached as many individuals as initially anticipated, with only 517 of 2,216 petition filings resulting in treatment plans by mid-2025.
One new law allows first responders, like firefighters and EMTs, to refer individuals to CARE Court through a county request, streamlining a previously complex process. Another law, while enabling one-way communication from caregivers to treatment teams, limits sharing of information limited only to benefits for the patient’s treatment, emphasizing patient privacy concerns.
Separately, SB 16 focuses on enhancing the state’s conservatorship process by establishing training procedures for personnel who place patients on involuntary mental health holds.
The rejection of SB 28 reflects a changing legislative climate, as past proposals by Senator Tom Umberg had typically enjoyed wide support. Observers noted that the legislature is increasingly taking initiative in analyzing CARE Court’s operations independently of the governor’s input.
June Dudas, who has navigated CARE Court for a family member, expressed that the failed bills would have significantly affected treatment options for those who are unable to recognize their need for help due to conditions like schizophrenia.
Jocelyn Wiener and Yue Stella Yu contributed to this reporting.