SB 28: Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment (CARE) court program.
- Session Year: 2025-2026
- House: Senate
- Latest Version Date: 2026-07-02
Current Status:
In Progress
(2026-08-13: August 13 hearing: Held in committee and under submission.)
Introduced
In Committee
Awaiting First Chamber Vote
Passed First Chamber
In Committee
Awaiting Second Chamber Vote
Passed Second Chamber
Enacted
(1)Existing law, the Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment (CARE) Act (the act), authorizes specified persons, including a person with whom the respondent resides, family members, and first responders, among others, to petition a civil court to create a voluntary CARE agreement or a court-ordered CARE plan and implement services, to be provided by county behavioral health agencies, to provide behavioral health care, including stabilization medication, housing, and other enumerated services, to adults who are currently experiencing a severe mental illness and have a diagnosis identified in the disorder class schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders, and who meet other specified criteria.
Existing law, the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, authorizes a conservator of the person, of the estate, or of the person and the estate to be appointed for a person who is gravely disabled as a result of a mental health disorder or impairment by chronic alcoholism. Existing law requires the officer providing the conservatorship investigation, which may include a public guardian or a county mental health program, to investigate all available alternatives to conservatorship and to recommend conservatorship to the court only if no suitable alternatives are available. Existing law requires a conservatorship under these provisions to terminate after one year and specifies procedures if the conservator determines conservatorship is still required.
This bill would authorize a conservator to, upon the termination of a conservatorship, request the court refer the conservatee to CARE court, as specified.
(2)The act authorizes services and supports to be provided to adults who are currently experiencing a qualifying severe mental illness and who meet other specified criteria, including that the person is not clinically stabilized in ongoing voluntary treatment and is either unlikely to survive safely in the community without ongoing supervision and the persons condition is substantially deteriorating or the person is in need of services and supports to prevent a relapse or deterioration that would likely result in grave disability or serious harm to the person or others.
This bill would authorize the court, beginning July 1, 2028, and if it dismisses a CARE petition because a respondent needs a higher level of services, to order the county to develop an exit plan for the respondent. The bill would require the State Department of Health Care Services, by July 1, 2028, to develop, with input from certain stakeholder groups, a CARE Act model exit plan that identifies appropriate services and ongoing monitoring of an individual with a petition dismissed because the individual needed a higher level of services.
This bill would update the definition of a petitioner for the purposes of the act.
(3)Existing law requires the Judicial Council to develop a mandatory form or forms to use to file a CARE process petition. Existing law requires the petition to be signed under the penalty of perjury and to contain specified information, including the petitioners relationship to the respondent and either an affidavit of a licensed behavioral health professional stating the licensed behavioral health professional or their designee has examined or made multiple unsuccessful attempts to examine the respondent within 60 days of submission of the petition, or that the respondent was detained for a minimum of 2 intensive treatments pursuant to state law.
This bill would extend the 60-day period for examination of the respondent to 120 days. The bill would also authorize a petition to include evidence that the respondent was either detained for a minimum of 2 involuntary holds in the last 120 days or that they were referred to a full service partnership program more than once, but was not enrolled due to inability or unwillingness to engage in the previous 120 days.
(4)Existing law authorizes a court to terminate a respondents participation in the CARE process if the court determines that the respondent is not participating in the CARE process or is not adhering to their CARE plan, as specified. Existing law authorizes the court to order an evaluation under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, as specified, to ensure the respondents safety. Existing law requires the court to consider the respondents failure to successfully complete their CARE plan and the reasons for that failure in a subsequent hearing under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, provided that the hearing occurs within 6 months of the termination of the CARE plan, and creates a presumption that the respondent needs additional intervention beyond the supports and services provided by the CARE plan.
This bill would prohibit the court from terminating a respondents participation in the CARE process solely due to a failure of the county or other local government entity to properly engage with the CARE process.
(5)Existing law requires CARE Act proceedings to occur in person unless the court, in its discretion, allows a party or witness to appear remotely through the use of remote technology. Existing law authorizes the respondent to be in person for all hearings.
This bill would instead authorize all parties and witnesses to appear remotely through the use of remotely technology. The bill would authorize the court with discretion to order a party or witness to appear in person if necessary.
This bill would authorize the parties to agree to an alternative method of service for all subsequent reports and notices after the notice of initial appearance.
This bill would require, by January 1, 2028, all counties to establish a process for electronic submission of CARE Act documents using a secured portal. By increasing the duties on county behavioral health agencies, the bill would create a state-mandated local program.
(6)Existing law authorizes a provider of health care or a covered entity, as defined, to disclose to the county behavioral health agency any information, including protected health information, and mental health records excluding psychotherapy notes, in its possession about the respondent that is relevant to the county behavioral health agencys provision, coordination, or management or services or supports. Existing law specifies protections for this information and required procedures when such a disclosure is made.
This bill would authorize a county behavioral health agency to disclose to a provider of health care or a covered entity any information, including protected health information, and mental health records, excluding psychotherapy notes, in its possession about the respondent that is relevant to the provider or entitys provision, coordination, or management of services and supports. The bill would also specify protections for this information and required procedures when such a disclosure is made.
(7)Existing law requires the department to develop, in consultation with specified entities, an annual CARE Act report that includes specified information on CARE Act petitions, including the number of initial appearances, and information compiled from county behavioral health departments and courts.
This bill would expand the information on CARE Act petitions to include the number of petitions submitted electronically as well as other specified information. The bill would also expand the data to be compiled from county behavioral health departments and courts to include the number of individuals who were enrolled in a Full Service Partnership program postreferral, among other things. The bill would also require the data collected from county behavioral health departments and courts to be collected for cases involving dismissed respondents, where available.
(8)Existing law requires the California Health and Human Services Agency, or a designated department within the agency, to perform specified functions, including engaging an independent, research-based entity to advise on the development of data-driven process and outcome measures to guide the planning, collaboration, reporting, and evaluation of the CARE Act.
This bill would require the agency to annually release a list of overperforming and underperforming counties to receive additional support through the CARE Improvement and Coordination Unit. counties and shall annually provide written notice identifying areas of concern and opportunities for improvement to underperforming counties. This bill would also establish within the California Health and Human Services Agency the position of a CARE Court Ombudsperson, as specified.
(9)The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
(1)Existing law, the Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment (CARE) Act (the act), authorizes specified persons, including a person with whom the respondent resides, family members, and first responders, among others, to petition a civil court to create a voluntary CARE agreement or a court-ordered CARE plan and implement services, to be provided by county behavioral health agencies, to provide behavioral health care, including stabilization medication, housing, and other enumerated services, to adults who are currently experiencing a severe mental illness and have a diagnosis identified in the disorder class schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders, and who meet other specified criteria.
Existing law, the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, authorizes a conservator of the person, of the estate, or of the person and the estate to be appointed for a person who is gravely disabled as a result of a mental health disorder or impairment by chronic alcoholism. Existing law requires the officer providing the conservatorship investigation, which may include a public guardian or a county mental health program, to investigate all available alternatives to conservatorship and to recommend conservatorship to the court only if no suitable alternatives are available. Existing law requires a conservatorship under these provisions to terminate after one year and specifies procedures if the conservator determines conservatorship is still required.
This bill would authorize a conservator to, upon the termination of a conservatorship, request the court refer the conservatee to CARE court, as specified.
(2)The act authorizes services and supports to be provided to adults who are currently experiencing a qualifying severe mental illness and who meet other specified criteria, including that the person is not clinically stabilized in ongoing voluntary treatment and is either unlikely to survive safely in the community without ongoing supervision and the persons condition is substantially deteriorating or the person is in need of services and supports to prevent a relapse or deterioration that would likely result in grave disability or serious harm to the person or others.
This bill, instead, would authorize an individual to qualify for the CARE program if, among the other existing requirements, the person has not been clinically stabilized in ongoing voluntary treatment for more than 90 days prior to the CARE court filing, as specified, and if supervision is required to allow for services and supports to be effective and prevent substantial deterioration or relapse.As part of the petition review process, this bill would authorize the county behavioral health agency, their designee, or the court to recommend the respondent be considered for alternative treatment, including, but not limited to, assisted outpatient treatment program or a grave disability evaluation under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, if the respondent requires a higher level of care than the CARE process. The bill would prohibit a determination that the respondent requires a higher level of care than the CARE process if the respondent meets, or is likely to meet, the criteria for the CARE process.This bill would authorize the court, beginning July 1, 2028, and if it dismisses a CARE petition because a respondent needs a higher level of services, to order the county to develop an exit plan for the respondent. The bill would require the State Department of Health Care Services, by July 1, 2028, to develop, with input from certain stakeholder groups, a CARE Act model exit plan that identifies appropriate services and ongoing monitoring of an individual with a petition dismissed because the individual needed a higher level of services.
This bill would update various definitions applying to the definition of a petitioner for the purposes of the act.
(3)Existing law requires the Judicial Council to develop a mandatory form or forms to use to file a CARE process petition. Existing law requires the petition to be signed under the penalty of perjury and to contain specified information, including the petitioners relationship to the respondent and either an affidavit of a licensed behavioral health professional stating the licensed behavioral health professional or their designee has examined or made multiple unsuccessful attempts to examine the respondent within 60 days of submission of the petition, or that the respondent was detained for a minimum of 2 intensive treatments pursuant to state law.
This bill would extend the 60-day period for examination of the respondent to 270 120 days. The bill would also authorize a petition to include evidence that the respondent was either detained for a minimum of 2 involuntary holds in the last 6 months 120 days or that they were referred to a full service partnership program more than once, but was not enrolled due to inability or unwillingness to engage. engage in the previous 120 days.
(4)Existing law, the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, provides generally for the evaluation, treatment, and civil commitment of persons with mental health disorders and other specified persons. The act authorizes the detention for evaluation for up to 72 hours of a person who is found to be, as a result of a mental disorder, a danger to others or to self, or gravely disabled.Under the CARE Act, existing law requires a court to hold a status review hearing at specified intervals after the court orders the CARE plan. Existing law authorizes the county behavioral health agency or respondent to request, or the court upon its own motion to set, a hearing to occur at any time during the CARE process to address a change in circumstances.This bill would, to ensure the respondents safety, require the county behavioral health agency to request a status hearing to address a change in circumstances and request the court to order an evaluation under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act of the respondent if prescribed conditions are met, including that the respondents nonadherence to the CARE plan has resulted in behavior consistent with an established pattern of psychiatric deterioration or symptoms of decompensation. By creating a new requirement for county behavioral health agencies, the bill would create a state-mandated local program.(5)(4)Existing law authorizes a court to terminate a respondents participation in the CARE process if the court determines that the respondent is not participating in the CARE process or is not adhering to their CARE plan, as specified. Existing law authorizes the court to order an evaluation under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, as specified, to ensure the respondents safety. Existing law requires the court to consider the respondents failure to successfully complete their CARE plan and the reasons for that failure in a subsequent hearing under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, provided that the hearing occurs within 6 months of the termination of the CARE plan, and creates a presumption that the respondent needs additional intervention beyond the supports and services provided by the CARE plan.
This bill would instead require the court to order an evaluation if the court terminates the respondents participation in the process and would authorize a court to order a grave disability evaluation, on its own motion or by motion from the county. The bill would also delete the above-described 6 month limitation, thereby requiring the court to consider the respondents failure to successfully complete their CARE plan and reasons for that failure in any subsequent hearings under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act and extending the presumption.(6)Existing law requires that the court hold a one-year status meeting 11 months into the process timeline and requires the county behavioral health agency to file a report including specified information, including what progress the respondent has made on the CARE plan. Existing law authorizes a respondent to be involuntarily reappointed to the program only if specified conditions apply. Existing law also authorizes a court to use existing legal authority to ensure the respondents safety.If the court finds that involuntary reappointment is unlikely to stabilize the respondent and supervision is necessary, or if the court finds it is in the best interest of the respondent, this bill would authorize the court to order a grave disability evaluation on its own motion or by motion from the county.This bill would prohibit the court from terminating a respondents participation in the CARE process solely due to a failure of the county or other local government entity to properly engage with the CARE process.
(7)(5)Existing law requires CARE Act proceedings to occur in person unless the court, in its discretion, allows a party or witness to appear remotely through the use of remote technology. Existing law authorizes the respondent to be in person for all hearings.
This bill would instead authorize all parties and witnesses to appear remotely through the use of remotely technology. The bill would authorize the court with discretion to order a party or witness to appear in person if necessary.
This bill would authorize the parties to agree to an alternative method of service for all subsequent reports and notices after the notice of initial appearance.
This bill would require, by January 1, 2028, all counties to establish a process for electronic submission of CARE Act documents using a secured portal. By increasing the duties on county behavioral health agencies, the bill would create a state-mandated local program.
(8)(6)Existing law authorizes a provider of health care or a covered entity, as defined, to disclose to the county behavioral health agency any information, including protected health information, and mental health records excluding psychotherapy notes, in its possession about the respondent that is relevant to the county behavioral health agencys provision, coordination, or management or services or supports. Existing law specifies protections for this information and required procedures when such a disclosure is made.
This bill would authorize a county behavioral health agency to disclose to a provider of health care or a covered entity any information, including protected health information, and mental health records, excluding psychotherapy notes, in its possession about the respondent that is relevant to the provider or entitys provision, coordination, or management of services and supports. The bill would also specify protections for this information and required procedures when such a disclosure is made.
(9)(7)Existing law requires the department to develop, in consultation with specified entities, an annual CARE Act report that includes specified information on CARE Act petitions, including the number of initial appearances, and information compiled from county behavioral health departments and courts.
This bill would expand the information on CARE Act petitions to include the number of petitions submitted electronically as well as other specified information. The bill would also expand the data to be compiled from county behavioral health departments and courts to include the number of individuals who were enrolled in a Full Service Partnership program postreferral, among other things. The bill would also require the data collected from county behavioral health departments and courts to be collected for cases involving dismissed respondents, where available.
(10)(8)Existing law requires the California Health and Human Services Agency, or a designated department within the agency, to perform specified functions, including engaging an independent, research-based entity to advise on the development of data-driven process and outcome measures to guide the planning, collaboration, reporting, and evaluation of the CARE Act.
This bill would require the Governors office agency to annually release a list of overperforming and underperforming counties to receive additional support through the CARE Improvement and Coordination Unit. This bill would also establish within the California Health and Human Services Agency the position of a CARE Court Ombudsperson, as specified.
(11)(9)The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
(1)Existing law, the Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment (CARE) Act (the act), authorizes specified persons, including a person with whom the respondent resides, family members, and first responders, among others, to petition a civil court to create a voluntary CARE agreement or a court-ordered CARE plan and implement services, to be provided by county behavioral health agencies, to provide behavioral health care, including stabilization medication, housing, and other enumerated services, to adults who are currently experiencing a severe mental illness and have a diagnosis identified in the disorder class schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders, and who meet other specified criteria.
Existing law, the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, authorizes a conservator of the person, of the estate, or of the person and the estate to be appointed for a person who is gravely disabled as a result of a mental health disorder or impairment by chronic alcoholism. Existing law requires the officer providing the conservatorship investigation, which may include a public guardian or a county mental health program, to investigate all available alternatives to conservatorship and to recommend conservatorship to the court only if no suitable alternatives are available. Existing law requires a conservatorship under these provisions to terminate after one year and specifies procedures if the conservator determines conservatorship is still required.
This bill would authorize a conservator to, upon the termination of a conservatorship, request the court refer the conservatee to CARE court, as specified.
(2)The act authorizes services and supports to be provided to adults who are currently experiencing a qualifying severe mental illness and who meet other specified criteria, including that the person is not clinically stabilized in ongoing voluntary treatment and is either unlikely to survive safely in the community without ongoing supervision and the persons condition is substantially deteriorating or the person is in need of services and supports to prevent a relapse or deterioration that would likely result in grave disability or serious harm to the person or others.
This bill, instead, would authorize an individual to qualify for the CARE program if, among the other existing requirements, the person has not been clinically stabilized in ongoing voluntary treatment for more than 90 days prior to the CARE court filing, as specified, and if supervision is required to allow for services and supports to be effective and prevent substantial deterioration or relapse.
As part of the petition review process, this bill would authorize the county behavioral health agency, their designee, or the court to recommend the respondent be considered for alternative treatment, including, but not limited to, assisted outpatient treatment program or a grave disability evaluation under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, if the respondent requires a higher level of care than the CARE process. The bill would prohibit a determination that the respondent requires a higher level of care than the CARE process if the respondent meets, or is likely to meet, the criteria for the CARE process.
This bill would update various definitions applying to the act.
(3)Existing law requires the Judicial Council to develop a mandatory form or forms to use to file a CARE process petition. Existing law requires the petition to be signed under the penalty of perjury and to contain specified information, including the petitioners relationship to the respondent and either an affidavit of a licensed behavioral health professional stating the licensed behavioral health professional or their designee has examined or made multiple unsuccessful attempts to examine the respondent within 60 days of submission of the petition, or that the respondent was detained for a minimum of 2 intensive treatments pursuant to state law.
This bill would extend the 60-day period for examination of the respondent to 270 days. The bill would also authorize a petition to include evidence that the respondent was either detained for a minimum of 2 involuntary holds in the last 6 months or that they were referred to a full service partnership program more than once, but was not enrolled due to inability or unwillingness to engage.
(4)Existing law, the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, provides generally for the evaluation, treatment, and civil commitment of persons with mental health disorders and other specified persons. The act authorizes the detention for evaluation for up to 72 hours of a person who is found to be, as a result of a mental disorder, a danger to others or to self, or gravely disabled.
Under the CARE Act, existing law requires a court to hold a status review hearing at specified intervals after the court orders the CARE plan. Existing law authorizes the county behavioral health agency or respondent to request, or the court upon its own motion to set, a hearing to occur at any time during the CARE process to address a change in circumstances.
This bill would, to ensure the respondents safety, require the county behavioral health agency to request a status hearing to address a change in circumstances and request the court to order an evaluation under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act of the respondent if prescribed conditions are met, including that the respondents nonadherence to the CARE plan has resulted in behavior consistent with an established pattern of psychiatric deterioration or symptoms of decompensation. By creating a new requirement for county behavioral health agencies, the bill would create a state-mandated local program.
(5)Existing law authorizes a court to terminate a respondents participation in the CARE process if the court determines that the respondent is not participating in the CARE process or is not adhering to their CARE plan, as specified. Existing law authorizes the court to order an evaluation under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, as specified, to ensure the respondents safety. Existing law requires the court to consider the respondents failure to successfully complete their CARE plan and the reasons for that failure in a subsequent hearing under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, provided that the hearing occurs within 6 months of the termination of the CARE plan, and creates a presumption that the respondent needs additional intervention beyond the supports and services provided by the CARE plan.
This bill would instead require the court to order an evaluation if the court terminates the respondents participation in the process and would authorize a court to order a grave disability evaluation, on its own motion or by motion from the county. The bill would also delete the above-described 6 month limitation, thereby requiring the court to consider the respondents failure to successfully complete their CARE plan and reasons for that failure in any subsequent hearings under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act and extending the presumption.
(6)Existing law requires that the court hold a one-year status meeting 11 months into the process timeline and requires the county behavioral health agency to file a report including specified information, including what progress the respondent has made on the CARE plan. Existing law authorizes a respondent to be involuntarily reappointed to the program only if specified conditions apply. Existing law also authorizes a court to use existing legal authority to ensure the respondents safety.
If the court finds that involuntary reappointment is unlikely to stabilize the respondent and supervision is necessary, or if the court finds it is in the best interest of the respondent, this bill would authorize the court to order a grave disability evaluation on its own motion or by motion from the county.
(7)Existing law requires CARE Act proceedings to occur in person unless the court, in its discretion, allows a party or witness to appear remotely through the use of remote technology. Existing law authorizes the respondent to be in person for all hearings.
This bill would instead authorize all parties and witnesses to appear remotely through the use of remotely technology. The bill would authorize the court with discretion to order a party or witness to appear in person if necessary.
This bill would authorize the parties to agree to an alternative method of service for all subsequent reports and notices after the notice of initial appearance.
This bill would require, by January 1, 2028, all counties to establish a process for electronic submission of CARE Act documents using a secured portal.
(8)Existing law authorizes a provider of health care or a covered entity, as defined, to disclose to the county behavioral health agency any information, including protected health information, and mental health records excluding psychotherapy notes, in its possession about the respondent that is relevant to the county behavioral health agencys provision, coordination, or management or services or supports. Existing law specifies protections for this information and required procedures when such a disclosure is made.
This bill would authorize a county behavioral health agency to disclose to a provider of health care or a covered entity any information, including protected health information, and mental health records, excluding psychotherapy notes, in its possession about the respondent that is relevant to the provider or entitys provision, coordination, or management of services and supports. The bill would also specify protections for this information and required procedures when such a disclosure is made.
(9)Existing law requires the department to develop, in consultation with specified entities, an annual CARE Act report that includes specified information on CARE Act petitions, including the number of initial appearances, and information compiled from county behavioral health departments and courts.
This bill would expand the information on CARE Act petitions to include the number of petitions submitted electronically as well as other specified information. The bill would also expand the data to be compiled from county behavioral health departments and courts to include the number of individuals who were enrolled in a Full Service Partnership program postreferral, among other things. The bill would also require the data collected from county behavioral health departments and courts to be collected for cases involving dismissed respondents, where available.
(10)Existing law requires the California Health and Human Services Agency, or a designated department within the agency, to perform specified functions, including engaging an independent, research-based entity to advise on the development of data-driven process and outcome measures to guide the planning, collaboration, reporting, and evaluation of the CARE Act.
This bill would require the Governors office to annually release a list of overperforming and underperforming counties to receive additional support through the CARE Improvement and Coordination Unit. This bill would also establish within the California Health and Human Services Agency the position of a CARE Court Ombudsperson, as specified.
(11)The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Existing law, the Drug Court Programs Act, authorizes counties to implement a drug court program, that, if implemented, requires a county alcohol and drug program administrator and the presiding judge in the county to develop a plan that includes, among other things, drug courts for juvenile offenders and drug courts for parents of children in certain family law cases. Existing law requires counties and courts that opt to have treatment court programs to design and operate the programs in accordance with state and national guidelines. Existing law requires the Judicial Council to, by no later than January 1, 2026, revise the standards of judicial administration to reflect state and nationally recognized best practices and guidelines for collaborative programs including those described in these provisions.Existing law, the Treatment-Mandated Felony Act, an initiative measure enacted by the voters as Proposition 36 at the November 5, 2024, statewide general election, authorizes certain defendants convicted of specified felonies or misdemeanors to participate in a treatment program, upon court approval, in lieu of a jail or prison sentence, or grant of probation with jail as a condition of probation, if specified criteria are met. The Legislature may amend this initiative by a statute passed in each house by a rollcall vote entered in the journal, 2/3 of the membership concurring, or by a statute that becomes effective only when approved by the voters.This bill would include a new standard that, as part of the treatment court program, a drug addiction expert, as defined, conducts a substance abuse and mental health evaluation of the defendant, and submits the report to the court and the parties. The bill would remove the requirement that the Judicial Council revise the standards of judicial administration. The bill would require that a treatment program that complies with existing judicial standards be offered to a person that is eligible for treatment pursuant to the Treatment-Mandated Felony Act. By requiring the court to implement a treatment program that complies with existing judicial standards, the bill would amend that initiative statute.This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.Existing law, the Drug Court Programs Act, authorizes counties to implement a drug court program, that, if implemented, requires a county alcohol and drug program administrator and the presiding judge in the county to develop a plan that includes, among other things, drug courts for juvenile offenders and drug courts for parents of children in certain family law cases. Existing law requires counties and courts that opt to have treatment court programs to design and operate the programs in accordance with state and national guidelines. Existing law requires the Judicial Council to, by no later than January 1, 2026, revise the standards of judicial administration to reflect state and nationally recognized best practices and guidelines for collaborative programs including those described in these provisions.
