This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.
Gov. Gavin Newsom signed two bills Sunday designed to help his mental health court reach more vulnerable Californians.
But two other bills that would have made much bigger, and more controversial, changes to the program died without ever making it to his desk.
Newsom’s CARE Court launched in 2023 with the intention of getting the sickest Californians off the streets and into mental health care. Family members, first responders, mental health professionals and others can refer people suffering from psychosis into the court-based program, where a judge then sets up a treatment plan through the county.
But the program has struggled with lower-than-expected utilization since its launch, and every year legislators attempt to fix that by passing new bills that change the program in different ways. This year, Newsom signed bills by Senators Catherine Blakespear, a Democrat from Encinitas, and Steven Choi, a Republican from Irvine, which make it make it easier for first responders to get people into CARE Court, and for the loved ones of a CARE Court participant to provide information to their care team that might be relevant to their treatment.
Blakespear called it “incremental improvement.”
“I don’t want to make it seem like these things are accomplishing more than they are,” she said. “But they are doing something. We are improving the system for people who need help the most.”
The bills that would have made bigger changes to CARE Court ended up left on the cutting room floor:
- Senate bill 1016, also by Blakespear, would have created a path for people who are too sick for CARE Court, which is a voluntary program, to potentially be referred to a conservatorship, which is an involuntary program.
- SB 28, by Orange County Democrat Sen. Tom Umberg and Blakespear, also would have strengthened the link between CARE Court and conservatorships.
The idea was to prevent people from falling out of treatment entirely if they are too sick to accept voluntary care.
Both died in the Assembly Appropriations Committee in August. It was a relief for their long lists of opponents, including Disability Rights California, who argued that the bills would have made CARE Court more coercive, and that forcing treatment is harmful and ineffective. But the bills’ deaths were a letdown for some families of people with severe mental illness, who are fed up with their loved ones languishing on the streets because they are too sick to consent to care.
In addition, SB 1242 – one of the two CARE Court bills Newsom signed into law – was watered down at the behest of activists before it hit his desk.
Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, a Democrat from Oakland and chair of the Appropriations Committee, blamed the price tag of the two bills that died for their failure. She also said the Legislature didn’t have enough details yet on what is and is not working about CARE Court.
“Those bills were very expensive and I think a little bit premature, because we don’t know exactly what the challenge or issue is,” she told reporters in August. CalMatters has reported extensively about the challenges facing CARE Court, its participants, and affected families, for over a year.
Blakespear said the issue is a belief that people can’t be helped until they are ready to accept help: something she’s trying to chip away at. She’ll try again next year to strengthen the connection between CARE Court and conservatorships, she said.
“Just because of the way Sacramento works,” she said, “these philosophical shifts can be hard to accomplish.”
The California Public Defenders Association disagreed that CARE Court should be linked to coercive treatment, and opposed SB 28.
“Our experience has taught us that CARE works best when people have buy-in and choose to participate,” Stephanie Regular, assistant public defender for Alameda County and chair of the CPDA mental health and civil commitment committee, said in an emailed statement. “That voluntary engagement is not a weakness; it is part of why CARE works. Efforts like SB 28 that impose harsh consequences for inadequate participation risk undermining that success.”
How the new laws change CARE Court
A CalMatters investigation of CARE Court found the program has reached far fewer people than Newsom’s administration initially anticipated. After the program was watered down to remove its ability to compel people into treatment, many family members of people in the program are disappointed by its limited ability to help their loved ones. The latest state data, which goes through June 2025, found that of 2,216 petitions filed, 517 resulted in CARE agreements or plans, while another 984 were dismissed.
One of the new laws attempts to bring more people into the program by allowing firefighters, ETMs and other first responders to ask their county to refer someone into CARE Court. The idea is that first responders often encounter people who have a serious mental illness and need help, but they rarely have the time to go through the complicated, time-consuming process of filing a CARE Court petition themselves. Instead, they now can refer that person to the county, which then has 30 days to decide whether to file a CARE Court petition.
The other new law addresses a common concern from families of people in CARE Court: Once they refer their loved one into the program, they often are cut out of the loop, unable to give or receive information about their family member’s care. The original bill would have allowed whoever files a CARE Court petition to have more involvement in the process as treatment progresses. But it was amended after concerns about patient privacy.
Now, the law allows for one-way communication only – the petitioner can submit information about their family member’s location, condition, status or anything else that might aid in their treatment, but they can’t receive any information about their family member without that person’s consent.
That’s important, because someone with a severe mental illness participating in CARE Court might not be able to articulate in that moment how they are doing, said Suzanne Fidler, a delegate for the Conference of California Bar Associations, which sponsored the bill. But the person who filed the CARE Court petition, such as a family member, likely has close access to them and can give their treatment team important information, she said.
Paul Boden, director of the Western Regional Advocacy Project, which opposed the bill, disagrees.
“Families can say whatever they want to say and it will be taken in court as if it’s a diagnostic assessment,” he said. “And that’s dangerous.”
Another new law doesn’t directly relate to CARE Court, but instead seeks to improve the state’s conservatorship process. Also by Blakespear, SB 16 requires counties to develop procedures to train the people (such as clinicians or law enforcement) who place patients on involuntary mental health holds.
This year’s death of Umberg’s CARE Court clean-up bill — SB 28 — signals a shift in the tide, said Samuel Jain, a senior attorney with Disability Rights California, which opposed the bill. Umberg has introduced a follow-up bill to expand or change the law annually since he initially authored the CARE Court legislation in 2022. In past years, those bills have generally sailed through the legislature with near unanimous support.
Last year, Umberg expanded who qualifies for CARE Court by adding people who experience psychosis as a result of bipolar disorder.
At times, his CARE Court bills have been significantly changed late in the session, in a process known as “gut and amend.”
A legislative analysis submitted to the Assembly Judiciary Committee this summer said that the opponents of this year’s bill, SB 28, complained it had been substantially amended in June “after advancing through much of the legislative process as a different bill.” It continued: “This late-stage gut-and-amend approach continues a troubling pattern of advancing major CARE Court expansions without adequate opportunity for public input.”
“The Legislature is starting to do more of their own analysis of this and starting to stand on their own two feet and not just defer to the governor,” Jain said.
June Dudas, who has first-hand experience with CARE Court, said SB 28 and SB 1016 would have been game-changers if they had passed. Dudas helped her 85-year-old aunt submit CARE Court petitions in San Diego County for Dudas’ cousin, who was homeless and became violent when in the grip of psychosis.
Her cousin doesn’t realize he’s sick – a common symptom of schizophrenia known as anosognosia. That means he’ll never consent to treatment, Dudas said. As a result, his CARE Court case was officially dismissed twice. He was offered a place in CARE Court a third time, but turned it down and instead opted to go to jail for violating a restraining order against his mother.
“And it’s not just that his case is dismissed, he is dismissed as a human being,” Dudas said. “There are no other services offered to him if he doesn’t volunteer.”
Dudas’ cousin finally entered into a conservatorship in May — almost a year after his family first tried to get him into CARE Court.
Jocelyn Wiener and Yue Stella Yu contributed to this reporting.