Existing law, the Treatment-Mandated Felony Act, an initiative measure enacted by the voters as Proposition 36 at the November 5, 2024, statewide general election, authorizes certain defendants convicted of specified felonies or misdemeanors to participate in a treatment program, upon court approval, in lieu of a jail or prison sentence, or grant of probation with jail as a condition of probation, if specified criteria are met. The Legislature may amend this initiative by a statute passed in each house by a rollcall vote entered in the journal, 2/3 of the membership concurring, or by a statute that becomes effective only when approved by the voters.
This bill would instead require that treatment court programs be available to all eligible California defendants. The bill would include a new standard that, as part of the treatment court program, a drug addiction expert, as defined, conducts a substance abuse and mental health evaluation of the defendant, and submits the report to the court and the parties. The bill would remove the requirement that the Judicial Council revise the standards of judicial administration. The bill would require that a treatment program that complies with existing judicial standards be offered to a person that is eligible for treatment pursuant to the Treatment-Mandated Felony Act. By requiring the court to implement a treatment program that complies with existing judicial standards, the bill would amend that initiative statute.
This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Existing law, the Drug Court Programs Act, authorizes counties to implement a drug court program, that, if implemented, requires a county alcohol and drug program administrator and the presiding judge in the county to develop a plan that includes, among other things, drug courts for juvenile offenders and drug courts for parents of children in certain family law cases. Existing law requires counties and courts that opt to have treatment court programs to design and operate the programs in accordance with state and national guidelines. Existing law requires the Judicial Council to, by no later than January 1, 2026, revise the standards of judicial administration to reflect state and nationally recognized best practices and guidelines for collaborative programs including those described in these provisions.
Existing law, the Treatment-Mandated Felony Act, an initiative measure enacted by the voters as Proposition 36 at the November 5, 2024, statewide general election, authorizes certain defendants convicted of specified felonies or misdemeanors to participate in a treatment program, upon court approval, in lieu of a jail or prison sentence, or grant of probation with jail as a condition of probation, if specified criteria are met. The Legislature may amend this initiative by a statute passed in each house by a rollcall vote entered in the journal, 2/3 of the membership concurring, or by a statute that becomes effective only when approved by the voters.
This bill would instead require that treatment court programs be available to all eligible California defendants. The bill would include a new standard that, as part of the treatment court program, a drug addiction expert, as defined, conducts a substance abuse and mental health evaluation of the defendant, and submits the report to the court and the parties. The bill would remove the requirement that the Judicial Council revise the standards of judicial administration. The bill would require that a treatment program that complies with existing judicial standards be offered to a person that is eligible for treatment pursuant to the Treatment-Mandated Felony Act. By requiring the court to implement a treatment program that complies with existing judicial standards, the bill would amend that initiative statute.
This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Existing law, the Drug Court Programs Act, authorizes counties to implement a drug court program, that, if implemented, requires a county alcohol and drug program administrator and the presiding judge in the county to develop a plan that includes, among other things, drug courts for juvenile offenders and drug courts for parents of children in certain family law cases. Existing law requires counties and courts that opt to have treatment court programs to design and operate the programs in accordance with state and national guidelines. Existing law requires the Judicial Council to, by no later than January 1, 2026, revise the standards of judicial administration to reflect state and nationally recognized best practices and guidelines for collaborative programs including those described in these provisions.
Existing law, the Treatment-Mandated Felony Act, an initiative measure enacted by the voters as Proposition 36 at the November 5, 2024, statewide general election, authorizes certain defendants convicted of specified felonies or misdemeanors to participate in a treatment program, upon court approval, in lieu of a jail or prison sentence, or grant of probation with jail as a condition of probation, if specified criteria are met. The Legislature may amend this initiative by a statute passed in each house by a rollcall vote entered in the journal, 2/3 of the membership concurring, or by a statute that becomes effective only when approved by the voters.
This bill would instead require that treatment court programs be available to all eligible California defendants. The bill would remove the requirement that the Judicial Council revise the standards of judicial administration. The bill would require that a treatment program that complies with existing judicial standards be offered to a person that is eligible for treatment pursuant to the Treatment-Mandated Felony Act. By requiring the court to implement a treatment program that complies with existing judicial standards, the bill would amend that initiative statute.
This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
(a)Conservatorship initiated pursuant to this chapter shall automatically terminate one year after the appointment of the conservator by the superior court. The period of service of a temporary conservator shall not be included in the one-year period. When the conservator has been appointed as conservator of the estate, the conservator shall, for a reasonable time, continue to have the authority over the estate that the superior court, on petition by the conservator, deems necessary for (1) the collection of assets or income that accrued during the period of conservatorship, but were uncollected before the date of termination, (2) the payment of expenses that accrued during period of conservatorship and of which the conservator was notified prior to termination, but were unpaid before the date of termination, and (3) the completion of sales of real property when the only act remaining at the date of termination is the actual transfer of title.
(b)If, upon the termination of an initial or a succeeding period of conservatorship, the conservator determines that conservatorship is no longer required but additional help is still warranted, the conservator may request the court to refer the conservatee to the CARE Act court pursuant to Section 5978. Documentation of the authority for a referral pursuant to this subdivision shall be signed by a physician or licensed psychologist and shall confirm that the conservatee is no longer gravely disabled as a result of mental disorder or impairment by chronic alcoholism and meets, or is likely to meet, criteria to qualify for the CARE process, as described in Section 5972.
(c)If, upon the termination of an initial or a succeeding period of conservatorship, the conservator determines that conservatorship is still required, the conservator may petition the superior court for reappointment as conservator for a succeeding one-year period. The petition shall include the opinion of two physicians or licensed psychologists who have a doctoral degree in psychology and at least five years of postgraduate experience in the diagnosis and treatment of emotional and mental disorders that the conservatee is still gravely disabled as a result of mental disorder or impairment by chronic alcoholism. If the conservator is unable to obtain the opinion of two physicians or psychologists, the conservator shall request that the court appoint them. The petition shall also include an attestation by the conservator that they have considered all available alternatives to conservatorship, including, but not limited to, assisted outpatient treatment pursuant to Section 5346 and the CARE Act program pursuant to Section 5978, as applicable, and that reappointment of a conservator is recommended because no suitable alternatives are available.
(d)(1)A facility in which a conservatee is placed shall release the conservatee at the conservatees request when the conservatorship terminates. A petition for reappointment filed by the conservator or a petition for appointment filed by a public guardian shall be transmitted to the facility at least 30 days before the automatic termination date. The facility may detain the conservatee after the end of the termination date only if the conservatorship proceedings have not been completed and the court orders the conservatee to be held until the proceedings have been completed.
(2)A care coordination plan shall be developed by, at a minimum, the individual, the facility, the county behavioral health department, the health care payer, if different from the county, and other individuals designated by the individual as appropriate, and shall be provided to the conservatee prior to their release. The care coordination plan shall include a first followup appointment with an appropriate behavioral health professional. The appointment information shall be provided to the individual before the individual is released. In no event may the individual be involuntarily held based on the requirements of this paragraph beyond when they would otherwise qualify for release. All care and treatment after release shall be voluntary.
(3)For purposes of care coordination and to schedule a followup appointment, the health plan, mental health plan, primary care provider, or other appropriate provider to whom an individual leaving a facility has been referred pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) shall make a good faith effort to contact the referred individual no less than three times, either by email, telephone, mail, or in-person outreach, whichever method or methods are most likely to reach the individual.
(4)The requirement to develop a care coordination plan under this subdivision shall take effect immediately, without waiting for the department to create a model care coordination plan, as required pursuant to Section 5402.5.
SEC. 2.Section 5971 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read:5971.Unless the context otherwise requires, the following definitions shall govern the construction of this part.
(a)CARE agreement means a voluntary settlement agreement entered into by the parties. A CARE agreement includes the same elements as a CARE plan to support the respondent in accessing community-based services and supports.
(b)CARE plan means an individualized, appropriate range of community-based services and supports, as set forth in this part, which include clinically appropriate behavioral health care and stabilization medications, housing, and other supportive services, as appropriate, pursuant to Section 5982.
(c)CARE process means the court and related proceedings to implement the CARE Act.
(d)Clinically stabilized in ongoing voluntary treatment means both of the following:
(1)The persons condition is stable and not deteriorating.
(2)The person is currently engaged in treatment and managing symptoms through medication or other therapeutic interventions. Enrollment in treatment alone shall not be considered clinically stabilized in ongoing voluntary treatment.
(e)Counsel means the attorney representing the respondent, appointed pursuant to Section 5977, or chosen by the respondent, in CARE Act proceedings and matters related to CARE agreements and CARE plans. Representation of a respondent in these matters does not alter counsels obligations under the State Bar Act and the Rules of Professional Conduct, including subdivision (e) of Section 6068 of the Business and Professions Code and rule 1.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
(f)County behavioral health agency means the local director of mental health services described in Section 5607, the local behavioral health director, or both as applicable, or their designee.
(g)Court-ordered evaluation means an evaluation ordered by a superior court pursuant to Section 5977.1.
(h)Department means the State Department of Health Care Services.
(i)Graduation plan means a voluntary agreement entered into by the parties at the end of the CARE program that includes a strategy to support a successful transition out of court jurisdiction and that may include a psychiatric advance directive. A graduation plan includes the same elements as a CARE plan to support the respondent in accessing community-based services and supports. The graduation plan shall not place additional requirements on the local government entities and is not enforceable by the court.
(j)Homeless outreach worker means a person who engages people experiencing homelessness to assess for unmet needs, offer information, services, or other assistance, or provide care coordination.
(k)Indian health care provider means a health care program operated by the Indian Health Service, an Indian tribe, a tribal organization, or urban Indian organization (I/T/U) as those terms are defined in Section 4 of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (25 U.S.C. Sec. 1603).
(l)Legal proceeding means any administrative, civil, or criminal proceeding, including, but not limited to, juvenile court proceedings and family court proceedings and services, and any form of alternative dispute resolution, including arbitration and mediation, except for the following:
(1)A proceeding under this part.
(2)A proceeding under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act described in paragraph (2) or (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 5979.
(3)A proceeding from which the respondent was referred to CARE Act proceedings as described in Section 5978.
(4)A disciplinary proceeding under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 6000) of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code.
(5)An appeal from any of the proceedings identified in paragraphs (1) to (4), inclusive.
(m)Licensed behavioral health professional means either of the following:
(1)A licensed mental health professional, as defined in subdivision (j) of Section 4096.
(2)A person who has been granted a waiver of licensure requirements by the department pursuant to Section 5751.2.
(n)Parties means the petitioner, the respondent, the county behavioral health agency in the county where proceedings under this part are pending, and any local governmental entity added by the court pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (d) of Section 5977.1.
(o)Petitioner means the person or agency that files the CARE Act petition with the court. Additionally, if the petitioner is a person listed in Section 5974 other than the director of a county behavioral health agency, or their designee, the petitioner shall have the right to file a petition with the court, but at the initial hearing the court shall substitute the director of a county behavioral health agency, or their designee, of the county in which the proceedings are filed as petitioner. The original petitioner may, at the courts discretion and in furtherance of the interests of the respondent, retain rights as described in paragraph (6) of subdivision (b) of Section 5977.
(p)Psychiatric advance directive means a legal document, executed on a voluntary basis in accordance with the requirements for advance health care directives in Division 4.7 (commencing with Section 4600) of the Probate Code, by a person who has the capacity to make medical decisions, that allows a person with mental illness to protect their autonomy and ability to direct their own care by documenting their preferences for treatment in advance of a mental health crisis.
(q)Respondent means the person who is the subject of the petition for the CARE process.
(r)Stabilization medications means medications included in the CARE plan that primarily consist of antipsychotic medications to reduce symptoms of hallucinations, delusions, and disorganized thinking. Stabilization medications may be administered as long-acting injections if clinically indicated. Stabilization medications shall not be forcibly administered.
(s)Supporter means an adult designated by the respondent who assists the person who is the subject of the petition, which assistance may include supporting the person to understand, make, communicate, implement, or act on their own life decisions during the CARE process, including a CARE agreement, a CARE plan, and developing a graduation plan. A supporter shall not act independently.
SEC. 3.Section 5975 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read:5975.The Judicial Council shall develop a mandatory form for use to file a CARE process petition with the court and any other forms necessary for the CARE process. The petition shall be signed under the penalty of perjury and contain all of the following:
(a)The name of the respondent and, if known, the respondents address.
(b)The petitioners relationship to the respondent.
(c)Facts that support the petitioners assertion that the respondent meets the CARE criteria in Section 5972.
(d)Any of the following:
(1)An affidavit of a licensed behavioral health professional, including, for purposes of this section only, nurse practitioners as defined in Section 2835 of the Business and Professions Code and physician assistants as defined in subdivision (d) of Section 3501 of the Business and Professions Code, stating that the licensed behavioral health professional or their designee has examined the respondent within 120 days of the submission of the petition, or has made multiple attempts to examine, but has not been successful in eliciting the cooperation of the respondent to submit to an examination, within 120 days of the petition, and that the licensed behavioral health professional had determined that the respondent meets, or has reason to believe, explained with specificity in the affidavit, that the respondent meets the diagnostic criteria for CARE proceedings.
(2)Evidence that the respondent was detained for a minimum of two intensive treatments pursuant to Article 4 (commencing with Section 5250) of Chapter 2 of Part 1, the most recent one within the previous 120 days. Evidence may include, but is not limited to, documentary evidence from the facility where the respondent was detained, or a signed declaration from the petitioner if the petitioner had personal knowledge of the detentions.
(3)Evidence that the respondent was detained for a minimum of two involuntary holds pursuant to Section 5150 in the previous 120 days.
(4)Evidence that the respondent was referred to a full-service partnership program more than once, but was not enrolled due to inability or unwillingness to engage in the previous 120 days.
SEC. 4.Section 5976.5 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read:5976.5.(a)Notwithstanding any other law, and except as otherwise provided in this section, a hearing held under this part is presumptively closed to the public.
(b)The respondent may demand that the hearing be public and be held in a place suitable for attendance by the public.
(c)The respondent may request the presence of any family member or friend without waiving the right to keep the hearing closed to the rest of the public.
(d)A request by any other party to the proceeding to make the hearing public may be granted if the judicial officer conducting the hearing finds that the public interest in an open hearing clearly outweighs the respondents interest in privacy.
(e)(1)All reports, evaluations, diagnoses, or other information filed with the court related to the respondents health shall be confidential. The respondent may at any time petition the court for an order sealing these records or any other court records in a proceeding held under this part. Notwithstanding any rule of court prohibiting records kept confidential by law from consideration for sealing, if such a petition is filed, there shall exist a presumption in favor of sealing.
(2)Notwithstanding paragraph (1), and consistent with the requirements of subdivision (d) of Section 5977.4, reports generated by the county behavioral health agency during the CARE process may be disclosed to a provider of health care, as defined in Section 56.05 of the Civil Code, or a covered entity, as defined in Section 160.103 of Title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations, if necessary to assist with ongoing treatment of the respondent.
(f)The fact that evidence is admitted at a proceeding held under this part shall not be the basis for admission of that evidence in any subsequent legal proceeding.
(g)Photographs, recordings, transcripts, other records of proceedings held under this part, and testimony regarding proceedings held under this part shall not be admissible in any subsequent legal proceeding except upon motion by one of the following in that subsequent legal proceeding:
(1)The respondent.
(2)The county behavioral health agency, the public guardian, or the public conservator.
(h)In a proceeding held under this part, this section shall not affect the applicability of paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 5977.1, make admissible any evidence that is not otherwise admissible, or permit a witness to base an opinion on any matter that is not a proper basis for that opinion. The admission or exclusion of evidence shall be pursuant to the rules of evidence established by the Evidence Code, including, but not limited to, Section 352 of the Evidence Code, and by judicial decision.
(i)Before commencing a hearing at the respondents first court appearance, the judicial officer shall inform the respondent of their rights under this section. At subsequent hearings, the court is not required to advise the respondent of their rights under this section upon finding that the respondent understands and waives the additional advisement of their rights.
SEC. 5.Section 5977 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read:5977.(a)(1)The court shall promptly review the petition to determine if the petitioner has made a prima facie showing that the respondent is, or may be, a person described in Section 5972. The court may make a prima facie determination without conducting a hearing.
(2)If the court finds that the petitioner has not made a prima facie showing that the respondent is, or may be, a person described in Section 5972, the court may dismiss the case and, if the court does so, it shall order that the dismissal is without prejudice, unless Section 5975.1 applies. Nothing other than Section 5975.1 prevents a petitioner whose petition was dismissed without prejudice from refiling the petition with amended information.
(3)If the court finds that the petitioner has made a prima facie showing that the respondent is, or may be, a person described in Section 5972, the court shall do one of the following:
(A)If the petitioner is the director of a county behavioral health agency, or their designee, the court shall do the following:
(i)Set the matter for an initial appearance on the petition within 14 court days.
(ii)Appoint a qualified legal services project, as defined in Sections 6213 to 6214.5, inclusive, of the Business and Professions Code, to represent the respondent. If no legal services project has agreed to accept these appointments, a public defender or other counsel working in that capacity shall be appointed to represent the respondent.
(iii)Determine whether the petition includes all of the following information and, if it does not, order the county behavioral health agency to submit a written report with the court within 14 court days that includes all of the following:
(I)A determination as to whether the respondent meets, or is likely to meet, the criteria for the CARE process.
(II)The efforts, timeframes of efforts, and outcome of efforts made by county and noncounty providers to voluntarily engage the respondent prior to the filing of the petition.
(III)Conclusions and recommendations about the respondents ability to voluntarily engage in services, documenting how attempts in the prior 120 days failed, cognitive deficits, and unmet mental health needs were assessed.
(iv)Order the county behavioral health agency to provide notice to the respondent, the appointed counsel, the petitioner, the supporter, and the county behavioral health agency in the county where the respondent resides, if different from the county where the CARE process has commenced.
(v)The evaluation may be provided to the petitioner and the licensed behavioral health professional who submitted a declaration pursuant to form prepared by Judicial Council.
(B)If the petitioner is a person other than the director of a county behavioral health agency, or their designee, the court shall order a county agency, or their designee, as determined by the court, to investigate, as necessary, file a written report with the court as soon as practicable, but within 30 court days, and provide notice to the respondent and petitioner that a report has been ordered. Parties shall complete the investigation with appropriate urgency. The written report shall include all of the following:
(i)A determination as to whether the respondent meets, or is likely to meet, the criteria for the CARE process.
(ii)The outcome of efforts made to voluntarily engage the respondent during the report period.
(iii)Conclusions and recommendations about the respondents ability to voluntarily engage in services.
(iv)The information, including protected health information, necessary to support the determinations, conclusions, and recommendations in the report.
(4)If, upon a request by the county agency ordered to investigate and file a report under subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3), the court finds that the county agency is making progress to engage the respondent, the court may, in its discretion, grant the county agency no more than 30 additional days to continue to work with, engage, and enroll the individual in voluntary treatment and services. The county agency shall provide notice to the respondent and petitioner that an extension for filing a report has been granted.
(5)Upon receipt of the report described in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3), the court shall, within five days, take one of the following actions:
(A)If the court determines that voluntary engagement with the respondent is effective, and that the individual has enrolled in voluntary behavioral health treatment, the court shall dismiss the matter.
(B)If the court determines, based on the county agencys report, that the evidence does not support a prima facie showing that the respondent is, or may be, a person described in Section 5972, the court shall dismiss the matter. This section shall not prevent a county behavioral health agency from continuing to voluntarily engage with a person not described in Section 5972 but who is in need of services and supports.
(C)If the court determines, based on the county agencys report, that the evidence does support a prima facie showing that the respondent is, or may be, a person described in Section 5972, and engagement with the county agency was not effective, the court shall do all of the following:
(i)Set an initial appearance on the petition within 14 court days.
(ii)Appoint a qualified legal services project, as defined in Sections 6213 to 6214.5, inclusive, of the Business and Professions Code or, if no legal services project has agreed to accept these appointments, a public defender or other counsel working in that capacity to represent the respondent.
(iii)Order the county agency to provide notice of the initial appearance to the petitioner, the respondent, the appointed counsel, the county behavioral health agency in the county where the respondent resides, and, if different, the county where the CARE court proceedings have commenced.
(b)At the initial appearance on the petition, all of the following shall apply:
(1)The court shall permit the respondent to substitute their own counsel.
(2)Petitioner shall be present in person or remotely through remote technology. If the petitioner is not present, the matter may be dismissed.
(3)Respondent may waive personal appearance and appear through counsel. If the respondent does not waive personal appearance and does not appear at the hearing, and the court makes a finding in open court that reasonable attempts to elicit the attendance of the respondent have failed, the court may conduct the hearing in the respondents absence if the court makes a finding in open court that conducting the hearing without the participation or presence of the respondent would be in the respondents best interest.
(4)A representative from the county behavioral health agency shall be present in person or remotely through remote technology.
(5)If the respondent asserts that they are enrolled in a federally recognized Indian tribe or are receiving services from an Indian health care provider, a tribal court, or a tribal organization, a representative from the program, the tribe, or the tribal court shall be allowed to be present, subject to the consent of the respondent. The tribal representative shall be entitled to notice by the county of the initial appearance.
(6)(A)If the petitioner is a person other than the director of a county behavioral health agency, or their designee, the court shall issue an order relieving the original petitioner and appointing the director of the county behavioral health agency or their designee as the successor petitioner.
(B)If the original petitioner is described in subdivision (a) or (b) of Section 5974, all of the following apply:
(i)The original petitioner shall have the right to be present and make a statement at the initial hearing on the merits of the petition held pursuant to paragraph (7).
(ii)(I)Until July 1, 2025, the court may, in its discretion, assign ongoing rights of notice to the original petitioner.
(II)Commencing July 1, 2025, unless the court determines, either upon its own motion or upon the motion of the respondent, at any point in the proceedings, that it likely would be detrimental to the treatment or well-being of the respondent, the court shall provide ongoing notice of proceedings to the original petitioner throughout the CARE proceedings, including notice of when a continuance is granted or when a case is dismissed. If a continuance is granted, the notice shall provide a general reason for the continuance, including the absence of the respondent or one of the grounds pursuant to Rule 3.1332 of the California Rules of Court. If a case is dismissed, the notice shall specify the statutory basis for the dismissal. A notice pursuant to this clause shall not disclose any patient information that is protected under the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-191), the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (Part 2.6 (commencing with Section 56) of Division 1 of the Civil Code), or this act, without the respondents consent.
(iii)To the extent that the respondent consents, the court may allow the original petitioner to participate in the respondents CARE proceedings.
(iv)The original petitioner may file a new petition with the court, pursuant to Section 5974, if the matter is dismissed and there is a change in circumstances.
(C)If the original petitioner is not described in subdivision (a) or (b) of Section 5974, the court shall not assign ongoing rights to the original petitioner, other than the right to be present and make a statement at the hearing on the merits of the petition held pursuant to paragraph (7).
(7)(A)The court shall set a hearing on the merits of the petition within 10 days, at which time the court shall determine whether, by clear and convincing evidence, the respondent meets the CARE criteria in Section 5972. In making this determination, the court shall consider all evidence properly before it, including any report from the county behavioral health agency ordered pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) and any additional admissible evidence presented by the parties, including the petition submitted and any statement given by the original petitioner. A licensed behavioral health professional may testify as an expert concerning whether the respondent meets the CARE criteria in Section 5972 provided that the court finds that the professional has special knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education sufficient to qualify as an expert under Section 720 of the Evidence Code.
(B)The hearing on the merits of the petition may be conducted concurrently with the initial appearance upon stipulation of the successor petitioner and the respondent, subject to the approval by the court.
(c)(1)If, at the hearing on the merits of the petition, the court finds there is not clear and convincing evidence that the respondent meets the CARE criteria in Section 5972, the court shall dismiss the case without prejudice, unless the court makes a finding, in open court, that the original petitioners filing was not in good faith, in which case the dismissal shall be with prejudice.
(2)If, at the hearing on the merits of the petition, the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent meets the CARE criteria in Section 5972, the court shall order the county behavioral health agency to work with the respondent, the respondents counsel, and the supporter to engage the respondent in behavioral health treatment and attempt to enter into a CARE agreement. The court shall set a case management hearing within 14 days.
(3)If the respondent is enrolled in a federally recognized Indian tribe, the county shall provide notice of the case management hearing to the tribe, subject to the consent of the respondent.
(d)The following shall apply to any written report submitted by a county behavioral health agency to the court pursuant to this section:
(1)The report is confidential and not subject to disclosure or inspection under the California Public Records Act (Division 10 (commencing with Section 7920.000) of Title 1 of the Government Code).
(2)The report is inadmissible in any subsequent legal proceeding, except upon motion of the respondent in that subsequent legal proceeding.
(3)The report shall be confidential pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 5976.5, except when the respondent consents to the release of the report.
(4)This subdivision shall not affect the applicability of paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 5977.1, make admissible any evidence that is not otherwise admissible, or permit a witness to base an opinion on any matter that is not a proper basis for such an opinion. The admission or exclusion of evidence shall be pursuant to the rules of evidence established by the Evidence Code, including, but not limited to, Section 352 of the Evidence Code, and by judicial decision.
(e)(1)Beginning July 1, 2028, if the court dismisses a CARE petition because a respondent needs a higher level of services, the court may order the county to develop an exit plan for the respondent.
(2)No later than July 1, 2028, the department shall develop, with input from a stakeholder group, a CARE Act model exit plan that identifies appropriate services and ongoing monitoring of an individual with a petition dismissed from the CARE Act because the court determined that they need a higher level of services. The stakeholder group shall include, at a minimum, county behavioral health agencies, county CARE courts, racial justice experts, and other appropriate stakeholders, including providers and CARE court participants.
SEC. 6.Section 5977.1 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read:5977.1.(a)(1)At the case management hearing, the court shall hear evidence as to whether the parties have entered, or are likely to enter, into a CARE agreement.
(2)If the court finds that the parties have entered, or are likely to enter, into a CARE agreement, the court shall do one of the following:
(A)Approve the terms of the CARE agreement or modify the terms of the CARE agreement and approve the agreement as modified by the court, and continue the matter and set a progress hearing for 60 days.
(B)Continue the matter for 14 days to allow the parties additional time to enter into a CARE agreement, upon stipulation of the parties.
(3)Nothing in this subdivision shall prohibit the parties from agreeing to, and the court from approving, amendments to the CARE agreement.
(4)The court may, in its discretion, call additional progress hearings beyond the hearing set at 60 days, for the duration of the CARE agreement.
(b)If the court finds that the parties have not entered into a CARE agreement, and are not likely to enter into a CARE agreement, the court shall order the county behavioral health agency, through a licensed behavioral health professional, to conduct a clinical evaluation of the respondent, unless there is an existing clinical evaluation of the respondent completed within the last 30 days and the parties stipulate to the use of that evaluation. The evaluation shall address, at a minimum, the following:
(1)A clinical diagnosis of the respondent.
(2)Whether the respondent has the legal capacity to give informed consent regarding psychotropic medication.
(3)Any other information as ordered by the court or that the licensed behavioral health professional conducting the evaluation determines would help the court make future informed decisions about the appropriate care and services the respondent should receive.
(4)An analysis of recommended services, programs, housing, medications, and interventions that support the recovery and stability of the respondent.
(c)(1)The court shall set a clinical evaluation hearing to review the evaluation within 21 days. The court shall order the county to file the evaluation with the court and provide the evaluation to the respondents counsel no later than five days prior to the scheduled clinical evaluation hearing. The clinical evaluation hearing may be continued for a maximum of 14 days upon stipulation of the respondent and the county behavioral health agency, unless there is good cause for a longer extension. The evaluation may be provided to the original petitioner, if participating in ongoing proceedings, if the respondent consents.
(2)At the clinical evaluation review hearing, the court shall review the evaluation and other evidence from the county behavioral health agency and the respondent. The county behavioral health agency and the respondent may present evidence and call witnesses, including the person who conducted the evaluation. Only relevant and admissible evidence that fully complies with the rules of evidence may be considered by the court.
(3)At the conclusion of the hearing, the court shall determine whether the respondent, by clear and convincing evidence, meets the CARE criteria in Section 5972 and make orders as follows:
(A)If the court finds that the respondent meets the CARE criteria, the court shall order the county behavioral health agency, the respondent, and the respondents counsel and supporter to jointly develop a CARE plan within 14 days.
(B)If the court does not find that clear and convincing evidence establishes that the respondent meets the CARE criteria, the court shall dismiss the petition.
(4)If the respondent is a self-identified American Indian or Alaska Native individual, as defined in Sections 1603(13), 1603(28), and 1679(a) of Title 25 of the United States Code, has been determined eligible as an Indian under Section 136.12 of Title 42 of the Code of Federal Regulations, or is currently receiving services from an Indian health care provider or tribal court, the county behavioral health agency shall use its best efforts to meaningfully consult with and incorporate the Indian health care provider or tribal court available to the respondent to develop the CARE plan.
(5)The evaluation and all reports, documents, and filings submitted to the court shall be confidential.
(6)The date for the hearing to review and consider approval of the proposed CARE plan shall be set not more than 14 days from the date of the order to develop a CARE plan, unless the court finds good cause for an extension. The party requesting an extension of time for the CARE plan review hearing shall provide notice to the opposing party, their counsel, and the supporter of the request for extension of time, and the courts order if the request is granted.
(d)(1)At the CARE plan review hearing, the parties shall present their plan or plans to the court. The county behavioral health agency or the respondent, or both, may present a proposed CARE plan.
(2)After consideration of the plans proposed by the parties, the court shall adopt the elements of a CARE plan that support the recovery and stability of the respondent. The court may issue any orders necessary to support the respondent in accessing appropriate services and supports, including prioritization for those services and supports, subject to applicable laws and available funding pursuant to Section 5982. These orders shall constitute the CARE plan and may be amended.
(3)A court may order medication if it finds, upon review of the court-ordered evaluation and hearing from the parties, that, by clear and convincing evidence, the respondent lacks the capacity to give informed consent to the administration of medically necessary stabilization medication. To the extent the court orders medically necessary stabilization medication, the medication shall not be forcibly administered and the respondents failure to comply with a medication order shall not result in a penalty, including, but not limited to, contempt or termination of the CARE plan pursuant to Section 5979.
(4)If the proposed CARE plan includes services and supports, such as housing, provided directly or indirectly through another local governmental entity, that local entity may agree to provide the service or support, or the court may consider a motion by either of the parties to add the local entity as a party to the CARE proceeding. If the local entity agrees to provide the service or support, it may request to be added as a party by the court.
(5)If, after presentation of the CARE plan or plans, the court determines that additional information is needed, including from a licensed behavioral health professional, the court shall order a supplemental report to be filed by the county behavioral health agency for which the court may grant a continuance of no more than 14 days, unless there is good cause for a longer extension.
(6)If there is no CARE plan because the parties have not had sufficient time to complete it, the court may grant a continuance of no more than 14 days, unless there is good cause for a longer extension.
(7)This subdivision does not prohibit the parties from agreeing to, and the court from approving, amendments to the CARE plan. The court may also approve amendments to the CARE plan upon the finding that those amendments are necessary to support the respondent in accessing appropriate services and supports, following a hearing on the issue.
(e)The issuance of an order approving a CARE plan pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) begins the CARE process timeline, which shall not exceed one year.
(f)(1)The court may adopt the CARE agreement as a CARE plan if all of the following are true:
(A)The respondent has stopped engaging with the CARE process for 60 days or more despite documented attempts by the county, local agency, or treatment providers to maintain engagement with the respondent.
(B)All elements of the CARE agreement have been provided to the respondent by the county or other local agency, as required.
(C)The court finds that a CARE plan would be a more effective alternative than potential dismissal from the CARE process.
(2)The adoption of the CARE agreement as a CARE plan shall not reset the one-year timeline in the CARE process.
(3)This subdivision does not limit or alter the courts authority to adopt a CARE plan pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d).
SEC. 7.Section 5977.3 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read:5977.3.(a)(1)In the 11th month of the process timeline, the court shall hold a one-year status hearing. Not fewer than five court days prior to the one-year status hearing, the county behavioral health agency shall file a report with the court and shall serve the report on the respondent and the respondents counsel and supporter. The report shall include the following information:
(A)The progress that the respondent has made on the CARE plan, including a final assessment of the respondents stability.
(B)What services and supports in the CARE plan were provided, and what services and supports were not provided, over the life of the program.
(C)Any issues the respondent expressed or exhibited in adhering to the CARE plan.
(D)Recommendations for next steps, including what ongoing and additional services would benefit the respondent that the county behavioral health agency can facilitate or provide.
(2)At an evidentiary hearing, the respondent shall be permitted to respond to the report submitted by the county behavioral health agency and to the county behavioral health agencys testimony. The respondent shall be permitted to introduce their own information and recommendations. The respondent shall have the right at the hearing to call witnesses and to present evidence as to whether the respondent agrees with the report. The respondent may request either to be graduated from the program or to remain in the program.
(3)The court shall issue an order as follows:
(A)If the respondent requests to be graduated from the program, and the respondent has successfully completed the CARE process, the court shall order the county behavioral health agency, the respondent, and the supporter to work together on a voluntary graduation plan and the court shall schedule a hearing in the 12th month after adoption of the CARE plan for presentation of the graduation plan. The court shall review the graduation plan and recite the terms in open court. The graduation plan shall not place additional requirements on local governmental entities and is not enforceable by the court, except that the graduation plan may, at the respondents election, include a psychiatric advance directive, which shall have the force of law. Upon completion of the hearing, the respondent shall be officially graduated from the program.
(B)If the respondent requests to remain in the CARE process, the respondent may request any amount of time, up to and including one additional year. The court may approve the request and thereby permit the ongoing voluntary participation of the respondent if the court finds both of the following:
(i)The respondent did not successfully complete the CARE plan.
(ii)The respondent would benefit from continuation of the CARE plan.
(C)The court shall issue an order permitting the respondent to continue in the CARE plan or denying the respondents request to remain in the CARE plan, and state its reasons in open court.
(b)The respondent may be involuntarily reappointed to the program only if the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that all of the following conditions apply:
(1)The respondent did not successfully complete the CARE process.
(2)All services and supports required through the CARE process were provided to the respondent.
(3)The respondent would benefit from continuation in the CARE process.
(4)The respondent currently meets the requirements in Section 5972.
(c)A respondent may only be reappointed to the CARE process once, for up to one additional year.
SEC. 8.Section 5977.4 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read:5977.4.(a)(1)In all CARE Act proceedings, the judicial officer shall control the proceedings during the hearings with a view to the expeditious and effective ascertainment of the jurisdictional facts and the ascertainment of all information relative to the present condition and future welfare of the respondent. Except when there is a contested issue of fact or law, the proceedings shall be conducted in an informal nonadversarial atmosphere with a view to obtaining the maximum cooperation of the respondent, all persons interested in the respondents welfare, and all other parties, with any provisions that the court may make for the disposition and care of the respondent. The court and relevant local public agencies, including, but not limited to, cities and first responder agencies, shall cooperate to develop a comprehensive set of objectives established to improve performance of the CARE system in a vigorous and ongoing manner. The court is authorized to coordinate and participate in meetings to improve system performance. All evaluations and reports, documents, and filings submitted to the court pursuant to CARE Act proceedings shall be confidential.
(2)Notwithstanding paragraph (1), and consistent with the requirements of subdivision (d), reports generated by the county behavioral health agency during the CARE process may be disclosed to a provider of health care, as defined in Section 56.05 of the Civil Code, or a covered entity, as defined in Section 160.103 of Title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations, if necessary to assist with ongoing treatment of the respondent.
(b)Parties and witnesses may appear remotely through the use of remote technology for the hearings described in this chapter. The court shall have the discretion to order a party or witness to appear in person if necessary. The respondent shall have the right to be in person for all hearings.
(c)Consistent with its constitutional rulemaking authority, the Judicial Council shall adopt rules to implement the policies and provisions in this section and in Sections 5977 to 5977.4, inclusive, to promote statewide consistency, including, but not limited to, what is included in the petition form packet, communications between the CARE Act court and the juvenile court, if applicable, the role of the judiciary to improve system performance, and the process by which counsel will be appointed.
(d)(1)Consistent with paragraph (9) of subdivision (b) of Section 56.10 of the Civil Code, the county behavioral health agency shall include in any report evaluation, or other document filed with the court, the information, including protected health information, necessary to support the determinations, conclusions, and recommendations in the filing. The county behavioral health agency shall not, unless ordered to do so by the court, submit to the court original or photocopied records underlying the information in a report evaluation or other document required or ordered under this subdivision. The county behavioral health agency shall serve an unredacted copy of any report evaluation, or other document filed with the court on the respondent and the respondents counsel and, with the consent of the respondent, on the supporter in ongoing proceedings, in a manner authorized by law. Neither a county nor an employee or agent thereof shall be held civilly or criminally liable for any disclosure authorized or required by this paragraph.
(2)(A)Consistent with paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of Section 56.10 of the Civil Code, a provider of health care, as defined in Section 56.05 of the Civil Code, or a covered entity, as defined in Section 160.103 of Title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations, may disclose to the county behavioral health agency any information, including protected health information, and mental health records excluding psychotherapy notes, in its possession about the respondent that is relevant to the county behavioral health agencys provision, coordination, or management of services and supports under this part, including, but not limited to, the preparation of any required investigations, evaluations, or reports. Such a disclosure is a disclosure for treatment purposes, which may be made only to the extent permitted under Section 164.506 of Title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The information disclosed may include substance use disorder patient records only to the extent permitted by Part 2 (commencing with Section 2.1) of Title 42 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
(B)Consistent with paragraph (9) of subdivision (b) of Section 56.10 of the Civil Code, a provider of health care, as defined in Section 56.05 of the Civil Code, or a covered entity, as defined in Section 160.103 of Title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations, that filed a CARE Act petition or executed an affidavit included with a CARE Act petition pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Section 5975 shall provide to the county behavioral health agency any information, including protected health information, and mental health records excluding psychotherapy notes, in its possession about the respondent that may be relevant in connection with an investigation, evaluation, or other report or hearing under this part, or with the provision of services and supports under this part. The provision of information under this paragraph is a disclosure required by law, which may be made only to the extent permitted under subdivision (a) of Section 164.512 of Title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The information disclosed shall include substance use disorder patient records only to the extent permitted by Part 2 (commencing with Section 2.1) of Title 42 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
(C)The county behavioral health agency may apply to the court ex parte for an order requiring any provider of health care, as defined in Section 56.05 of the Civil Code, or any covered entity, as defined in Section 160.103 of Title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations, to provide to the county behavioral health agency, to the court, or both, any information, including, but not limited to, protected health information, and mental health records excluding psychotherapy notes, in its possession about the respondent that may be relevant in connection with an investigation, evaluation, or other report or hearing under this part, or with the provision of services and supports under this part. The provision of information under this paragraph is a disclosure required by law, which may be made only to the extent permitted under Section 164.512 of Title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The information ordered to be disclosed may include substance use disorder patient records only to the extent permitted by Part 2 (commencing with Section 2.1) of Title 42 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
(D)A provider of health care or covered entity shall not be held civilly or criminally liable for any disclosure authorized or required by this section.
(E)The county behavioral health agency shall notify the respondent of a disclosure under this paragraph as follows:
(i)By mail at the respondents last known address, if any.
(ii)To the respondents counsel.
(iii)By including a copy of the notification under clause (i) or (ii) with the next notice of hearing served upon the respondent, if any.
(F)All information, including the facts and records, or summary thereof, shared pursuant to this paragraph shall further be disclosed to the respondent and the respondents counsel, and with the consent of the respondent, to the supporter.
(3)(A)Consistent with paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of Section 56.10 of the Civil Code, the county behavioral health agency may disclose to a provider of health care, as defined in Section 56.05 of the Civil Code, or a covered entity, as defined in Section 160.103 of Title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations, any information, including protected health information, and mental health records excluding psychotherapy notes, in its possession about the respondent that is relevant to the provider or entitys provision, coordination, or management of services and supports under this part, including, but not limited to, the preparation of any required investigations, evaluations, or reports. Such a disclosure is a disclosure for treatment purposes, which may be made only to the extent permitted under Section 164.506 of Title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The information disclosed may include substance use disorder patient records only to the extent permitted by Part 2 (commencing with Section 2.1) of Title 42 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
(B)The county behavioral health agency shall not be held civilly or criminally liable for any disclosure authorized or required by this section.
(C)The county behavioral health agency shall notify the respondent of a disclosure under this paragraph as follows:
(i)By mail at the respondents last known address, if any.
(ii)To the respondents counsel.
(iii)By including a copy of the notification under clause (i) or (ii) with the next notice of hearing served upon the respondent, if any.
(D)All information, including the facts and records, or summary thereof, shared pursuant to this paragraph shall further be disclosed to the respondent and the respondents counsel, and with the consent of the respondent, to the supporter, and the original petitioner, if participating in ongoing proceedings.
(4)(A)Except as expressly provided, further disclosure or redisclosure of information is not authorized by this subdivision.
(B)Information disclosed to a county behavioral health agency by a provider of health care, as defined in Section 56.05 of the Civil Code, or a covered entity, as defined in Section 160.103 of Title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations, is confidential and not subject to disclosure or inspection under the California Public Records Act (Division 10 (commencing with Section 7920.000) of Title 1 of the Government Code).
(C)Information disclosed to a provider of health care, as defined in Section 56.05 of the Civil Code, or a covered entity, as defined in Section 160.103 of Title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations, by a county behavioral health agency is confidential and not subject to disclosure or inspection under the California Public Records Act (Division 10 (commencing with Section 7920.000) of Title 1 of the Government Code).
(D)Disclosure of information under this part shall not be deemed to in any way alter the duties or responsibilities of a county behavioral health agency, of a provider of health care, as defined in Section 56.05 of the Civil Code, or of a covered entity, as defined in Section 160.103 of Title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations, with respect to the disclosed information under the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (Part 2.6 (commencing with Section 56) of Division 1 of the Civil Code), or the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-191).
(e)(1)The notice of the initial appearance required by Section 5977 shall be served in accordance with the requirements of Section 5977.
(2)All subsequent reports and notices may be served through an alternative method of service agreed to by the parties.
(f)By January 1, 2028, all counties shall establish a process for electronic submission of CARE Act documents using a secured portal.
SEC. 9.Section 5978.1 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read:5978.1.(a)For purposes of this section, facility means a facility that provides assessment, evaluation, and crisis intervention pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 5150, or a designated facility as defined in subdivision (n) of Section 5008.
(b)A facility may refer an individual treated under an involuntary hold pursuant to Articles 1 to 4.7, inclusive, and Article 6 of Chapter 2 of Part 1 of this Division to the county behavioral health agency of the county in which the individual resides, or the county in which the individual is receiving involuntary treatment, if they believe that the individual meets or is likely to meet criteria to qualify for the CARE process, as described in Section 5972.
(1)Referrals pursuant to this section shall be authorized by a licensed behavioral health professional, employed, by or contracted by the facility, who has knowledge of the individuals case and has been involved in the individuals treatment during their involuntary hold. Documentation of the authority for a referral pursuant to this paragraph shall be signed by the licensed behavioral health professional or their designee, and shall confirm that they believe that the individual meets, or is likely to meet, criteria to qualify for the CARE process, as described in Section 5972.
(2)If the facility chooses to make a referral pursuant to subdivision (b), the facility shall make the referral pursuant to this section as soon as clinically indicated as part of the individuals discharge planning process.
(3)The facility referral shall include contact information for the referred individual, including a telephone number and address, if available, and other information as specified by the department.
(c)Within 14 business days of the referral by the facility, the county behavioral health agency shall complete assessment of the individual referred pursuant to this section and shall file a petition pursuant to Section 5975 if the county behavioral health agency determines that the individual meets or is likely to meet criteria for the CARE process and the individual does not engage in voluntary treatment. An expedited assessment may be necessary where there is concern of imminent discharge and foreseeable challenges with locating the respondent. The behavioral health agency shall provide guidelines to facilities on requesting an expedited assessment.
(d)In accordance with subdivision (b) of Section 5984, the department shall develop a referral form to be used by the facility and issue guidance regarding the following:
(1)The procedure for a facility to refer an individual to a county behavioral health agency pursuant to this section.
(2)County behavioral health agency data reporting requirements regarding referrals made pursuant to this section include, but are not limited to, total referrals, referrals where in-person contact was made, outcomes of referrals, reason for not filing a petition, length of time from referral to initial in-person contact, length of time from referral to outcome, and services provided for those engaged voluntarily.
(e)The department shall include data regarding referrals made pursuant to this section as part of the annual CARE Act report required by Section 5985.
(f)This section does not authorize a facility to continue an involuntary hold on a referred individual who no longer meets the criteria for involuntary treatment solely for the purpose of allowing the county behavioral health agency to complete its assessment pursuant to subdivision (b).
(g)This section does not affect the ability of a facility to make a referral for assisted outpatient treatment pursuant to Section 5346.
SEC. 10.Section 5979 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read:5979.(a)(1)(A)If, at any time during the proceedings, the court determines by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent is not participating in the CARE process, after the respondent receives notice, or is not adhering to their CARE plan, after the respondent receives notice, the court may terminate the respondents participation in the CARE process. The court shall make findings on the record about the basis for termination of the respondents participation in the CARE process.
(B)The court shall not terminate the respondents participation in the CARE process solely due to a failure of the county or other local government entity to properly engage with the CARE process.
(2)To ensure the respondents safety, the court may utilize existing legal authority pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with Section 5200) of Chapter 2 of Part 1. The court shall provide notice to the county behavioral health agency and the Office of the Public Conservator and Guardian if the court utilizes that authority.
(3)If the respondent was timely provided with all of the services and supports required by the CARE plan, the fact that the respondent failed to successfully complete their CARE plan, including reasons for that failure, shall be a fact considered by the court in a subsequent hearing under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (Part 1 (commencing with Section 5000)), if that hearing occurs within six months of the termination of the CARE plan, and shall create a presumption at that hearing that the respondent needs additional intervention beyond the supports and services provided by the CARE plan.
(4)The respondents failure to comply with an order shall not result in a penalty outside of this section, including, but not limited to, contempt or a failure to appear.
(5)The respondents failure to comply with a medication order shall not result in any penalty, including under this section.
(b)(1)If, at any time during the CARE process, the court finds that the county or local government entity is not complying with the court orders, the court shall report that finding to the presiding judge of the superior court, or their designee.
(2)(A) The presiding judge or their designee shall issue an order to show cause why the local government entity should not be fined as set forth in this section. The time set for hearing shall be no earlier than 15 days after the date of the order. The scheduled date of the hearing shall allow adequate time for notice of the hearing to be served upon the local government entity.
(B)The presiding judge, or their designee, shall consider the matter on the record established at the hearing. If the presiding judge or their designee finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that the local government entity has substantially failed to comply with this part, or with lawful orders issued by a court under this part, the presiding judge or their designee may issue an order imposing a fine under this section.
(C)A fine under this section shall be in an amount of up to one thousand dollars ($1,000) per day, not to exceed twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) for each individual violation identified in the order imposing fines.
(D)(i) Funds collected pursuant to this subdivision shall be deposited in the CARE Act Accountability Fund, which is hereby created in the State Treasury. Upon appropriation, the department shall administer the funds annually, and shall issue guidance, as necessary, to local government entities, pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 5984, regarding the distribution and conditions associated with the administered funds.
(ii)All moneys in the fund shall be allocated and distributed to the local government entity that paid the fines, to be used by that entity to serve individuals who have schizophrenia spectrum or other psychotic disorders and who are experiencing, or are at risk of, homelessness, criminal justice involvement, hospitalization, or conservatorship.
(3)If, after notice and hearing as set forth in paragraph (2), the presiding judge or their designee finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that the local government entity is persistently noncompliant with this part, or with lawful orders issued by a court under this part, the presiding judge or their designee may appoint a special master to secure court-ordered care for the respondent at the local government entitys cost. The presiding judge, or their designee, shall not make an order under this paragraph unless they have received five or more reports under paragraph (1) pertaining to the same local government entity within a one-year period.
(4)In determining the application of the remedies available under this section, the court shall consider whether there are any mitigating circumstances impairing the ability of the local government entity to fully comply with the requirements of this part, or with court orders issued under this part. The court may consider whether the local government entity is making a good faith effort to come into substantial compliance or is facing substantial undue hardships.
(c)Either the respondent or the county behavioral health agency may appeal an adverse court determination.
SEC. 11.Section 5982 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read:5982.(a)The CARE plan may include only the following:
(1)Behavioral health services funded through the 1991 and 2011 Realignment, Medi-Cal behavioral health, health care plans and insurers, and services supported by the Mental Health Services Act pursuant to Part 3 (commencing with Section 5800).
(2)Medically necessary stabilization medications, to the extent not described in paragraph (1).
(3)Housing resources funded through the No Place Like Home Program (Part 3.9 (commencing with Section 5849.1) of Division 5 of the Welfare and Institutions Code); California Housing Accelerator (Chapter 6.6 (commencing with Section 50672) of Part 2 of Division 31 of the Health and Safety Code); the Multifamily Housing Program (Chapter 6.7 (commencing with Section 50675) of Part 2 of Division 31 of the Health and Safety Code); the Homeless Housing, Assistance, and Prevention Program (Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 50216) of Part 1 of Division 31 of the Health and Safety Code); the Encampment Resolution Funding Program (Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 50250) of Part 1 of Division 31 of the Health and Safety Code); the Project Roomkey and Rehousing Program pursuant to Provision 22 of Item 5180-151-0001 of the Budget Act of 2021 (Ch. 21, Stats. 2021); the Community Care Expansion Program (Chapter 20 (commencing with Section 18999.97) of Part 6 of Division 9 of the Welfare and Institutions Code); the CalWORKs Housing Support Program (Article 3.3 (commencing with Section 11330) of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9 of the Welfare and Institutions Code); the CalWORKs Homeless Assistance pursuant to clause (i) of subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (f) of Section 11450 of Article 6 of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9 of the Welfare and Institutions Code; the Housing and Disability Advocacy Program (Chapter 17 (commencing with Section 18999) of Part 6 of Division 9 of the Welfare and Institutions Code); the Home Safe Program (Chapter 14 (commencing with Section 15770) of Part 3 of Division 9 of the Welfare and Institutions Code); the Bringing Families Home Program (Article 6 (commencing with Section 16523) of Chapter 5 of Part 4 of Division 9 of the Welfare and Institutions Code); the Transitional Housing Placement program for nonminor dependents (Article 4 (commencing with Section 16522) of Chapter 5 of Part 4 of Division 9 of the Welfare and Institutions Code); the Transitional Housing Program-Plus pursuant to subdivision (s) of Section 11400 and paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 11403.2 of Article 5 of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9 of the Welfare and Institutions Code and Article 4 (commencing with Section 16522) of Chapter 5 of Part 4 of Division 9 of the Welfare and Institutions Code; the Behavioral Health Continuum Infrastructure Program (Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 5960) of Part 7 of Division 5 of the Welfare and Institutions Code); the Behavioral Health Bridge Housing Program; HUD-Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Program (Section 8(o)(19) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 [42 U.S.C. Section 1437f(o)(19)]); Supportive Services for Veteran Families (Section 604 of the Veterans Mental Health and Other Care Improvements Act of 2008 [38 U.S.C. Sec. 2044]); HUD Continuum of Care program (Section 103 of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act [42 U.S.C. Sec. 11302]); the Emergency Solutions Grant (Subtitle B of Title IV of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act [42 U.S.C. Secs. 11371-11378]); HUD Housing Choice Voucher program (Section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 [42 U.S.C. Sec. 1437f]); the Emergency Housing Vouchers (Section 3202 of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 [Public Law 117-2]; Section 8(o) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 [42 U.S.C. Sec. 1437f(o)]); HOME Investment Partnerships Program (Title II of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act [42 U.S.C. Sec. 12721 et seq.]); the Community Development Block Grant Program (Title 1 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 [42 U.S.C. Sec. 5301 et seq.]); housing supported by the Mental Health Services Act pursuant to Part 3 (commencing with Section 5800); community development block grants; and other state and federal housing resources, including the Assisted Living Waiver program and the Home- and Community-based Services Waiver program.
(4)Social services funded through Supplemental Security Income/State Supplementary Payment (SSI/SSP), Cash Assistance Program for Immigrants (CAPI), CalWORKs, California Food Assistance Program, In-Home Supportive Services program, and CalFresh.
(5)Services provided pursuant to Part 5 (commencing with Section 17000) of Division 9.
(6)Upon the consent of the respondent and the entity or individual financially responsible for the services, additional services to support the recovery and stability of the respondent.
(b)Individuals who are CARE process participants shall be prioritized for any appropriate bridge housing funded by the Behavioral Health Bridge Housing program.
(c)If the county behavioral health agency elects not to enroll the respondent into a full service partnership, as defined in Section 3620 of Title 9 of the California Code of Regulations, the court may request information on the reasons for this and any barriers to enrollment.
(d)All CARE plan services and supports ordered by the court are subject to available funding and all applicable federal and state statutes and regulations, contractual provisions, and policy guidance governing initial and ongoing program eligibility. In addition to the resources funded through programs listed in subdivision (a), the State Department of Health Care Services may identify other adjacent covered Medi-Cal services, including, but not limited to, enhanced care management and available community supports, which may be suggested, although not ordered, by the court, subject to all applicable federal and state statutes, regulations, contractual provisions, and policy guidance.
(e)This section does not prevent a county or other local governmental entity from recommending their own services that are their own responsibility not listed in subdivision (a) or (c). Any such recommendation is not required by this section and shall be made at the request of the county for the purposes of Section 6 of Article XIIIB, and Sections 6 and 36 of Article XIII of the California Constitution.
(f)(1)For respondents who are Medi-Cal beneficiaries, the county in which the respondent resides is the county of responsibility as defined in Section 1810.228 of Title 9 of the California Code of Regulations.
(2)If a proceeding commences in a county where the respondent is found or is facing criminal or civil proceedings that is different than the county in which the respondent resides, the county in which the respondent is found or is facing criminal or civil proceedings shall not delay proceedings under this part and is the responsible county behavioral health agency for providing or coordinating all components of the CARE agreement or CARE plan.
(3)The county in which the respondent resides, as defined in paragraph (1), shall be responsible for the costs of providing all CARE agreement or CARE plan behavioral health services, as defined in paragraph (1) of subdivision (a).
(4)In the event of a dispute over responsibility for any costs of providing components of the CARE agreement or CARE plan, the impacted counties shall resolve the dispute in accordance with the arbitration process established in Section 1850.405 of Title 9 of the California Code of Regulations for county mental health plans, including for respondents who are not Medi-Cal beneficiaries, and pursuant to any related guidance issued pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 5984.
SEC. 12.Section 5983 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read:5983.(a)The California Health and Human Services Agency, or a designated department within the agency, shall do both of the following:
(1)Engage an independent, research-based entity, as described in Section 5986, to advise on the development of data-driven process and outcome measures to guide the planning, collaboration, reporting, and evaluation of the CARE Act pursuant to this part.
(2)Convene a working group to provide coordination and on-going engagement with, and support collaboration among, relevant state and local partners and other stakeholders throughout the phases of county implementation to support the successful implementation of the CARE Act. The working group shall meet no more than quarterly. The working group shall meet during the implementation and shall end no later than December 31, 2026.
(b)The department shall provide training and technical assistance to county behavioral health agencies to support the implementation of this part, including training regarding the CARE process, CARE agreement and plan services and supports, supported decisionmaking, the supporter role, trauma-informed care, elimination of bias, court-ordered evaluations pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with Section 5200) of Part 1, the continuum of adult housing options, psychiatric advance directives, family psychoeducation, and data collection.
(c)The Judicial Council, in consultation with the department, other relevant state entities, and the County Behavioral Health Directors Association, shall provide training and technical assistance to judicial officers to support the implementation of this part, including training regarding the CARE process, CARE agreement and plan services and supports, working with the supporter, supported decisionmaking, the supporter role, the family role, trauma-informed care, elimination of bias, court-ordered evaluations pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with Section 5200) of Part 1, best practices, and evidence-based models of care for people with severe behavioral health conditions.
(d)The department, in consultation with other relevant state departments and the California Interagency Council on Homelessness, shall provide training to counsel regarding the CARE process and CARE agreement and plan services and supports.
(e)(1)It is the intent of the Legislature to identify appropriate metrics of success to measure counties successfully implementing the CARE Act, known as CARE Champions, Act and counties experiencing challenges with implementation who need technical support and training, known as CARE ICU (Improvement and Coordination Unit) Counties. training. The agency shall annually release a list identifying overperforming and underperforming counties to receive additional support through the CARE ICU. counties, known as CARE Champions. For underperforming counties, the agency shall annually provide a written notice identifying areas of concern and opportunities for improvement.
(2)Nothing in this subdivision shall alter any existing obligations to produce records under the California Public Records Act (Division 10 (commencing with Section 7920.000) of Title 1 of the Government Code).
SEC. 13.Section 5985 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read:5985.(a)(1)The department shall develop, in consultation with county behavioral health agencies, other relevant state or local government entities, disability rights groups, individuals with lived experience, families, counsel, racial justice experts, and other appropriate stakeholders, an annual CARE Act report. The department shall post the annual report on its internet website.
(2)The department, in consultation with county behavioral health agencies and courts, shall specify the length of time that data on former participants shall be reported pursuant to subdivision (e), which shall be a minimum of 12 months after completion of and a maximum of 36 months following engagement in CARE Act elective services, a CARE agreement, or CARE plan. The same data shall be tracked for cases involving dismissed respondents.
(3)For the purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply:
(A)Former participant means an individual who enters into CARE Act elective services, a CARE agreement, or a CARE plan, but who has either graduated from CARE, or for whom CARE Act proceedings were dismissed or terminated. Counties shall not be responsible for reporting on any individual who is privately insured or who no longer resides in California.
(B)Active participants means an individual who is an elective client, or who has a CARE plan or CARE agreement.
(b)County behavioral health agencies and any other state or local governmental entity, as identified by the department, shall provide data related to the CARE Act participants, services, and supports to the department. The department shall determine the data measures and specifications, and shall publish them via guidance issues pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 5984.
(c)Each county behavioral health department and any other state and local governmental entity, as identified by the department, shall provide the required data to the department, in a format and frequency as directed by the department.
(d)(1)In consultation with the Judicial Council, the department shall develop an annual reporting schedule for the submission of CARE Act data from the trial courts.
(2)Data from the trial courts shall be submitted to the Judicial Council, which shall aggregate the data and submit it to the department consistent with the reporting schedule developed pursuant to paragraph (1).
(3)On an annual basis to be determined by the Judicial Council and consistent with the annual reporting schedule developed pursuant to paragraph (1), the trial courts shall report to the Judicial Council the following data related to CARE Act petitions:
(A)The number of petitions submitted pursuant to Section 5975.
(B)The number of initial appearance hearings on the petition held pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 5977.
(C)The number of petitions submitted electronically.
(D)The number of declarations of licensed behavioral health professionals pursuant to the form prepared by the Judicial Council submitted electronically.
(E)The total number of hearings held pursuant to this part.
(F)The total number of CARE plans ordered and CARE agreements approved.
(G)The total number of court petitions dismissed, as reported by the Judicial Council.
(H)The number of petitions that were dismissed for failure to make a prima facie showing.
(I)The total number of evaluations ordered by the CARE court pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with Section 5200) of Chapter 2 of Part 1.
(e)The annual report shall include process measures to examine the scope of impact and monitor the performance of CARE Act model implementation. The measures and reporting requirements shall be developed by the department in consultation with county behavioral health agencies. The report shall include trial court petition data pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (d) and, to the extent administrative data is available, all of the following information compiled from county behavioral health departments and courts:
(1)The demographics of all participants, including, but not limited to, the age, sex, race, ethnicity, disability, languages spoken, sexual orientation, gender identity, housing status, veteran status, immigration status, health coverage status, including Medi-Cal enrollment status, information related to CARE criteria outlined in Section 5972, and county of residence.
(2)The petitioners relationship to the CARE Act respondent as defined in Section 5974.
(3)The services and supports ordered, the services and supports provided, and the services and supports ordered but not provided to all active and former participants.
(4)The housing placements of all active and former participants. Placements include, but are not limited to, transition to a higher level of care, independent living in the persons own house or apartment, community-based housing, community-based housing with services, shelter, and no housing.
(5)Treatments continued and terminated of all active and former participants.
(6)Substance use disorder rates and rates of treatment among all active and former participants.
(7)Detentions and other Lanterman-Petris-Short Act involvement for all active and former participants.
(8)Criminal justice involvement of all active and former participants.
(9)Deaths among all active and former participants, along with the cause of death.
(10)Type, format, and frequency of outreach and engagement activities provided by a county behavioral health agency to engage an individual who is the subject of a referral or petition, including interactions about the individuals eligible or likely to be eligible and outcomes of these efforts.
(11)In consultation with the department and county behavioral health departments, the number, rates, and trends of contacts made to the county behavioral health agency about individuals eligible or likely to be eligible for the CARE process, including outcomes of those contacts.
(12)The number, rates, and source of referrals to county behavioral health departments, including, but not limited to, referrals resulting in a petition or reason for not filing a petition, length of time from referral to outcome, and services provided for those engaged voluntarily without a petition.
(13)The number, rates, and trends of petitions resulting in dismissal and hearings.
(14)Information on petition dispositions, including, but not limited to, disposition recommendations and the number of days from petition to disposition.
(15)The number, rates, and trends of supporters.
(16)The number, rates, and trends of approved CARE agreements.
(17)The number, rates, and trends of ordered and completed CARE plans.
(18)Statistics on the services and supports, including court orders for stabilizing medications.
(19)The rates of adherence to medication.
(20)The number, rates, and trends of psychiatric advance directives created for active participants.
(21)The number, rates, and trends of developed graduation plans.
(22)Outcome measures to assess the effectiveness of the CARE Act model, such as improvement in housing status, including gaining and maintaining housing, reductions in emergency department visits and inpatient hospitalizations, reductions in law enforcement encounters and incarceration, reductions in involuntary treatment and conservatorship, and reductions in substance use.
(23)A health equity assessment of the CARE Act to identify demographic disparities based on demographic data in paragraph (1), and to inform disparity reduction efforts.
(24)Data regarding referrals made pursuant to Section 5978.1, as part of the CARE Act.
(25)The number of individuals who were referred to a full-service partnership program pursuant to Part 4.1 (commencing with Section 5887) after dismissal or termination from the CARE Act program.
(26)The number of individuals who were enrolled in a full-service partnership program postreferral.
(27)The number of individuals who maintained enrollment in a full-service partnership program for a year following the date of enrollment.
(f)(1)The report shall include, at a minimum, information on the effectiveness of the CARE Act model in improving outcomes and reducing disparities, homelessness, criminal justice involvement, conservatorships, and hospitalization of participants. The annual report shall include process measures to examine the scope of impact and monitor the performance of CARE Act model implementation, such as the number and source of petitions filed for CARE Court; the number, rates, and trends of petitions resulting in dismissal and hearings; the number, rates, and trends of supporters; the number, rates, and trends of voluntary CARE agreements; the number, rates, and trends of ordered and completed CARE plans; the services and supports included in CARE plans, including court orders for stabilizing medications; the rates of adherence to medication; the number, rates, and trends of psychiatric advance directives; and the number, rates, and trends of developed graduation plans. The report shall include outcome measures to assess the effectiveness of the CARE Act model, such as improvement in housing status, including gaining and maintaining housing; reductions in emergency department visits and inpatient hospitalizations; reductions in law enforcement encounters and incarceration; reductions in involuntary treatment and conservatorship; and reductions in substance use. The annual report shall examine these data through the lens of health equity to identify racial, ethnic, and other demographic disparities and inform disparity reduction efforts.
(2)Data shall be stratified by age, sex, race, ethnicity, languages spoken, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, housing status, veteran status, immigration status, health coverage source, and county, to the extent statistically relevant data is available.
(g)The outcomes shall be presented to relevant state oversight bodies, including, but not limited to, the California Interagency Council on Homelessness.
(h)(1)Beginning in 2026, the department shall include in its annual CARE Act report quantitative, deidentified information concerning the operation of this part.
(2)Based on information provided to the department in a form and manner specified by the department, in consultation with the Judicial Council and county behavioral health departments, in accordance with subdivision (b) of Section 5984, the report shall include all of the following information, aggregated by county, compiled from county behavioral health departments, courts, and the department, depending on the source:
(A)The number of contacts to the county behavioral health department about individuals eligible or likely to be eligible for the CARE process, including outcome of contacts.
(B)The number of CARE petitions filed with the superior court.
(C)The petitioner type for each petition filed with the superior court.
(D)Disposition of each petition filed with the superior court.
(E)The number of days between filing each petition and the petitions disposition.
(F)Demographic information of each CARE Act participant or potentially eligible CARE Act participant, including, but not limited to, age, sex, race, ethnicity, disability, languages spoken, sexual orientation, gender identity, housing status, veteran status, immigration status, health coverage status, including Medi-Cal enrollment status, information related to CARE criteria outlined in Section 5972, and county of residence, to the extent administrative data is available and statistically relevant.
(G)The number of referrals of individuals in conservatorship proceedings made pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 5978, including the disposition of each referral.
(H)The number of referrals made pursuant to Section 5978.1, including the disposition of each referral.
(i)Information publicly released or published pursuant to this part shall not contain data that may lead to the identification of participants or petitioners or information that would otherwise allow an individual to link the published information to a specific person. Data published by the department shall be deidentified in compliance with Section 164.514(a) and (b) of Title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
SEC. 14.Section 5988 is added to the Welfare and Institutions Code, to read:5988.(a)There is established within the California Health and Human Services Agency the position of CARE Court Ombudsperson. The CARE Court Ombudsperson shall be appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate.
(b)The CARE Court Ombudsperson shall oversee and investigate complaints by petitioners, respondents, participants, and governmental agencies involved in the CARE process, including, but not limited to, judges, county staff, first responders, and city staff.
(c)The CARE Court Ombudsperson shall be considered an administrative agency for purposes of paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 56.10 of the Civil Code. Disclosures to the CARE Court Ombudsperson shall comply with the requirements of paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) and subdivision (e) of Section 164.512 of Title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
(d)Failure to provide information on a timely basis may be referred by the CARE Court Ombudsperson to the director for proceedings pursuant to Section 10744.
SEC. 15.If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
SEC. 16.Any section of Senate Bill 989, Senate Bill 1016, and Senate Bill 1242 enacted by the Legislature during the 2026 calendar year that takes effect on or before January 1, 2027, and that amends, adds, repeals and adds, or repeals a section that is amended or added by this act, shall prevail over this act, whether that act is enacted before, or subsequent to, the enactment of this act.
(a)Conservatorship initiated pursuant to this chapter shall automatically terminate one year after the appointment of the conservator by the superior court. The period of service of a temporary conservator shall not be included in the one-year period. When the conservator has been appointed as conservator of the estate, the conservator shall, for a reasonable time, continue to have the authority over the estate that the superior court, on petition by the conservator, deems necessary for (1) the collection of assets or income that accrued during the period of conservatorship, but were uncollected before the date of termination, (2) the payment of expenses that accrued during period of conservatorship and of which the conservator was notified prior to termination, but were unpaid before the date of termination, and (3) the completion of sales of real property when the only act remaining at the date of termination is the actual transfer of title.
(b)If, upon the termination of an initial or a succeeding period of conservatorship, the conservator determines that conservatorship is no longer required but additional help is still warranted, the conservator may request the court to refer the conservatee to the CARE Act court pursuant to Section 5978. Documentation of the authority for a referral pursuant to this subdivision shall be signed by a physician or licensed psychologist and shall confirm that the conservatee is no longer gravely disabled as a result of mental disorder or impairment by chronic alcoholism and meets, or is likely to meet, criteria to qualify for the CARE process, as described in Section 5972.
(c)If, upon the termination of an initial or a succeeding period of conservatorship, the conservator determines that conservatorship is still required, the conservator may petition the superior court for reappointment as conservator for a succeeding one-year period. The petition shall include the opinion of two physicians or licensed psychologists who have a doctoral degree in psychology and at least five years of postgraduate experience in the diagnosis and treatment of emotional and mental disorders that the conservatee is still gravely disabled as a result of mental disorder or impairment by chronic alcoholism. If the conservator is unable to obtain the opinion of two physicians or psychologists, the conservator shall request that the court appoint them. The petition shall also include an attestation by the conservator that they have considered all available alternatives to conservatorship, including, but not limited to, assisted outpatient treatment pursuant to Section 5346 and the CARE Act program pursuant to Section 5978, as applicable, and that reappointment of a conservator is recommended because no suitable alternatives are available.
(d)(1)A facility in which a conservatee is placed shall release the conservatee at the conservatees request when the conservatorship terminates. A petition for reappointment filed by the conservator or a petition for appointment filed by a public guardian shall be transmitted to the facility at least 30 days before the automatic termination date. The facility may detain the conservatee after the end of the termination date only if the conservatorship proceedings have not been completed and the court orders the conservatee to be held until the proceedings have been completed.
(2)A care coordination plan shall be developed by, at a minimum, the individual, the facility, the county behavioral health department, the health care payer, if different from the county, and other individuals designated by the individual as appropriate, and shall be provided to the conservatee prior to their release. The care coordination plan shall include a first followup appointment with an appropriate behavioral health professional. The appointment information shall be provided to the individual before the individual is released. In no event may the individual be involuntarily held based on the requirements of this paragraph beyond when they would otherwise qualify for release. All care and treatment after release shall be voluntary.
(3)For purposes of care coordination and to schedule a followup appointment, the health plan, mental health plan, primary care provider, or other appropriate provider to whom an individual leaving a facility has been referred pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) shall make a good faith effort to contact the referred individual no less than three times, either by email, telephone, mail, or in-person outreach, whichever method or methods are most likely to reach the individual.
(4)The requirement to develop a care coordination plan under this subdivision shall take effect immediately, without waiting for the department to create a model care coordination plan, as required pursuant to Section 5402.5.
SEC. 2.Section 5971 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read:5971.Unless the context otherwise requires, the following definitions shall govern the construction of this part.
(a)CARE agreement means a voluntary settlement agreement entered into by the parties. A CARE agreement includes the same elements as a CARE plan to support the respondent in accessing community-based services and supports.
(b)CARE plan means an individualized, appropriate range of community-based services and supports, as set forth in this part, which include clinically appropriate behavioral health care and stabilization medications, housing, and other supportive services, as appropriate, pursuant to Section 5982.
(c)CARE process means the court and related proceedings to implement the CARE Act.
(d)Clinically stabilized in ongoing voluntary treatment means both of the following:
(1)The persons condition is stable and not deteriorating.
(2)The person is currently engaged in treatment and managing symptoms through medication or other therapeutic interventions. Enrollment in treatment alone shall not be considered clinically stabilized in ongoing voluntary treatment.
(e)Counsel means the attorney representing the respondent, appointed pursuant to Section 5977, or chosen by the respondent, in CARE Act proceedings and matters related to CARE agreements and CARE plans. Representation of a respondent in these matters does not alter counsels obligations under the State Bar Act and the Rules of Professional Conduct, including subdivision (e) of Section 6068 of the Business and Professions Code and rule 1.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
(f)County behavioral health agency means the local director of mental health services described in Section 5607, the local behavioral health director, or both as applicable, or their designee.
(g)Court-ordered evaluation means an evaluation ordered by a superior court pursuant to Section 5977.1.
(h)Department means the State Department of Health Care Services.
(i)Graduation plan means a voluntary agreement entered into by the parties at the end of the CARE program that includes a strategy to support a successful transition out of court jurisdiction and that may include a psychiatric advance directive. A graduation plan includes the same elements as a CARE plan to support the respondent in accessing community-based services and supports. The graduation plan shall not place additional requirements on the local government entities and is not enforceable by the court.
(j)High utilization of emergency services means utilizing 911 or emergency department services 20 times or more in a 12-month period.(k)(j)Homeless outreach worker means a person who engages people experiencing homelessness to assess for unmet needs, offer information, services, or other assistance, or provide care coordination.
(l)(k)Indian health care provider means a health care program operated by the Indian Health Service, an Indian tribe, a tribal organization, or urban Indian organization (I/T/U) as those terms are defined in Section 4 of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (25 U.S.C. Sec. 1603).
(m)(l)Legal proceeding means any administrative, civil, or criminal proceeding, including, but not limited to, juvenile court proceedings and family court proceedings and services, and any form of alternative dispute resolution, including arbitration and mediation, except for the following:
(1)A proceeding under this part.
(2)A proceeding under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act described in paragraph (2) or (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 5979.
(3)A proceeding from which the respondent was referred to CARE Act proceedings as described in Section 5978.
(4)A disciplinary proceeding under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 6000) of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code.
(5)An appeal from any of the proceedings identified in paragraphs (1) to (4), inclusive.
(n)(m)Licensed behavioral health professional means any either of the following:
(1)A licensed mental health professional, as defined in subdivision (j) of Section 4096.
(2)A person who has been granted a waiver of licensure requirements by the department pursuant to Section 5751.2.
(3)A licensed advance practice provider who renders behavioral health services in accordance with a physician assistant practice agreement.(4)A licensed nurse practitioner specializing in behavioral health.(o)(n)Parties means the petitioner, the respondent, the county behavioral health agency in the county where proceedings under this part are pending, and any local governmental entity added by the court pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (d) of Section 5977.1.
(p)(o)Petitioner means the person or agency that files the CARE Act petition with the court. Additionally, if the petitioner is a person listed in Section 5974 other than the director of a county behavioral health agency, or their designee, the petitioner shall have the right to file a petition with the court, but at the initial hearing the court shall substitute the director of a county behavioral health agency, or their designee, of the county in which the proceedings are filed as petitioner. The original petitioner may, at the courts discretion and in furtherance of the interests of the respondent, retain rights as described in paragraph (6) of subdivision (b) of Section 5977.
(q)(p)Psychiatric advance directive means a legal document, executed on a voluntary basis in accordance with the requirements for advance health care directives in Division 4.7 (commencing with Section 4600) of the Probate Code, by a person who has the capacity to make medical decisions, that allows a person with mental illness to protect their autonomy and ability to direct their own care by documenting their preferences for treatment in advance of a mental health crisis.
(r)(q)Respondent means the person who is the subject of the petition for the CARE process.
(s)(r)Stabilization medications means medications included in the CARE plan that primarily consist of antipsychotic medications to reduce symptoms of hallucinations, delusions, and disorganized thinking. Stabilization medications may be administered as long-acting injections if clinically indicated. Stabilization medications shall not be forcibly administered.
(t)(s)Supporter means an adult designated by the respondent who assists the person who is the subject of the petition, which assistance may include supporting the person to understand, make, communicate, implement, or act on their own life decisions during the CARE process, including a CARE agreement, a CARE plan, and developing a graduation plan. A supporter shall not act independently.
SEC. 3.Section 5972 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read:5972.An individual shall qualify for the CARE process only if all of the following criteria are met:(a)The person is 18 years of age or older.(b)(1)The person is currently experiencing a serious mental disorder, as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 5600.3 and has a diagnosis identified in the disorder class: schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorders, or bipolar I disorder with psychotic features, except psychosis related to current intoxication, as defined in the most current version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.(2)This section does not establish respondent eligibility based upon a psychotic disorder that is due to a medical condition or is not primarily psychiatric in nature, including, but not limited to, physical health conditions such as traumatic brain injury, autism, dementia, or neurologic conditions.(3)A person who has a current diagnosis of substance use disorder as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 1374.72 of the Health and Safety Code but who does not also meet the required criteria in this section shall not qualify for the CARE process.(c)The person has not been clinically stabilized in ongoing voluntary treatment for more than 90 days prior to the CARE court filing. High utilization of emergency services is strong evidence that a person is not clinically stabilized. Current enrollment in a full-service partnership program pursuant to Part 4.1 (commencing with Section 5887) does not automatically exclude a person from the CARE Act program.(d)Supervision is required to allow for services and supports to be effective and to prevent substantial deterioration or relapse.(e)Participation in a CARE plan or CARE agreement would be the least restrictive alternative necessary to ensure the persons recovery and stability.(f)It is likely that the person will benefit from participation in a CARE plan or CARE agreement.SEC. 4.Section 5974 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read:5974.The following adult persons may file a petition to commence the CARE process:(a)A person with whom the respondent resides.(b)A spouse, parent, sibling, child, or grandparent or an individual who stands in loco parentis to the respondent.(c)The director of a hospital in which the respondent is hospitalized, including hospitalized pursuant to Section 5150 or 5250, or the directors designee.(d)The director of a public or charitable organization, agency, or home, or their designee, who has, within the previous 30 days, provided or who is currently providing behavioral health services to the respondent or in whose institution the respondent resides.(e)A licensed behavioral health professional, or their designee, who is, or has been within the previous 30 days, either supervising the treatment of, or treating the respondent for a mental illness.(f)A first responder, including a peace officer, firefighter, paramedic, emergency medical technician, mobile crisis response worker, or homeless outreach worker, who has had repeated interactions with the respondent in the form of multiple arrests, multiple detentions and transportation pursuant to Section 5150, multiple attempts to engage the respondent in voluntary treatment, or other repeated efforts to aid the respondent in obtaining professional assistance.(g)The director or chief of a governmental agency offering first responder services, as described in subdivision (f), or their designee.(h)The public guardian or public conservator, or their designee, of the county in which the respondent resides or is found.(i)The director of a county behavioral health agency, or their designee, of the county in which the respondent resides or is found.(j)The director of county adult protective services, or their designee, of the county in which the respondent resides or is found.(k)The director of a California Indian health services program, California tribal behavioral health department, who has, within the previous 30 days, provided or who is currently providing behavioral health services to the respondent, or the directors designee. (l)The judge of a tribal court located in California before which the respondent has appeared within the previous 30 days, or the judges designee.(m)The respondent.SEC. 5.SEC. 3.Section 5975 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read:5975.The Judicial Council shall develop a mandatory form for use to file a CARE process petition with the court and any other forms necessary for the CARE process. The petition shall be signed under the penalty of perjury and contain all of the following:
(a)The name of the respondent and, if known, the respondents address.
(b)The petitioners relationship to the respondent.
(c)Facts that support the petitioners assertion that the respondent meets the CARE criteria in Section 5972.
(d)Any of the following:
(1)An affidavit of a licensed behavioral health professional, including, for purposes of this section only, nurse practitioners as defined in Section 2835 of the Business and Professions Code and physician assistants as defined in subdivision (d) of Section 3501 of the Business and Professions Code, stating that the licensed behavioral health professional or their designee has examined the respondent within 270 120 days of the submission of the petition, or has made multiple attempts to examine, but has not been successful in eliciting the cooperation of the respondent to submit to an examination, within 270 120 days of the petition, and that the licensed behavioral health professional had determined that the respondent meets, or has reason to believe, explained with specificity in the affidavit, that the respondent meets the diagnostic criteria for CARE proceedings.
(2)Evidence that the respondent was detained for a minimum of two intensive treatments pursuant to Article 4 (commencing with Section 5250) of Chapter 2 of Part 1, the most recent one within the previous 270 120 days. Evidence may include, but is not limited to, documentary evidence from the facility where the respondent was detained, or a signed declaration from the petitioner if the petitioner had personal knowledge of the detentions.
(3)Evidence that the respondent was detained for a minimum of two involuntary holds pursuant to Section 5150 in the previous six months. 120 days.
(4)Evidence that the respondent was referred to a full-service partnership program more than once, but was not enrolled due to inability or unwillingness to engage. engage in the previous 120 days.
SEC. 6.SEC. 4.Section 5976.5 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read:5976.5.(a)Notwithstanding any other law, and except as otherwise provided in this section, a hearing held under this part is presumptively closed to the public.
(b)The respondent may demand that the hearing be public and be held in a place suitable for attendance by the public.
(c)The respondent may request the presence of any family member or friend without waiving the right to keep the hearing closed to the rest of the public.
(d)A request by any other party to the proceeding to make the hearing public may be granted if the judicial officer conducting the hearing finds that the public interest in an open hearing clearly outweighs the respondents interest in privacy.
(e)(1)All reports, evaluations, diagnoses, or other information filed with the court related to the respondents health shall be confidential. The respondent may at any time petition the court for an order sealing these records or any other court records in a proceeding held under this part. Notwithstanding any rule of court prohibiting records kept confidential by law from consideration for sealing, if such a petition is filed, there shall exist a presumption in favor of sealing.
(2)Notwithstanding paragraph (1), and consistent with the requirements of subdivision (d) of Section 5977.4, reports generated by the county behavioral health agency during the CARE process may be disclosed to a provider of health care, as defined in Section 56.05 of the Civil Code, or a covered entity, as defined in Section 160.103 of Title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations, if necessary to assist with ongoing treatment of the respondent.
(f)The fact that evidence is admitted at a proceeding held under this part shall not be the basis for admission of that evidence in any subsequent legal proceeding.
(g)Photographs, recordings, transcripts, other records of proceedings held under this part, and testimony regarding proceedings held under this part shall not be admissible in any subsequent legal proceeding except upon motion by one of the following in that subsequent legal proceeding:
(1)The respondent.
(2)The county behavioral health agency, the public guardian, or the public conservator.
(h)In a proceeding held under this part, this section shall not affect the applicability of paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 5977.1, make admissible any evidence that is not otherwise admissible, or permit a witness to base an opinion on any matter that is not a proper basis for that opinion. The admission or exclusion of evidence shall be pursuant to the rules of evidence established by the Evidence Code, including, but not limited to, Section 352 of the Evidence Code, and by judicial decision.
(i)Before commencing a hearing at the respondents first court appearance, the judicial officer shall inform the respondent of their rights under this section. At subsequent hearings, the court is not required to advise the respondent of their rights under this section upon finding that the respondent understands and waives the additional advisement of their rights.
SEC. 7.SEC. 5.Section 5977 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read:5977.(a)(1)The court shall promptly review the petition to determine if the petitioner has made a prima facie showing that the respondent is, or may be, a person described in Section 5972. The court may make a prima facie determination without conducting a hearing.
(2)If the court finds that the petitioner has not made a prima facie showing that the respondent is, or may be, a person described in Section 5972, the court may dismiss the case and, if the court does so, it shall order that the dismissal is without prejudice, unless Section 5975.1 applies. Nothing other than Section 5975.1 prevents a petitioner whose petition was dismissed without prejudice from refiling the petition with amended information.
(3)If the court finds that the petitioner has made a prima facie showing that the respondent is, or may be, a person described in Section 5972, the court shall do one of the following:
(A)If the petitioner is the director of a county behavioral health agency, or their designee, the court shall do the following:
(i)Set the matter for an initial appearance on the petition within 14 court days.
(ii)Appoint a qualified legal services project, as defined in Sections 6213 to 6214.5, inclusive, of the Business and Professions Code, to represent the respondent. If no legal services project has agreed to accept these appointments, a public defender or other counsel working in that capacity shall be appointed to represent the respondent.
(iii)Determine whether the petition includes all of the following information and, if it does not, order the county behavioral health agency to submit a written report with the court within 14 court days that includes all of the following:
(I)A determination as to whether the respondent meets, or is likely to meet, the criteria for the CARE process. As part of this determination, the county behavioral health agency or their designee may recommend that the respondent be considered for alternative treatment, including, but not limited to, an assisted outpatient treatment program under Article 9 (commencing with Section 5345) of Chapter 2 of Part 1, or a grave disability evaluation pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with Section 5200) of Chapter 2 of Part 1, if the agency or their designee determines the respondent requires a higher level of care than the CARE process, but may not determine that the respondent requires a higher level of care if the respondent meets, or is likely to meet, the criteria for the CARE process.
(II)The efforts, timeframes of efforts, and outcome of efforts made by county and noncounty providers to voluntarily engage the respondent prior to the filing of the petition.
(III)Conclusions and recommendations about the respondents ability to voluntarily engage in services, documenting how past attempts in the prior 120 days failed, cognitive deficits, and unmet mental health needs were assessed.
(iv)Order the county behavioral health agency to provide notice to the respondent, the appointed counsel, the petitioner, the supporter, and the county behavioral health agency in the county where the respondent resides, if different from the county where the CARE process has commenced.
(v)The evaluation may be provided to the petitioner and the licensed behavioral health professional who submitted a declaration pursuant to form prepared by Judicial Council.
(B)If the petitioner is a person described in subdivision (a) or (b) of Section 5974 and is not other than the director of a county behavioral health agency, or their designee, the court shall order a county agency, or their designee, as determined by the court, to investigate, as necessary, file a written report with the court as soon as practicable, but within 30 court days, and provide notice to the respondent and petitioner that a report has been ordered. Parties shall complete the investigation with appropriate urgency. The written report shall include all of the following:
(i)A determination as to whether the respondent meets, or is likely to meet, the criteria for the CARE process. As part of this determination, the county behavioral health agency or their designee may recommend that the respondent be considered for alternative treatment, including, but not limited to, assisted outpatient treatment program under Article 9 (commencing with Section 5345) of Chapter 2 of Part 1, or a grave disability evaluation pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with Section 5200) of Chapter 2 of Part 1, if the agency or their designee determines the respondent requires a higher level of care than the CARE process, but may not determine that the respondent requires a higher level of care if the respondent meets, or is likely to meet, the criteria for the CARE process.
(ii)The outcome of efforts made to voluntarily engage the respondent during the report period.
(iii)Conclusions and recommendations about the respondents ability to voluntarily engage in services.
(iv)The information, including protected health information, necessary to support the determinations, conclusions, and recommendations in the report.
(4)If, upon a request by the county agency ordered to investigate and file a report under subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3), the court finds that the county agency is making progress to engage the respondent, the court may, in its discretion, grant the county agency no more than 30 additional days to continue to work with, engage, and enroll the individual in voluntary treatment and services. The county agency shall provide notice to the respondent and petitioner that an extension for filing a report has been granted.
(5)Upon receipt of the report described in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3), the court shall, within five days, take one of the following actions:
(A)If the court determines that voluntary engagement with the respondent is effective, that the individual has stabilized, and that the individual has enrolled in voluntary behavioral health treatment, the court may shall dismiss the matter. Where there is a documented history of failed attempts with voluntary engagement, a CARE agreement may still be appropriate.
(B)If the court determines, based on the county agencys report, that the evidence does not support a prima facie showing that the respondent is, or may be, a person described in Section 5972, the court shall dismiss the matter. This section shall not prevent a county behavioral health agency from continuing to voluntarily engage with a person not described in Section 5972 but who is in need of services and supports.
(C)If the court determines, based on the county agencys report, that the evidence does support a prima facie showing that the respondent is, or may be, a person described in Section 5972, and engagement with the county agency was not effective, the court shall do all of the following:
(i)Set an initial appearance on the petition within 14 court days.
(ii)Appoint a qualified legal services project, as defined in Sections 6213 to 6214.5, inclusive, of the Business and Professions Code or, if no legal services project has agreed to accept these appointments, a public defender or other counsel working in that capacity to represent the respondent.
(iii)Order the county agency to provide notice of the initial appearance to the petitioner, the respondent, the appointed counsel, the county behavioral health agency in the county where the respondent resides, and, if different, the county where the CARE court proceedings have commenced.
(b)At the initial appearance on the petition, all of the following shall apply:
(1)The court shall permit the respondent to substitute their own counsel.
(2)Petitioner shall be present in person or remotely through remote technology. If the petitioner is not present, the matter may be dismissed.
(3)Respondent may waive personal appearance and appear through counsel. If the respondent does not waive personal appearance and does not appear at the hearing, and the court makes a finding in open court that reasonable attempts to elicit the attendance of the respondent have failed, the court may conduct the hearing in the respondents absence if the court makes a finding in open court that conducting the hearing without the participation or presence of the respondent would be in the respondents best interest.
(4)A representative from the county behavioral health agency shall be present in person or remotely through remote technology.
(5)If the respondent asserts that they are enrolled in a federally recognized Indian tribe or are receiving services from an Indian health care provider, a tribal court, or a tribal organization, a representative from the program, the tribe, or the tribal court shall be allowed to be present, subject to the consent of the respondent. The tribal representative shall be entitled to notice by the county of the initial appearance.
(6)(A)If the petitioner is a person other than the director of a county behavioral health agency, or their designee, the court shall issue an order relieving the original petitioner and appointing the director of the county behavioral health agency or their designee as the successor petitioner.
(B)If the original petitioner is described in subdivision (a) or (b) of Section 5974, all of the following apply:
(i)The original petitioner shall have the right to be present and make a statement at the initial hearing on the merits of the petition held pursuant to paragraph (7).
(ii)(I)Until July 1, 2025, the court may, in its discretion, assign ongoing rights of notice to the original petitioner.
(II)Commencing July 1, 2025, unless the court determines, either upon its own motion or upon the motion of the respondent, at any point in the proceedings, that it likely would be detrimental to the treatment or well-being of the respondent, the court shall provide ongoing notice of proceedings to the original petitioner throughout the CARE proceedings, including notice of when a continuance is granted or when a case is dismissed. If a continuance is granted, the notice shall provide a general reason for the continuance, including the absence of the respondent or one of the grounds pursuant to Rule 3.1332 of the California Rules of Court. If a case is dismissed, the notice shall specify the statutory basis for the dismissal. A notice pursuant to this clause shall not disclose any patient information that is protected under the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-191), the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (Part 2.6 (commencing with Section 56) of Division 1 of the Civil Code), or this act, without the respondents consent.
(iii)To the extent that the respondent consents, the court may allow the original petitioner to participate in the respondents CARE proceedings.
(iv)The original petitioner may file a new petition with the court, pursuant to Section 5974, if the matter is dismissed and there is a change in circumstances.
(C)If the original petitioner is not described in subdivision (a) or (b) of Section 5974, the court shall not assign ongoing rights to the original petitioner, other than the right to be present and make a statement at the hearing on the merits of the petition held pursuant to paragraph (7).
(7)(A)The court shall set a hearing on the merits of the petition within 10 days, at which time the court shall determine whether, by clear and convincing evidence, the respondent meets the CARE criteria in Section 5972. In making this determination, the court shall consider all evidence properly before it, including any report from the county behavioral health agency ordered pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) and any additional admissible evidence presented by the parties, including the petition submitted and any statement given by the original petitioner. A licensed behavioral health professional may testify as an expert concerning whether the respondent meets the CARE criteria in Section 5972 provided that the court finds that the professional has special knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education sufficient to qualify as an expert under Section 720 of the Evidence Code. The court may determine that the respondent should be considered for alternative treatment, including, but not limited to, an assisted outpatient treatment program under Article 9 (commencing with Section 5345) of Chapter 2 of Part 1, or a grave disability evaluation pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with Section 5200) of Chapter 2 of Part 1, but may not determine that the respondent requires a higher level of care than the CARE process if the respondent meets the criteria for the CARE process.
(B)The hearing on the merits of the petition may be conducted concurrently with the initial appearance upon stipulation of the successor petitioner and the respondent, subject to the approval by the court.
(c)(1)If, at the hearing on the merits of the petition, the court finds there is not clear and convincing evidence that the respondent meets the CARE criteria in Section 5972, the court shall dismiss the case without prejudice, unless the court makes a finding, in open court, that the original petitioners filing was not in good faith, in which case the dismissal shall be with prejudice.
(2)If, at the hearing on the merits of the petition, the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent meets the CARE criteria in Section 5972, the court shall order the county behavioral health agency to work with the respondent, the respondents counsel, and the supporter to engage the respondent in behavioral health treatment and attempt to enter into a CARE agreement. The court shall set a case management hearing within 14 days.
(3)If the respondent is enrolled in a federally recognized Indian tribe, the county shall provide notice of the case management hearing to the tribe, subject to the consent of the respondent.
(d)The following shall apply to any written report submitted by a county behavioral health agency to the court pursuant to this section:
(1)The report is confidential and not subject to disclosure or inspection under the California Public Records Act (Division 10 (commencing with Section 7920.000) of Title 1 of the Government Code).
(2)The report is inadmissible in any subsequent legal proceeding, except upon motion of the respondent in that subsequent legal proceeding.
(3)The report shall be confidential pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 5976.5, except when the respondent consents to the release of the report.
(4)This subdivision shall not affect the applicability of paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 5977.1, make admissible any evidence that is not otherwise admissible, or permit a witness to base an opinion on any matter that is not a proper basis for such an opinion. The admission or exclusion of evidence shall be pursuant to the rules of evidence established by the Evidence Code, including, but not limited to, Section 352 of the Evidence Code, and by judicial decision.
(e)(1)Beginning July 1, 2028, if the court dismisses a CARE petition because a respondent needs a higher level of services, the court may order the county to develop an exit plan for the respondent.
(2)No later than July 1, 2028, the department shall develop, with input from a stakeholder group, a CARE Act model exit plan that identifies appropriate services and ongoing monitoring of an individual with a petition dismissed from the CARE Act because the court determined that they need a higher level of services. The stakeholder group shall include, at a minimum, county behavioral health agencies, county CARE courts, racial justice experts, and other appropriate stakeholders, including providers and CARE court participants.
SEC. 8.SEC. 6.Section 5977.1 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read:5977.1.(a)(1)At the case management hearing, the court shall hear evidence as to whether the parties have entered, or are likely to enter, into a CARE agreement.
(2)If the court finds that the parties have entered, or are likely to enter, into a CARE agreement, the court shall do one of the following:
(A)Approve the terms of the CARE agreement or modify the terms of the CARE agreement and approve the agreement as modified by the court, and continue the matter and set a progress hearing for 60 days.
(B)Continue the matter for 14 days to allow the parties additional time to enter into a CARE agreement, upon stipulation of the parties.
(3)Nothing in this subdivision shall prohibit the parties from agreeing to, and the court from approving, amendments to the CARE agreement.
(4)The court may, in its discretion, call additional progress hearings beyond the hearing set at 60 days, for the duration of the CARE agreement.
(b)If the court finds that the parties have not entered into a CARE agreement, and are not likely to enter into a CARE agreement, the court shall order the county behavioral health agency, through a licensed behavioral health professional, to conduct a clinical evaluation of the respondent, unless there is an existing clinical evaluation of the respondent completed within the last 30 days and the parties stipulate to the use of that evaluation. The evaluation shall address, at a minimum, the following:
(1)A clinical diagnosis of the respondent.
(2)Whether the respondent has the legal capacity to give informed consent regarding psychotropic medication.
(3)Any other information as ordered by the court or that the licensed behavioral health professional conducting the evaluation determines would help the court make future informed decisions about the appropriate care and services the respondent should receive.
(4)An analysis of recommended services, programs, housing, medications, and interventions that support the recovery and stability of the respondent.
(c)(1)The court shall set a clinical evaluation hearing to review the evaluation within 21 days. The court shall order the county to file the evaluation with the court and provide the evaluation to the respondents counsel no later than five days prior to the scheduled clinical evaluation hearing. The clinical evaluation hearing may be continued for a maximum of 14 days upon stipulation of the respondent and the county behavioral health agency, unless there is good cause for a longer extension. The evaluation may be provided to the original petitioner, if participating in ongoing proceedings, if the respondent consents.
(2)At the clinical evaluation review hearing, the court shall review the evaluation and other evidence from the county behavioral health agency and the respondent. The county behavioral health agency and the respondent may present evidence and call witnesses, including the person who conducted the evaluation. Only relevant and admissible evidence that fully complies with the rules of evidence may be considered by the court.
(3)At the conclusion of the hearing, the court shall determine whether the respondent, by clear and convincing evidence, meets the CARE criteria in Section 5972 and make orders as follows:
(A)If the court finds that the respondent meets the CARE criteria, the court shall order the county behavioral health agency, the respondent, and the respondents counsel and supporter to jointly develop a CARE plan within 14 days.
(B)If the court does not find that clear and convincing evidence establishes that the respondent meets the CARE criteria, the court shall dismiss the petition. This dismissal equates to a termination of the respondents participation in the CARE process pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 5979.
(4)If the respondent is a self-identified American Indian or Alaska Native individual, as defined in Sections 1603(13), 1603(28), and 1679(a) of Title 25 of the United States Code, has been determined eligible as an Indian under Section 136.12 of Title 42 of the Code of Federal Regulations, or is currently receiving services from an Indian health care provider or tribal court, the county behavioral health agency shall use its best efforts to meaningfully consult with and incorporate the Indian health care provider or tribal court available to the respondent to develop the CARE plan.
(5)The evaluation and all reports, documents, and filings submitted to the court shall be confidential.
(6)The date for the hearing to review and consider approval of the proposed CARE plan shall be set not more than 14 days from the date of the order to develop a CARE plan, unless the court finds good cause for an extension. The party requesting an extension of time for the CARE plan review hearing shall provide notice to the opposing party, their counsel, and the supporter of the request for extension of time, and the courts order if the request is granted.
(d)(1)At the CARE plan review hearing, the parties shall present their plan or plans to the court. The county behavioral health agency or the respondent, or both, may present a proposed CARE plan.
(2)After consideration of the plans proposed by the parties, the court shall adopt the elements of a CARE plan that support the recovery and stability of the respondent. The court may issue any orders necessary to support the respondent in accessing appropriate services and supports, including prioritization for those services and supports, subject to applicable laws and available funding pursuant to Section 5982. These orders shall constitute the CARE plan and may be amended.
(3)A court may order medication if it finds, upon review of the court-ordered evaluation and hearing from the parties, that, by clear and convincing evidence, the respondent lacks the capacity to give informed consent to the administration of medically necessary stabilization medication. To the extent the court orders medically necessary stabilization medication, the medication shall not be forcibly administered and the respondents failure to comply with a medication order shall not result in a penalty, including, but not limited to, contempt or termination of the CARE plan pursuant to Section 5979.
(4)If the proposed CARE plan includes services and supports, such as housing, provided directly or indirectly through another local governmental entity, that local entity may agree to provide the service or support, or the court may consider a motion by either of the parties to add the local entity as a party to the CARE proceeding. If the local entity agrees to provide the service or support, it may request to be added as a party by the court.
(5)If, after presentation of the CARE plan or plans, the court determines that additional information is needed, including from a licensed behavioral health professional, the court shall order a supplemental report to be filed by the county behavioral health agency for which the court may grant a continuance of no more than 14 days, unless there is good cause for a longer extension.
(6)If there is no CARE plan because the parties have not had sufficient time to complete it, the court may grant a continuance of no more than 14 days, unless there is good cause for a longer extension.
(7)This subdivision does not prohibit the parties from agreeing to, and the court from approving, amendments to the CARE plan. The court may also approve amendments to the CARE plan upon the finding that those amendments are necessary to support the respondent in accessing appropriate services and supports, following a hearing on the issue.
(e)The issuance of an order approving a CARE plan pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) begins the CARE process timeline, which shall not exceed one year.
(f)If the parties previously entered into a CARE agreement but the respondent stops engaging with the CARE process, the court may adopt the CARE agreement as a CARE plan. The adoption of the CARE agreement as a CARE plan shall restart the CARE process timeline, which shall not exceed one year.(f)(1)The court may adopt the CARE agreement as a CARE plan if all of the following are true:
(A)The respondent has stopped engaging with the CARE process for 60 days or more despite documented attempts by the county, local agency, or treatment providers to maintain engagement with the respondent.
(B)All elements of the CARE agreement have been provided to the respondent by the county or other local agency, as required.
(C)The court finds that a CARE plan would be a more effective alternative than potential dismissal from the CARE process.
(2)The adoption of the CARE agreement as a CARE plan shall not reset the one-year timeline in the CARE process.
(3)This subdivision does not limit or alter the courts authority to adopt a CARE plan pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d).
SEC. 9.Section 5977.2 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read:5977.2.(a)(1)At intervals set by the court and not less frequently than every 60 days after the court orders the CARE plan, the court shall hold a status review hearing. The county behavioral health agency shall file with the court and serve on the respondent, and the respondents counsel and supporter, a report no fewer than five court days prior to the review hearing with the following information:(A)The progress that the respondent has made on the CARE plan.(B)What services and supports in the CARE plan were provided, and what services and supports were not provided.(C)Any issues the respondent expressed or exhibited in adhering to the CARE plan.(D)Recommendations for changes to the services and supports to make the CARE plan more successful.(2)The respondent shall be permitted to respond to the report submitted by the county behavioral health agency and to the county behavioral health agencys testimony. The respondent shall be permitted to introduce their own information and recommendations.(3)Subject to applicable law, intermittent lapses or setbacks described in this section of the report shall not impact access to services, treatment, or housing.(b)(1)The county behavioral health agency or the respondent may request, or the court upon its own motion may set, a hearing to occur at any time during the CARE process to address a change of circumstances.(2)To ensure the respondents safety, the county behavioral health agency shall request a status hearing before the court to address a change in circumstances and request the court to use existing legal authority pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with Section 5200) of Chapter 2 of Part 1 to order an evaluation of the respondent if all of the following conditions are met:(A)The treatment team has made good faith efforts to solicit adherence to the CARE plan by the respondent that have failed.(B)The respondents nonadherence to the CARE plan has resulted in behavior that is consistent with an established pattern of psychiatric deterioration or symptoms of decompensation.(C)The treatment team has assessed the respondent.(D)The treatment team is concerned that the respondent may be in need of a higher level of care.SEC. 10.SEC. 7.Section 5977.3 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read:5977.3.(a)(1)In the 11th month of the process timeline, the court shall hold a one-year status hearing. Not fewer than five court days prior to the one-year status hearing, the county behavioral health agency shall file a report with the court and shall serve the report on the respondent and the respondents counsel and supporter. The report shall include the following information:
(A)The progress that the respondent has made on the CARE plan, including a final assessment of the respondents stability.
(B)What services and supports in the CARE plan were provided, and what services and supports were not provided, over the life of the program.
(C)Any issues the respondent expressed or exhibited in adhering to the CARE plan.
(D)Recommendations for next steps, including what ongoing and additional services would benefit the respondent that the county behavioral health agency can facilitate or provide.
(2)At an evidentiary hearing, the respondent shall be permitted to respond to the report submitted by the county behavioral health agency and to the county behavioral health agencys testimony. The respondent shall be permitted to introduce their own information and recommendations. The respondent shall have the right at the hearing to call witnesses and to present evidence as to whether the respondent agrees with the report. The respondent may request either to be graduated from the program or to remain in the program.
(3)The court shall issue an order as follows:
(A)If the respondent requests to be graduated from the program, and the respondent has successfully completed the CARE process, the court shall order the county behavioral health agency, the respondent, and the supporter to work together on a voluntary graduation plan and the court shall schedule a hearing in the 12th month after adoption of the CARE plan for presentation of the graduation plan. The court shall review the graduation plan and recite the terms in open court. The graduation plan shall not place additional requirements on local governmental entities and is not enforceable by the court, except that the graduation plan may, at the respondents election, include a psychiatric advance directive, which shall have the force of law. Upon completion of the hearing, the respondent shall be officially graduated from the program.
(B)If the respondent requests to remain in the CARE process, the respondent may request any amount of time, up to and including one additional year. The court may approve the request and thereby permit the ongoing voluntary participation of the respondent if the court finds both of the following:
(i)The respondent did not successfully complete the CARE plan.
(ii)The respondent would benefit from continuation of the CARE plan.
(C)The court shall issue an order permitting the respondent to continue in the CARE plan or denying the respondents request to remain in the CARE plan, and state its reasons in open court.
(b)The respondent may be involuntarily reappointed to the program only if the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that all of the following conditions apply:
(1)The respondent did not successfully complete the CARE process.
(2)All services and supports required through the CARE process were provided to the respondent.
(3)The respondent would benefit from continuation in the CARE process.
(4)The respondent currently meets the requirements in Section 5972.
(c)A respondent may only be reappointed to the CARE process once, for up to one additional year.
(d)If the court finds that involuntary reappointment is unlikely to stabilize the respondent and supervision is necessary, the court may order a grave disability evaluation pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with Section 5200) of Chapter 2 of Part 1 on its own motion or on motion of the county.SEC. 11.SEC. 8.Section 5977.4 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read:5977.4.(a)(1)In all CARE Act proceedings, the judicial officer shall control the proceedings during the hearings with a view to the expeditious and effective ascertainment of the jurisdictional facts and the ascertainment of all information relative to the present condition and future welfare of the respondent. Except when there is a contested issue of fact or law, the proceedings shall be conducted in an informal nonadversarial atmosphere with a view to obtaining the maximum cooperation of the respondent, all persons interested in the respondents welfare, and all other parties, with any provisions that the court may make for the disposition and care of the respondent. The court and relevant local public agencies, including, but not limited to, cities and first responder agencies, shall cooperate to develop a comprehensive set of objectives established to improve performance of the CARE system in a vigorous and ongoing manner. The court is authorized to coordinate and participate in meetings to improve system performance. All evaluations and reports, documents, and filings submitted to the court pursuant to CARE Act proceedings shall be confidential.
(2)Notwithstanding paragraph (1), and consistent with the requirements of subdivision (d), reports generated by the county behavioral health agency during the CARE process may be disclosed to a provider of health care, as defined in Section 56.05 of the Civil Code, or a covered entity, as defined in Section 160.103 of Title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations, if necessary to assist with ongoing treatment of the respondent.
(b)Parties and witnesses may appear remotely through the use of remote technology for the hearings described in this chapter. The court shall have the discretion to order a party or witness to appear in person if necessary. The respondent shall have the right to be in person for all hearings.
(c)Consistent with its constitutional rulemaking authority, the Judicial Council shall adopt rules to implement the policies and provisions in this section and in Sections 5977 to 5977.4, inclusive, to promote statewide consistency, including, but not limited to, what is included in the petition form packet, communications between the CARE Act court and the juvenile court, if applicable, the role of the judiciary to improve system performance, and the process by which counsel will be appointed.
(d)(1)Consistent with paragraph (9) of subdivision (b) of Section 56.10 of the Civil Code, the county behavioral health agency shall include in any report evaluation, or other document filed with the court, the information, including protected health information, necessary to support the determinations, conclusions, and recommendations in the filing. The county behavioral health agency shall not, unless ordered to do so by the court, submit to the court original or photocopied records underlying the information in a report evaluation or other document required or ordered under this subdivision. The county behavioral health agency shall serve an unredacted copy of any report evaluation, or other document filed with the court on the respondent and the respondents counsel and, with the consent of the respondent, on the supporter in ongoing proceedings, in a manner authorized by law. Neither a county nor an employee or agent thereof shall be held civilly or criminally liable for any disclosure authorized or required by this paragraph.
(2)(A)Consistent with paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of Section 56.10 of the Civil Code, a provider of health care, as defined in Section 56.05 of the Civil Code, or a covered entity, as defined in Section 160.103 of Title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations, may disclose to the county behavioral health agency any information, including protected health information, and mental health records excluding psychotherapy notes, in its possession about the respondent that is relevant to the county behavioral health agencys provision, coordination, or management of services and supports under this part, including, but not limited to, the preparation of any required investigations, evaluations, or reports. Such a disclosure is a disclosure for treatment purposes, which may be made only to the extent permitted under Section 164.506 of Title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The information disclosed may include substance use disorder patient records only to the extent permitted by Part 2 (commencing with Section 2.1) of Title 42 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
(B)Consistent with paragraph (9) of subdivision (b) of Section 56.10 of the Civil Code, a provider of health care, as defined in Section 56.05 of the Civil Code, or a covered entity, as defined in Section 160.103 of Title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations, that filed a CARE Act petition or executed an affidavit included with a CARE Act petition pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Section 5975 shall provide to the county behavioral health agency any information, including protected health information, and mental health records excluding psychotherapy notes, in its possession about the respondent that may be relevant in connection with an investigation, evaluation, or other report or hearing under this part, or with the provision of services and supports under this part. The provision of information under this paragraph is a disclosure required by law, which may be made only to the extent permitted under subdivision (a) of Section 164.512 of Title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The information disclosed shall include substance use disorder patient records only to the extent permitted by Part 2 (commencing with Section 2.1) of Title 42 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
(C)The county behavioral health agency may apply to the court ex parte for an order requiring any provider of health care, as defined in Section 56.05 of the Civil Code, or any covered entity, as defined in Section 160.103 of Title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations, to provide to the county behavioral health agency, to the court, or both, any information, including, but not limited to, protected health information, and mental health records excluding psychotherapy notes, in its possession about the respondent that may be relevant in connection with an investigation, evaluation, or other report or hearing under this part, or with the provision of services and supports under this part. The provision of information under this paragraph is a disclosure required by law, which may be made only to the extent permitted under Section 164.512 of Title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The information ordered to be disclosed may include substance use disorder patient records only to the extent permitted by Part 2 (commencing with Section 2.1) of Title 42 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
(D)A provider of health care or covered entity shall not be held civilly or criminally liable for any disclosure authorized or required by this section.
(E)The county behavioral health agency shall notify the respondent of a disclosure under this paragraph as follows:
(i)By mail at the respondents last known address, if any.
(ii)To the respondents counsel.
(iii)By including a copy of the notification under clause (i) or (ii) with the next notice of hearing served upon the respondent, if any.
(F)All information, including the facts and records, or summary thereof, shared pursuant to this paragraph shall further be disclosed to the respondent and the respondents counsel, and with the consent of the respondent, to the supporter.
(3)(A)Consistent with paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of Section 56.10 of the Civil Code, the county behavioral health agency may disclose to a provider of health care, as defined in Section 56.05 of the Civil Code, or a covered entity, as defined in Section 160.103 of Title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations, any information, including protected health information, and mental health records excluding psychotherapy notes, in its possession about the respondent that is relevant to the provider or entitys provision, coordination, or management of services and supports under this part, including, but not limited to, the preparation of any required investigations, evaluations, or reports. Such a disclosure is a disclosure for treatment purposes, which may be made only to the extent permitted under Section 164.506 of Title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The information disclosed may include substance use disorder patient records only to the extent permitted by Part 2 (commencing with Section 2.1) of Title 42 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
(B)The county behavioral health agency shall not be held civilly or criminally liable for any disclosure authorized or required by this section.
(C)The county behavioral health agency shall notify the respondent of a disclosure under this paragraph as follows:
(i)By mail at the respondents last known address, if any.
(ii)To the respondents counsel.
(iii)By including a copy of the notification under clause (i) or (ii) with the next notice of hearing served upon the respondent, if any.
(D)All information, including the facts and records, or summary thereof, shared pursuant to this paragraph shall further be disclosed to the respondent and the respondents counsel, and with the consent of the respondent, to the supporter, and the original petitioner, if participating in ongoing proceedings.
(4)(A)Except as expressly provided, further disclosure or redisclosure of information is not authorized by this subdivision.
(B)Information disclosed to a county behavioral health agency by a provider of health care, as defined in Section 56.05 of the Civil Code, or a covered entity, as defined in Section 160.103 of Title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations, is confidential and not subject to disclosure or inspection under the California Public Records Act (Division 10 (commencing with Section 7920.000) of Title 1 of the Government Code).
(C)Information disclosed to a provider of health care, as defined in Section 56.05 of the Civil Code, or a covered entity, as defined in Section 160.103 of Title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations, by a county behavioral health agency is confidential and not subject to disclosure or inspection under the California Public Records Act (Division 10 (commencing with Section 7920.000) of Title 1 of the Government Code).
(D)Disclosure of information under this part shall not be deemed to in any way alter the duties or responsibilities of a county behavioral health agency, of a provider of health care, as defined in Section 56.05 of the Civil Code, or of a covered entity, as defined in Section 160.103 of Title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations, with respect to the disclosed information under the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (Part 2.6 (commencing with Section 56) of Division 1 of the Civil Code), or the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-191).
(e)(1)The notice of the initial appearance required by Section 5977 shall be served in accordance with the requirements of Section 5977.
(2)All subsequent reports and notices may be served through an alternative method of service agreed to by the parties.
(f)By January 1, 2028, all counties shall establish a process for electronic submission of CARE Act documents using a secured portal.
SEC. 12.SEC. 9.Section 5978.1 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read:5978.1.(a)For purposes of this section, facility means a facility that provides assessment, evaluation, and crisis intervention pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 5150, or a designated facility as defined in subdivision (n) of Section 5008.
(b)A facility may refer an individual treated under an involuntary hold pursuant to Articles 1 to 4.7, inclusive, and Article 6 of Chapter 2 of Part 1 of this Division to the county behavioral health agency of the county in which the individual resides, or the county in which the individual is receiving involuntary treatment, if they believe that the individual meets or is likely to meet criteria to qualify for the CARE process, as described in Section 5972.
(1)Referrals pursuant to this section shall be authorized by a licensed behavioral health professional, employed, by or contracted by the facility, who has knowledge of the individuals case and has been involved in the individuals treatment during their involuntary hold. Documentation of the authority for a referral pursuant to this paragraph shall be signed by the licensed behavioral health professional or their designee, and shall confirm that they believe that the individual meets, or is likely to meet, criteria to qualify for the CARE process, as described in Section 5972.
(2)If the facility chooses to make a referral pursuant to subdivision (b), the facility shall make the referral pursuant to this section as soon as clinically indicated as part of the individuals discharge planning process.
(3)The facility referral shall include contact information for the referred individual, including a telephone number and address, if available, and other information as specified by the department.
(c)Within 14 business days of the referral by the facility, the county behavioral health agency shall complete assessment of the individual referred pursuant to this section and shall file a petition pursuant to Section 5975 if the county behavioral health agency determines that the individual meets or is likely to meet criteria for the CARE process and the individual does not engage in voluntary treatment. An expedited assessment may be necessary where there is concern of imminent discharge and foreseeable challenges with locating the respondent. The behavioral health agency shall provide guidelines to facilities on requesting an expedited assessment.
(d)In accordance with subdivision (b) of Section 5984, the department shall develop a referral form to be used by the facility and issue guidance regarding the following:
(1)The procedure for a facility to refer an individual to a county behavioral health agency pursuant to this section.
(2)County behavioral health agency data reporting requirements regarding referrals made pursuant to this section include, but are not limited to, total referrals, referrals where in-person contact was made, outcomes of referrals, reason for not filing a petition, length of time from referral to initial in-person contact, length of time from referral to outcome, and services provided for those engaged voluntarily.
(e)The department shall include data regarding referrals made pursuant to this section as part of the annual CARE Act report required by Section 5985.
(f)This section does not authorize a facility to continue an involuntary hold on a referred individual who no longer meets the criteria for involuntary treatment solely for the purpose of allowing the county behavioral health agency to complete its assessment pursuant to subdivision (b).
(g)This section does not affect the ability of a facility to make a referral for assisted outpatient treatment pursuant to Section 5346.
SEC. 13.SEC. 10.Section 5979 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read:5979.(a)(1)(A)If, at any time during the proceedings, the court determines by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent is not participating in the CARE process, after the respondent receives notice, or is not adhering to their CARE plan, after the respondent receives notice, the court may terminate the respondents participation in the CARE process. The court shall make findings on the record about the basis for termination of the respondents participation in the CARE process.
(B)The court shall not terminate the respondents participation in the CARE process solely due to a failure of the county or other local government entity to properly engage with the CARE process.
(2)To ensure the respondents safety, the court shall may utilize existing legal authority pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with Section 5200) of Chapter 2 of Part 1, if appropriate. If the court finds it is in the best interest of the respondent, the court may order an evaluation pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with Section 5200) of Part 1 on its own motion, or on motion of the county. 1. The court shall provide notice to the county behavioral health agency and the Office of the Public Conservator and Guardian if the court utilizes that authority.
(3)If the court has ordered an evaluation pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with Section 5200) of Part 1 pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (a), or if the respondent was timely provided with all of the services and supports required by the CARE plan, the fact that the respondent failed to successfully complete their CARE plan, including reasons for that failure, shall be a fact considered by the court in a subsequent hearing under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (Part 1 (commencing with Section 5000)) and 5000)), if that hearing occurs within six months of the termination of the CARE plan, and shall create a presumption at that hearing that the respondent needs additional intervention beyond the supports and services provided by the CARE plan.
(4)The respondents failure to comply with an order shall not result in a penalty outside of this section, including, but not limited to, contempt or a failure to appear.
(5)The respondents failure to comply with a medication order shall not result in any penalty, including under this section.
(b)(1)The court shall not terminate the respondents participation in the CARE process due to a failure of the county or other local government entity to properly engage with the CARE process. If the court finds that the respondent is not participating in the CARE process due to a failure of the county or local government entity, the court shall consider the imposition of fines pursuant to the procedure outlined in this subdivision. If, at any time during the CARE process, the court finds that the county or local government entity is not complying with the court orders, the court shall report that finding to the presiding judge of the superior court, or their designee.
(2)(A) The presiding judge or their designee shall issue an order to show cause why the local government entity should not be fined as set forth in this section. The time set for hearing shall be no earlier than 15 days after the date of the order. The scheduled date of the hearing shall allow adequate time for notice of the hearing to be served upon the local government entity.
(B)The presiding judge, or their designee, shall consider the matter on the record established at the hearing. If the presiding judge or their designee finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that the local government entity has substantially failed to comply with this part, or with lawful orders issued by a court under this part, the presiding judge or their designee may issue an order imposing a fine under this section.
(C)A fine under this section shall be in an amount of up to one thousand dollars ($1,000) per day, not to exceed twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) for each individual violation identified in the order imposing fines.
(D)(i) Funds collected pursuant to this subdivision shall be deposited in the CARE Act Accountability Fund, which is hereby created in the State Treasury. Upon appropriation, the department shall administer the funds annually, and shall issue guidance, as necessary, to local government entities, pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 5984, regarding the distribution and conditions associated with the administered funds.
(ii)All moneys in the fund shall be allocated and distributed to the local government entity that paid the fines, to be used by that entity to serve individuals who have schizophrenia spectrum or other psychotic disorders and who are experiencing, or are at risk of, homelessness, criminal justice involvement, hospitalization, or conservatorship.
(3)If, after notice and hearing as set forth in paragraph (2), the presiding judge or their designee finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that the local government entity is persistently noncompliant with this part, or with lawful orders issued by a court under this part, the presiding judge or their designee may appoint a special master to secure court-ordered care for the respondent at the local government entitys cost. The presiding judge, or their designee, shall not make an order under this paragraph unless they have received five or more reports under paragraph (1) pertaining to the same local government entity within a one-year period.
(4)In determining the application of the remedies available under this section, the court shall consider whether there are any mitigating circumstances impairing the ability of the local government entity to fully comply with the requirements of this part, or with court orders issued under this part. The court may consider whether the local government entity is making a good faith effort to come into substantial compliance or is facing substantial undue hardships.
(c)Either the respondent or the county behavioral health agency may appeal an adverse court determination.
SEC. 14.SEC. 11.Section 5982 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read:5982.(a)The CARE plan may include only the following:
(1)Behavioral health services funded through the 1991 and 2011 Realignment, Medi-Cal behavioral health, health care plans and insurers, and services supported by the Mental Health Services Act pursuant to Part 3 (commencing with Section 5800).
(2)Medically necessary stabilization medications, to the extent not described in paragraph (1).
(3)Housing resources funded through the No Place Like Home Program (Part 3.9 (commencing with Section 5849.1) of Division 5 of the Welfare and Institutions Code); California Housing Accelerator (Chapter 6.6 (commencing with Section 50672) of Part 2 of Division 31 of the Health and Safety Code); the Multifamily Housing Program (Chapter 6.7 (commencing with Section 50675) of Part 2 of Division 31 of the Health and Safety Code); the Homeless Housing, Assistance, and Prevention Program (Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 50216) of Part 1 of Division 31 of the Health and Safety Code); the Encampment Resolution Funding Program (Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 50250) of Part 1 of Division 31 of the Health and Safety Code); the Project Roomkey and Rehousing Program pursuant to Provision 22 of Item 5180-151-0001 of the Budget Act of 2021 (Ch. 21, Stats. 2021); the Community Care Expansion Program (Chapter 20 (commencing with Section 18999.97) of Part 6 of Division 9 of the Welfare and Institutions Code); the CalWORKs Housing Support Program (Article 3.3 (commencing with Section 11330) of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9 of the Welfare and Institutions Code); the CalWORKs Homeless Assistance pursuant to clause (i) of subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (f) of Section 11450 of Article 6 of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9 of the Welfare and Institutions Code; the Housing and Disability Advocacy Program (Chapter 17 (commencing with Section 18999) of Part 6 of Division 9 of the Welfare and Institutions Code); the Home Safe Program (Chapter 14 (commencing with Section 15770) of Part 3 of Division 9 of the Welfare and Institutions Code); the Bringing Families Home Program (Article 6 (commencing with Section 16523) of Chapter 5 of Part 4 of Division 9 of the Welfare and Institutions Code); the Transitional Housing Placement program for nonminor dependents (Article 4 (commencing with Section 16522) of Chapter 5 of Part 4 of Division 9 of the Welfare and Institutions Code); the Transitional Housing Program-Plus pursuant to subdivision (s) of Section 11400 and paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 11403.2 of Article 5 of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9 of the Welfare and Institutions Code and Article 4 (commencing with Section 16522) of Chapter 5 of Part 4 of Division 9 of the Welfare and Institutions Code; the Behavioral Health Continuum Infrastructure Program (Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 5960) of Part 7 of Division 5 of the Welfare and Institutions Code); the Behavioral Health Bridge Housing Program; HUD-Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Program (Section 8(o)(19) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 [42 U.S.C. Section 1437f(o)(19)]); Supportive Services for Veteran Families (Section 604 of the Veterans Mental Health and Other Care Improvements Act of 2008 [38 U.S.C. Sec. 2044]); HUD Continuum of Care program (Section 103 of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act [42 U.S.C. Sec. 11302]); the Emergency Solutions Grant (Subtitle B of Title IV of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act [42 U.S.C. Secs. 11371-11378]); HUD Housing Choice Voucher program (Section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 [42 U.S.C. Sec. 1437f]); the Emergency Housing Vouchers (Section 3202 of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 [Public Law 117-2]; Section 8(o) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 [42 U.S.C. Sec. 1437f(o)]); HOME Investment Partnerships Program (Title II of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act [42 U.S.C. Sec. 12721 et seq.]); the Community Development Block Grant Program (Title 1 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 [42 U.S.C. Sec. 5301 et seq.]); housing supported by the Mental Health Services Act pursuant to Part 3 (commencing with Section 5800); community development block grants; and other state and federal housing resources, including the Assisted Living Waiver program and the Home- and Community-based Services Waiver program.
(4)Social services funded through Supplemental Security Income/State Supplementary Payment (SSI/SSP), Cash Assistance Program for Immigrants (CAPI), CalWORKs, California Food Assistance Program, In-Home Supportive Services program, and CalFresh.
(5)Services provided pursuant to Part 5 (commencing with Section 17000) of Division 9.
(6)Upon the consent of the respondent and the entity or individual financially responsible for the services, additional services to support the recovery and stability of the respondent.
(b)Individuals who are CARE process participants shall be prioritized for any appropriate bridge housing funded by the Behavioral Health Bridge Housing program.
(c)If the county behavioral health agency elects not to enroll the respondent into a full service partnership, as defined in Section 3620 of Title 9 of the California Code of Regulations, the court may request information on the reasons for this and any barriers to enrollment.
(d)All CARE plan services and supports ordered by the court are subject to available funding and all applicable federal and state statutes and regulations, contractual provisions, and policy guidance governing initial and ongoing program eligibility. In addition to the resources funded through programs listed in subdivision (a), the State Department of Health Care Services may identify other adjacent covered Medi-Cal services, including, but not limited to, enhanced care management and available community supports, which may be suggested, although not ordered, by the court, subject to all applicable federal and state statutes, regulations, contractual provisions, and policy guidance.
(e)This section does not prevent a county or other local governmental entity from recommending their own services that are their own responsibility not listed in subdivision (a) or (c). Any such recommendation is not required by this section and shall be made at the request of the county for the purposes of Section 6 of Article XIIIB, and Sections 6 and 36 of Article XIII of the California Constitution.
(f)(1)For respondents who are Medi-Cal beneficiaries, the county in which the respondent resides is the county of responsibility as defined in Section 1810.228 of Title 9 of the California Code of Regulations.
(2)If a proceeding commences in a county where the respondent is found or is facing criminal or civil proceedings that is different than the county in which the respondent resides, the county in which the respondent is found or is facing criminal or civil proceedings shall not delay proceedings under this part and is the responsible county behavioral health agency for providing or coordinating all components of the CARE agreement or CARE plan.
(3)The county in which the respondent resides, as defined in paragraph (1), shall be responsible for the costs of providing all CARE agreement or CARE plan behavioral health services, as defined in paragraph (1) of subdivision (a).
(4)In the event of a dispute over responsibility for any costs of providing components of the CARE agreement or CARE plan, the impacted counties shall resolve the dispute in accordance with the arbitration process established in Section 1850.405 of Title 9 of the California Code of Regulations for county mental health plans, including for respondents who are not Medi-Cal beneficiaries, and pursuant to any related guidance issued pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 5984.
SEC. 15.SEC. 12.Section 5983 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read:5983.(a)The California Health and Human Services Agency, or a designated department within the agency, shall do all both of the following:
(1)Engage an independent, research-based entity, as described in Section 5986, to advise on the development of data-driven process and outcome measures to guide the planning, collaboration, reporting, and evaluation of the CARE Act pursuant to this part.
(2)Convene a working group to provide coordination and on-going engagement with, and support collaboration among, relevant state and local partners and other stakeholders throughout the phases of county implementation to support the successful implementation of the CARE Act. The working group shall meet no more than quarterly. The working group shall meet during the implementation and shall end no later than December 31, 2026.
(b)The department shall provide training and technical assistance to county behavioral health agencies to support the implementation of this part, including training regarding the CARE process, CARE agreement and plan services and supports, supported decisionmaking, the supporter role, trauma-informed care, elimination of bias, court-ordered evaluations pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with Section 5200) of Part 1, the continuum of adult housing options, psychiatric advance directives, family psychoeducation, and data collection.
(c)The Judicial Council, in consultation with the department, other relevant state entities, and the County Behavioral Health Directors Association, shall provide training and technical assistance to judicial officers to support the implementation of this part, including training regarding the CARE process, CARE agreement and plan services and supports, working with the supporter, supported decisionmaking, the supporter role, the family role, trauma-informed care, elimination of bias, court-ordered evaluations pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with Section 5200) of Part 1, best practices, and evidence-based models of care for people with severe behavioral health conditions.
(d)The department, in consultation with other relevant state departments and the California Interagency Council on Homelessness, shall provide training to counsel regarding the CARE process and CARE agreement and plan services and supports.
(e)The office of the Governor shall annually release a list of counties prioritizing CARE Court implementation, It is the intent of the Legislature to identify appropriate metrics of success to measure counties successfully implementing the CARE Act, known as CARE Champions, and counties experiencing challenges with implementation who need technical support and training, known as CARE ICU (Improvement and Coordination Unit) Counties. The Governor agency shall annually release these lists to identify a list identifying overperforming and underperforming counties to receive additional support through the CARE ICU.
SEC. 16.SEC. 13.Section 5985 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read:5985.(a)(1)The department shall develop, in consultation with county behavioral health agencies, other relevant state or local government entities, disability rights groups, individuals with lived experience, families, counsel, racial justice experts, and other appropriate stakeholders, an annual CARE Act report. The department shall post the annual report on its internet website.
(2)The department, in consultation with county behavioral health agencies and courts, shall specify the length of time that data on former participants shall be reported pursuant to subdivision (e), which shall be a minimum of 12 months after completion of and a maximum of 36 months following engagement in CARE Act elective services, a CARE agreement, or CARE plan. The same data shall be tracked for cases involving dismissed respondents.
(3)For the purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply:
(A)Former participant means an individual who enters into CARE Act elective services, a CARE agreement, or a CARE plan, but who has either graduated from CARE, or for whom CARE Act proceedings were dismissed or terminated. Counties shall not be responsible for reporting on any individual who is privately insured or who no longer resides in California.
(B)Active participants means an individual who is an elective client, or who has a CARE plan or CARE agreement.
(b)County behavioral health agencies and any other state or local governmental entity, as identified by the department, shall provide data related to the CARE Act participants, services, and supports to the department. The department shall determine the data measures and specifications, and shall publish them via guidance issues pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 5984.
(c)Each county behavioral health department and any other state and local governmental entity, as identified by the department, shall provide the required data to the department, in a format and frequency as directed by the department.
(d)(1)In consultation with the Judicial Council, the department shall develop an annual reporting schedule for the submission of CARE Act data from the trial courts.
(2)Data from the trial courts shall be submitted to the Judicial Council, which shall aggregate the data and submit it to the department consistent with the reporting schedule developed pursuant to paragraph (1).
(3)On an annual basis to be determined by the Judicial Council and consistent with the annual reporting schedule developed pursuant to paragraph (1), the trial courts shall report to the Judicial Council the following data related to CARE Act petitions:
(A)The number of petitions submitted pursuant to Section 5975.
(B)The number of initial appearance hearings on the petition held pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 5977.
(C)The number of petitions submitted electronically.
(D)The number of declarations of licensed behavioral health professionals pursuant to the form prepared by the Judicial Council submitted electronically.
(E)The total number of hearings held pursuant to this part.
(F)The total number of CARE plans ordered and CARE agreements approved.
(G)The total number of court petitions dismissed, as reported by the Judicial Council.
(H)The number of petitions that were dismissed for failure to make a prima facie showing.
(I)The total number of evaluations ordered by the CARE court pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with Section 5200) of Chapter 2 of Part 1.
(e)The annual report shall include process measures to examine the scope of impact and monitor the performance of CARE Act model implementation. The measures and reporting requirements shall be developed by the department in consultation with county behavioral health agencies. The report shall include trial court petition data pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (d) and, to the extent administrative data is available, all of the following information compiled from county behavioral health departments and courts:
(1)The demographics of all participants, including, but not limited to, the age, sex, race, ethnicity, disability, languages spoken, sexual orientation, gender identity, housing status, veteran status, immigration status, health coverage status, including Medi-Cal enrollment status, information related to CARE criteria outlined in Section 5972, and county of residence.
(2)The petitioners relationship to the CARE Act respondent as defined in Section 5974.
(3)The services and supports ordered, the services and supports provided, and the services and supports ordered but not provided to all active and former participants.
(4)The housing placements of all active and former participants. Placements include, but are not limited to, transition to a higher level of care, independent living in the persons own house or apartment, community-based housing, community-based housing with services, shelter, and no housing.
(5)Treatments continued and terminated of all active and former participants.
(6)Substance use disorder rates and rates of treatment among all active and former participants.
(7)Detentions and other Lanterman-Petris-Short Act involvement for all active and former participants.
(8)Criminal justice involvement of all active and former participants.
(9)Deaths among all active and former participants, along with the cause of death.
(10)Type, format, and frequency of outreach and engagement activities provided by a county behavioral health agency to engage an individual who is the subject of a referral or petition, including interactions about the individuals eligible or likely to be eligible and outcomes of these efforts.
(11)In consultation with the department and county behavioral health departments, the number, rates, and trends of contacts made to the county behavioral health agency about individuals eligible or likely to be eligible for the CARE process, including outcomes of those contacts.
(12)The number, rates, and source of referrals to county behavioral health departments, including, but not limited to, referrals resulting in a petition or reason for not filing a petition, length of time from referral to outcome, and services provided for those engaged voluntarily without a petition.
(13)The number, rates, and trends of petitions resulting in dismissal and hearings.
(14)Information on petition dispositions, including, but not limited to, disposition recommendations and the number of days from petition to disposition.
(15)The number, rates, and trends of supporters.
(16)The number, rates, and trends of approved CARE agreements.
(17)The number, rates, and trends of ordered and completed CARE plans.
(18)Statistics on the services and supports, including court orders for stabilizing medications.
(19)The rates of adherence to medication.
(20)The number, rates, and trends of psychiatric advance directives created for active participants.
(21)The number, rates, and trends of developed graduation plans.
(22)Outcome measures to assess the effectiveness of the CARE Act model, such as improvement in housing status, including gaining and maintaining housing, reductions in emergency department visits and inpatient hospitalizations, reductions in law enforcement encounters and incarceration, reductions in involuntary treatment and conservatorship, and reductions in substance use.
(23)A health equity assessment of the CARE Act to identify demographic disparities based on demographic data in paragraph (1), and to inform disparity reduction efforts.
(24)Data regarding referrals made pursuant to Section 5978.1, as part of the CARE Act.
(25)The number of individuals who were referred to a full-service partnership program pursuant to Part 4.1 (commencing with Section 5887) after dismissal or termination from the CARE Act program.
(26)The number of individuals who were enrolled in a full-service partnership program postreferral.
(27)The number of individuals who maintained enrollment in a full-service partnership program for a year following the date of enrollment.
(f)(1)The report shall include, at a minimum, information on the effectiveness of the CARE Act model in improving outcomes and reducing disparities, homelessness, criminal justice involvement, conservatorships, and hospitalization of participants. The annual report shall include process measures to examine the scope of impact and monitor the performance of CARE Act model implementation, such as the number and source of petitions filed for CARE Court; the number, rates, and trends of petitions resulting in dismissal and hearings; the number, rates, and trends of supporters; the number, rates, and trends of voluntary CARE agreements; the number, rates, and trends of ordered and completed CARE plans; the services and supports included in CARE plans, including court orders for stabilizing medications; the rates of adherence to medication; the number, rates, and trends of psychiatric advance directives; and the number, rates, and trends of developed graduation plans. The report shall include outcome measures to assess the effectiveness of the CARE Act model, such as improvement in housing status, including gaining and maintaining housing; reductions in emergency department visits and inpatient hospitalizations; reductions in law enforcement encounters and incarceration; reductions in involuntary treatment and conservatorship; and reductions in substance use. The annual report shall examine these data through the lens of health equity to identify racial, ethnic, and other demographic disparities and inform disparity reduction efforts.
(2)Data shall be stratified by age, sex, race, ethnicity, languages spoken, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, housing status, veteran status, immigration status, health coverage source, and county, to the extent statistically relevant data is available.
(g)The outcomes shall be presented to relevant state oversight bodies, including, but not limited to, the California Interagency Council on Homelessness.
(h)(1)Beginning in 2026, the department shall include in its annual CARE Act report quantitative, deidentified information concerning the operation of this part.
(2)Based on information provided to the department in a form and manner specified by the department, in consultation with the Judicial Council and county behavioral health departments, in accordance with subdivision (b) of Section 5984, the report shall include all of the following information, aggregated by county, compiled from county behavioral health departments, courts, and the department, depending on the source:
(A)The number of contacts to the county behavioral health department about individuals eligible or likely to be eligible for the CARE process, including outcome of contacts.
(B)The number of CARE petitions filed with the superior court.
(C)The petitioner type for each petition filed with the superior court.
(D)Disposition of each petition filed with the superior court.
(E)The number of days between filing each petition and the petitions disposition.
(F)Demographic information of each CARE Act participant or potentially eligible CARE Act participant, including, but not limited to, age, sex, race, ethnicity, disability, languages spoken, sexual orientation, gender identity, housing status, veteran status, immigration status, health coverage status, including Medi-Cal enrollment status, information related to CARE criteria outlined in Section 5972, and county of residence, to the extent administrative data is available and statistically relevant.
(G)The number of referrals of individuals in conservatorship proceedings made pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 5978, including the disposition of each referral.
(H)The number of referrals made pursuant to Section 5978.1, including the disposition of each referral.
(i)Information publicly released or published pursuant to this part shall not contain data that may lead to the identification of participants or petitioners or information that would otherwise allow an individual to link the published information to a specific person. Data published by the department shall be deidentified in compliance with Section 164.514(a) and (b) of Title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
SEC. 17.SEC. 14.Section 5988 is added to the Welfare and Institutions Code, to read:5988.(a)There is established within the California Health and Human Services Agency the position of CARE Court Ombudsperson. The CARE Court Ombudsperson shall be appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate.
(b)The CARE Court Ombudsperson shall oversee and investigate complaints by petitioners, participants, and governmental agencies involved in the CARE process, including, but not limited to, judges, county staff, first responders, and city staff.
(c)The CARE Court Ombudsperson shall be considered an administrative agency for purposes of paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 56.10 of the Civil Code. Disclosures to the CARE Court Ombudsperson shall comply with the requirements of paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) and subdivision (e) of Section 164.512 of Title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
(d)Failure to provide information on a timely basis may be referred by the CARE Court Ombudsperson to the director for proceedings pursuant to Section 10744.
(e)Funds obtained from subparagraph (C) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 5979 shall be used to support the work of the CARE Court Ombudsperson.SEC. 18.SEC. 15.If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
SEC. 19.SEC. 16.Any section of Senate Bill 989, Senate Bill 1016, and Senate Bill 1242 enacted by the Legislature during the 2026 calendar year that takes effect on or before January 1, 2027, and that amends, adds, repeals and adds, or repeals a section that is amended or added by this act, shall prevail over this act, whether that act is enacted before, or subsequent to, the enactment of this act.
(a)Conservatorship initiated pursuant to this chapter shall automatically terminate one year after the appointment of the conservator by the superior court. The period of service of a temporary conservator shall not be included in the one-year period. When the conservator has been appointed as conservator of the estate, the conservator shall, for a reasonable time, continue to have the authority over the estate that the superior court, on petition by the conservator, deems necessary for (1) the collection of assets or income that accrued during the period of conservatorship, but were uncollected before the date of termination, (2) the payment of expenses that accrued during period of conservatorship and of which the conservator was notified prior to termination, but were unpaid before the date of termination, and (3) the completion of sales of real property when the only act remaining at the date of termination is the actual transfer of title.
(b)If, upon the termination of an initial or a succeeding period of conservatorship, the conservator determines that conservatorship is no longer required but additional help is still warranted, the conservator may request the court to refer the conservatee to the CARE Act court pursuant to Section 5978. Documentation of the authority for a referral pursuant to this subdivision shall be signed by a physician or licensed psychologist and shall confirm that the conservatee is no longer gravely disabled as a result of mental disorder or impairment by chronic alcoholism and meets, or is likely to meet, criteria to qualify for the CARE process, as described in Section 5972.
(b)(c)If, upon the termination of an initial or a succeeding period of conservatorship, the conservator determines that conservatorship is still required, the conservator may petition the superior court for reappointment as conservator for a succeeding one-year period. The petition shall include the opinion of two physicians or licensed psychologists who have a doctoral degree in psychology and at least five years of postgraduate experience in the diagnosis and treatment of emotional and mental disorders that the conservatee is still gravely disabled as a result of mental disorder or impairment by chronic alcoholism. If the conservator is unable to obtain the opinion of two physicians or psychologists, the conservator shall request that the court appoint them. The petition shall also include an attestation by the conservator that they have considered all available alternatives to conservatorship, including, but not limited to, assisted outpatient treatment pursuant to Section 5346 and the CARE Act program pursuant to Section 5978, as applicable, and that reappointment of a conservator is recommended because no suitable alternatives are available.
(c)(d)(1)A facility in which a conservatee is placed shall release the conservatee at the conservatees request when the conservatorship terminates. A petition for reappointment filed by the conservator or a petition for appointment filed by a public guardian shall be transmitted to the facility at least 30 days before the automatic termination date. The facility may detain the conservatee after the end of the termination date only if the conservatorship proceedings have not been completed and the court orders the conservatee to be held until the proceedings have been completed.
(2)A care coordination plan shall be developed by, at a minimum, the individual, the facility, the county behavioral health department, the health care payer, if different from the county, and other individuals designated by the individual as appropriate, and shall be provided to the conservatee prior to their release. The care coordination plan shall include a first followup appointment with an appropriate behavioral health professional. The appointment information shall be provided to the individual before the individual is released. In no event may the individual be involuntarily held based on the requirements of this paragraph beyond when they would otherwise qualify for release. All care and treatment after release shall be voluntary.
(3)For purposes of care coordination and to schedule a followup appointment, the health plan, mental health plan, primary care provider, or other appropriate provider to whom an individual leaving a facility has been referred pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) shall make a good faith effort to contact the referred individual no less than three times, either by email, telephone, mail, or in-person outreach, whichever method or methods are most likely to reach the individual.
(4)The requirement to develop a care coordination plan under this subdivision shall take effect immediately, without waiting for the department to create a model care coordination plan, as required pursuant to Section 5402.5.
SEC. 2.Section 5971 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read:5971.Unless the context otherwise requires, the following definitions shall govern the construction of this part.
(a)CARE agreement means a voluntary settlement agreement entered into by the parties. A CARE agreement includes the same elements as a CARE plan to support the respondent in accessing community-based services and supports.
(b)CARE plan means an individualized, appropriate range of community-based services and supports, as set forth in this part, which include clinically appropriate behavioral health care and stabilization medications, housing, and other supportive services, as appropriate, pursuant to Section 5982.
(c)CARE process means the court and related proceedings to implement the CARE Act.
(d)Clinically stabilized in ongoing voluntary treatment means both of the following:
(1)The persons condition is stable and not deteriorating.
(2)The person is currently engaged in treatment and managing symptoms through medication or other therapeutic interventions. Enrollment in treatment alone shall not be considered clinically stabilized in ongoing voluntary treatment.
(e)Counsel means the attorney representing the respondent, appointed pursuant to Section 5977, or chosen by the respondent, in CARE Act proceedings and matters related to CARE agreements and CARE plans. Representation of a respondent in these matters does not alter counsels obligations under the State Bar Act and the Rules of Professional Conduct, including subdivision (e) of Section 6068 of the Business and Professions Code and rule 1.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
(f)County behavioral health agency means the local director of mental health services described in Section 5607, the local behavioral health director, or both as applicable, or their designee.
(g)Court-ordered evaluation means an evaluation ordered by a superior court pursuant to Section 5977.1.
(h)Department means the State Department of Health Care Services.
(i)Graduation plan means a voluntary agreement entered into by the parties at the end of the CARE program that includes a strategy to support a successful transition out of court jurisdiction and that may include a psychiatric advance directive. A graduation plan includes the same elements as a CARE plan to support the respondent in accessing community-based services and supports. The graduation plan shall not place additional requirements on the local government entities and is not enforceable by the court.
(j)High utilization of emergency services means utilizing 911 or emergency department services 20 times or more in a 12-month period.
(j)(k)Homeless outreach worker means a person who engages people experiencing homelessness to assess for unmet needs, offer information, services, or other assistance, or provide care coordination.
(k)(l)Indian health care provider means a health care program operated by the Indian Health Service, an Indian tribe, a tribal organization, or urban Indian organization (I/T/U) as those terms are defined in Section 4 of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (25 U.S.C. Sec. 1603).
(l)(m)Legal proceeding means any administrative, civil, or criminal proceeding, including, but not limited to, juvenile court proceedings and family court proceedings and services, and any form of alternative dispute resolution, including arbitration and mediation, except for the following:
(1)A proceeding under this part.
(2)A proceeding under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act described in paragraph (2) or (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 5979.
(3)A proceeding from which the respondent was referred to CARE Act proceedings as described in Section 5978.
(4)A disciplinary proceeding under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 6000) of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code.
(5)An appeal from any of the proceedings identified in paragraphs (1) to (4), inclusive.
(m)(n)Licensed behavioral health professional means either any of the following:
(1)A licensed mental health professional, as defined in subdivision (j) of Section 4096.
(2)A person who has been granted a waiver of licensure requirements by the department pursuant to Section 5751.2.
(3)A licensed advance practice provider who renders behavioral health services in accordance with a physician assistant practice agreement.
(4)A licensed nurse practitioner specializing in behavioral health.
(n)(o)Parties means the petitioner, the respondent, the county behavioral health agency in the county where proceedings under this part are pending, and any local governmental entity added by the court pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (d) of Section 5977.1.
(o)(p)Petitioner means the person who or agency that files the CARE Act petition with the court. Additionally, if the petitioner is a person listed in Section 5974 other than the director of a county behavioral health agency, or their designee, the petitioner shall have the right to file a petition with the court, but at the initial hearing the court shall substitute the director of a county behavioral health agency, or their designee, of the county in which the proceedings are filed as petitioner. The original petitioner may, at the courts discretion and in furtherance of the interests of the respondent, retain rights as described in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (6) of subdivision (b) of Section 5977.
(p)(q)Psychiatric advance directive means a legal document, executed on a voluntary basis in accordance with the requirements for advance health care directives in Division 4.7 (commencing with Section 4600) of the Probate Code, by a person who has the capacity to make medical decisions, that allows a person with mental illness to protect their autonomy and ability to direct their own care by documenting their preferences for treatment in advance of a mental health crisis.
(q)(r)Respondent means the person who is the subject of the petition for the CARE process.
(r)(s)Stabilization medications means medications included in the CARE plan that primarily consist of antipsychotic medications to reduce symptoms of hallucinations, delusions, and disorganized thinking. Stabilization medications may be administered as long-acting injections if clinically indicated. Stabilization medications shall not be forcibly administered.
(s)(t)Supporter means an adult designated by the respondent who assists the person who is the subject of the petition, which assistance may include supporting the person to understand, make, communicate, implement, or act on their own life decisions during the CARE process, including a CARE agreement, a CARE plan, and developing a graduation plan. A supporter shall not act independently.
SEC. 3.Section 5972 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read:5972.An individual shall qualify for the CARE process only if all of the following criteria are met:
(a)The person is 18 years of age or older.
(b)(1)The person is currently experiencing a serious mental disorder, as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 5600.3 and has a diagnosis identified in the disorder class: schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorders, or bipolar I disorder with psychotic features, except psychosis related to current intoxication, as defined in the most current version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. This section does not establish respondent eligibility based upon a psychotic disorder that is due to a medical condition or is not primarily psychiatric in nature, including, but not limited to, physical health conditions such as traumatic brain injury, autism, dementia, or neurologic conditions. A person who has a current diagnosis of substance use disorder as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 1374.72 of the Health and Safety Code but who does not also meet the required criteria in this section shall not qualify for the CARE process.
(2)This section does not establish respondent eligibility based upon a psychotic disorder that is due to a medical condition or is not primarily psychiatric in nature, including, but not limited to, physical health conditions such as traumatic brain injury, autism, dementia, or neurologic conditions.
(3)A person who has a current diagnosis of substance use disorder as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 1374.72 of the Health and Safety Code but who does not also meet the required criteria in this section shall not qualify for the CARE process.
(c)The person is not has not been clinically stabilized in ongoing voluntary treatment. treatment for more than 90 days prior to the CARE court filing. High utilization of emergency services is strong evidence that a person is not clinically stabilized. Current enrollment in a full-service partnership program pursuant to Part 4.1 (commencing with Section 5887) does not automatically exclude a person from the CARE Act program.
(d)At least one of the following is true: (1)The person is unlikely to survive safely in the community without supervision and the persons condition is substantially deteriorating. (2) The person is in need of services and supports in order to prevent a relapse or deterioration that would be likely to result in grave disability or serious harm to the person or others, as used in Section 5150.(d)Supervision is required to allow for services and supports to be effective and to prevent substantial deterioration or relapse.
(e)Participation in a CARE plan or CARE agreement would be the least restrictive alternative necessary to ensure the persons recovery and stability.
(f)It is likely that the person will benefit from participation in a CARE plan or CARE agreement.
SEC. 4.Section 5974 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read:5974.The following adult persons may file a petition to commence the CARE process:
(a)A person with whom the respondent resides.
(b)A spouse, parent, sibling, child, or grandparent or an individual who stands in loco parentis to the respondent.
(c)The director of a hospital in which the respondent is hospitalized, including hospitalized pursuant to Section 5150 or 5250, or the directors designee.
(d)The director of a public or charitable organization, agency, or home, or their designee, who has, within the previous 30 days, provided or who is currently providing behavioral health services to the respondent or in whose institution the respondent resides.
(e)A licensed behavioral health professional, or their designee, who is, or has been within the previous 30 days, either supervising the treatment of, or treating the respondent for a mental illness.
(f)A first responder, including a peace officer, firefighter, paramedic, emergency medical technician, mobile crisis response worker, or homeless outreach worker, who has had repeated interactions with the respondent in the form of multiple arrests, multiple detentions and transportation pursuant to Section 5150, multiple attempts to engage the respondent in voluntary treatment, or other repeated efforts to aid the respondent in obtaining professional assistance.
(g)The director or chief of a governmental agency offering first responder services, as described in subdivision (f), or their designee.
(g)(h)The public guardian or public conservator, or their designee, of the county in which the respondent resides or is found.
(h)(i)The director of a county behavioral health agency, or their designee, of the county in which the respondent resides or is found.
(i)(j)The director of county adult protective services, or their designee, of the county in which the respondent resides or is found.
(j)(k)The director of a California Indian health services program, California tribal behavioral health department, who has, within the previous 30 days, provided or who is currently providing behavioral health services to the respondent, or the directors designee.
(k)(l)The judge of a tribal court located in California before which the respondent has appeared within the previous 30 days, or the judges designee.
(l)(m)The respondent.
SEC. 5.Section 5975 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read:5975.The Judicial Council shall develop a mandatory form for use to file a CARE process petition with the court and any other forms necessary for the CARE process. The petition shall be signed under the penalty of perjury and contain all of the following:
(a)The name of the respondent and, if known, the respondents address.
(b)The petitioners relationship to the respondent.
(c)Facts that support the petitioners assertion that the respondent meets the CARE criteria in Section 5972.
(d)Either Any of the following:
(1)An affidavit of a licensed behavioral health professional, including, for purposes of this section only, nurse practitioners as defined in Section 2835 of the Business and Professions Code and physician assistants as defined in subdivision (d) of Section 3501 of the Business and Professions Code, stating that the licensed behavioral health professional or their designee has examined the respondent within 60 270 days of the submission of the petition, or has made multiple attempts to examine, but has not been successful in eliciting the cooperation of the respondent to submit to an examination, within 60 270 days of the petition, and that the licensed behavioral health professional had determined that the respondent meets, or has reason to believe, explained with specificity in the affidavit, that the respondent meets the diagnostic criteria for CARE proceedings.
(2)Evidence that the respondent was detained for a minimum of two intensive treatments pursuant to Article 4 (commencing with Section 5250) of Chapter 2 of Part 1, the most recent one within the previous 60 270 days. Evidence may include, but is not limited to, documentary evidence from the facility where the respondent was detained, or a signed declaration from the petitioner if the petitioner had personal knowledge of the detentions.
(3)Evidence that the respondent was detained for a minimum of two involuntary holds pursuant to Section 5150 in the previous six months.
(4)Evidence that the respondent was referred to a full-service partnership program more than once, but was not enrolled due to inability or unwillingness to engage.
SEC. 6.Section 5976.5 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read:5976.5.(a)Notwithstanding any other law, and except as otherwise provided in this section, a hearing held under this part is presumptively closed to the public.
(b)The respondent may demand that the hearing be public and be held in a place suitable for attendance by the public.
(c)The respondent may request the presence of any family member or friend without waiving the right to keep the hearing closed to the rest of the public.
(d)A request by any other party to the proceeding to make the hearing public may be granted if the judicial officer conducting the hearing finds that the public interest in an open hearing clearly outweighs the respondents interest in privacy.
(e)(1)All reports, evaluations, diagnoses, or other information filed with the court related to the respondents health shall be confidential. The respondent may at any time petition the court for an order sealing these records or any other court records in a proceeding held under this part. Notwithstanding any rule of court prohibiting records kept confidential by law from consideration for sealing, if such a petition is filed, there shall exist a presumption in favor of sealing.
(2)Notwithstanding paragraph (1), and consistent with the requirements of subdivision (d) of Section 5977.4, reports generated by the county behavioral health agency during the CARE process may be disclosed to a provider of health care, as defined in Section 56.05 of the Civil Code, or a covered entity, as defined in Section 160.103 of Title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations, if necessary to assist with ongoing treatment of the respondent.
(f)The fact that evidence is admitted at a proceeding held under this part shall not be the basis for admission of that evidence in any subsequent legal proceeding.
(g)Photographs, recordings, transcripts, other records of proceedings held under this part, and testimony regarding proceedings held under this part shall not be admissible in any subsequent legal proceeding except upon motion by one of the following in that subsequent legal proceeding:
(1)The respondent.
(2)The county behavioral health agency, the public guardian, or the public conservator.
(h)In a proceeding held under this part, this section shall not affect the applicability of paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 5977.1, make admissible any evidence that is not otherwise admissible, or permit a witness to base an opinion on any matter that is not a proper basis for that opinion. The admission or exclusion of evidence shall be pursuant to the rules of evidence established by the Evidence Code, including, but not limited to, Section 352 of the Evidence Code, and by judicial decision.
(i)Before commencing a hearing at the respondents first court appearance, the judicial officer shall inform the respondent of their rights under this section. At subsequent hearings, the court is not required to advise the respondent of their rights under this section upon finding that the respondent understands and waives the additional advisement of their rights.
SEC. 7.Section 5977 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read:5977.(a)(1)The court shall promptly review the petition to determine if the petitioner has made a prima facie showing that the respondent is, or may be, a person described in Section 5972. The court may make a prima facie determination without conducting a hearing.
(2)If the court finds that the petitioner has not made a prima facie showing that the respondent is, or may be, a person described in Section 5972, the court may dismiss the case and, if the court does so, it shall order that the dismissal is without prejudice, unless Section 5975.1 applies. Nothing other than Section 5975.1 prevents a petitioner whose petition was dismissed without prejudice from refiling the petition with amended information.
(3)If the court finds that the petitioner has made a prima facie showing that the respondent is, or may be, a person described in Section 5972, the court shall do one of the following:
(A)If the petitioner is the director of a county behavioral health agency, or their designee, the court shall do the following:
(i)Set the matter for an initial appearance on the petition within 14 court days.
(ii)Appoint a qualified legal services project, as defined in Sections 6213 to 6214.5, inclusive, of the Business and Professions Code, to represent the respondent. If no legal services project has agreed to accept these appointments, a public defender or other counsel working in that capacity shall be appointed to represent the respondent.
(iii)Determine whether the petition includes all of the following information and, if it does not, order the county behavioral health agency to submit a written report with the court within 14 court days that includes all of the following:
(I)A determination as to whether the respondent meets, or is likely to meet, the criteria for the CARE process. As part of this determination, the county behavioral health agency or their designee may recommend that the respondent be considered for alternative treatment, including, but not limited to, an assisted outpatient treatment program under Article 9 (commencing with Section 5345) of Chapter 2 of Part 1, or a grave disability evaluation pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with Section 5200) of Chapter 2 of Part 1, if the agency or their designee determines the respondent requires a higher level of care than the CARE process, but may not determine that the respondent requires a higher level of care if the respondent meets, or is likely to meet, the criteria for the CARE process.
(II)The efforts, timeframes of efforts, and outcome of efforts made by county and noncounty providers to voluntarily engage the respondent prior to the filing of the petition.
(III)Conclusions and recommendations about the respondents ability to voluntarily engage in services. services, documenting how past attempts failed, cognitive deficits, and unmet mental health needs were assessed.
(iv)Order the county behavioral health agency to provide notice to the respondent, the appointed counsel, the petitioner, the supporter, and the county behavioral health agency in the county where the respondent resides, if different from the county where the CARE process has commenced.
(v)The evaluation may be provided to the petitioner and the licensed behavioral health professional who submitted a declaration pursuant to form prepared by Judicial Council.
(B)If the petitioner is a person other than described in subdivision (a) or (b) of Section 5974 and is not the director of a county behavioral health agency, or their designee, the court shall order a county agency, or their designee, as determined by the court, to investigate, as necessary, file a written report with the court as soon as practicable, but within 30 court days, and provide notice to the respondent and petitioner that a report has been ordered. Parties shall complete the investigation with appropriate urgency. The written report shall include all of the following:
(i)A determination as to whether the respondent meets, or is likely to meet, the criteria for the CARE process. As part of this determination, the county behavioral health agency or their designee may recommend that the respondent be considered for alternative treatment, including, but not limited to, assisted outpatient treatment program under Article 9 (commencing with Section 5345) of Chapter 2 of Part 1, or a grave disability evaluation pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with Section 5200) of Chapter 2 of Part 1, if the agency or their designee determines the respondent requires a higher level of care than the CARE process, but may not determine that the respondent requires a higher level of care if the respondent meets, or is likely to meet, the criteria for the CARE process.
(ii)The outcome of efforts made to voluntarily engage the respondent during the report period.
(iii)Conclusions and recommendations about the respondents ability to voluntarily engage in services.
(iv)The information, including protected health information, necessary to support the determinations, conclusions, and recommendations in the report.
(4)If, upon a request by the county agency ordered to investigate and file a report under subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3), the court finds that the county agency is making progress to engage the respondent, the court may, in its discretion, grant the county agency no more than 30 additional days to continue to work with, engage, and enroll the individual in voluntary treatment and services. The county agency shall provide notice to the respondent and petitioner that an extension for filing a report has been granted.
(5)Upon receipt of the report described in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3), the court shall, within five days, take one of the following actions:
(A)If the court determines that voluntary engagement with the respondent is effective, that the individual has stabilized, and that the individual has enrolled or is likely to enroll in voluntary behavioral health treatment, the court shall may dismiss the matter. Where there is a documented history of failed attempts with voluntary engagement, a CARE agreement may still be appropriate.
(B)If the court determines, based on the county agencys report, that the evidence does not support a prima facie showing that the respondent is, or may be, a person described in Section 5972, the court shall dismiss the matter. This section shall not prevent a county behavioral health agency from continuing to voluntarily engage with a person not described in Section 5972 but who is in need of services and supports.
(C)If the court determines, based on the county agencys report, that the evidence does support a prima facie showing that the respondent is, or may be, a person described in Section 5972, and engagement with the county agency was not effective, the court shall do all of the following:
(i)Set an initial appearance on the petition within 14 court days.
(ii)Appoint a qualified legal services project, as defined in Sections 6213 to 6214.5, inclusive, of the Business and Professions Code or, if no legal services project has agreed to accept these appointments, a public defender or other counsel working in that capacity to represent the respondent.
(iii)Order the county agency to provide notice of the initial appearance to the petitioner, the respondent, the appointed counsel, the county behavioral health agency in the county where the respondent resides, and, if different, the county where the CARE court proceedings have commenced.
(b)At the initial appearance on the petition, all of the following shall apply:
(1)The court shall permit the respondent to substitute their own counsel.
(2)Petitioner shall be present. present in person or remotely through remote technology. If the petitioner is not present, the matter may be dismissed.
(3)Respondent may waive personal appearance and appear through counsel. If the respondent does not waive personal appearance and does not appear at the hearing, and the court makes a finding in open court that reasonable attempts to elicit the attendance of the respondent have failed, the court may conduct the hearing in the respondents absence if the court makes a finding in open court that conducting the hearing without the participation or presence of the respondent would be in the respondents best interest.
(4)A representative from the county behavioral health agency shall be present. present in person or remotely through remote technology.
(5)If the respondent asserts that they are enrolled in a federally recognized Indian tribe or are receiving services from an Indian health care provider, a tribal court, or a tribal organization, a representative from the program, the tribe, or the tribal court shall be allowed to be present, subject to the consent of the respondent. The tribal representative shall be entitled to notice by the county of the initial appearance.
(6)(A)If the petitioner is a person other than the director of a county behavioral health agency, or their designee, the court shall issue an order relieving the original petitioner and appointing the director of the county behavioral health agency or their designee as the successor petitioner.
(B)If the original petitioner is described in subdivision (a) or (b) of Section 5974, all of the following apply:
(i)The original petitioner shall have the right to be present and make a statement at the initial hearing on the merits of the petition held pursuant to paragraph (7).
(ii)(I)Until July 1, 2025, the court may, in its discretion, assign ongoing rights of notice to the original petitioner.
(II)Commencing July 1, 2025, unless the court determines, either upon its own motion or upon the motion of the respondent, at any point in the proceedings, that it likely would be detrimental to the treatment or well-being of the respondent, the court shall provide ongoing notice of proceedings to the original petitioner throughout the CARE proceedings, including notice of when a continuance is granted or when a case is dismissed. If a continuance is granted, the notice shall provide a general reason for the continuance, including the absence of the respondent or one of the grounds pursuant to Rule 3.1332 of the California Rules of Court. If a case is dismissed, the notice shall specify the statutory basis for the dismissal. A notice pursuant to this clause shall not disclose any patient information that is protected under the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-191), the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (Part 2.6 (commencing with Section 56) of Division 1 of the Civil Code), or this act, without the respondents consent.
(iii)To the extent that the respondent consents, the court may allow the original petitioner to participate in the respondents CARE proceedings.
(iv)The original petitioner may file a new petition with the court, pursuant to Section 5974, if the matter is dismissed and there is a change in circumstances.
(C)If the original petitioner is not described in subdivision (a) or (b) of Section 5974, the court shall not assign ongoing rights to the original petitioner, other than the right to be present and make a statement at the hearing on the merits of the petition held pursuant to paragraph (7).
(7)(A)The court shall set a hearing on the merits of the petition within 10 days, at which time the court shall determine whether, by clear and convincing evidence, the respondent meets the CARE criteria in Section 5972. In making this determination, the court shall consider all evidence properly before it, including any report from the county behavioral health agency ordered pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) and any additional admissible evidence presented by the parties, including the petition submitted and any statement given by the original petitioner. A licensed behavioral health professional may testify as an expert concerning whether the respondent meets the CARE criteria in Section 5972 provided that the court finds that the professional has special knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education sufficient to qualify as an expert under Section 720 of the Evidence Code. The court may determine that the respondent should be considered for alternative treatment, including, but not limited to, an assisted outpatient treatment program under Article 9 (commencing with Section 5345) of Chapter 2 of Part 1, or a grave disability evaluation pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with Section 5200) of Chapter 2 of Part 1, but may not determine that the respondent requires a higher level of care than the CARE process if the respondent meets the criteria for the CARE process.
(B)The hearing on the merits of the petition may be conducted concurrently with the initial appearance upon stipulation of the successor petitioner and the respondent, subject to the approval by the court.
(c)(1)If, at the hearing on the merits of the petition, the court finds there is not clear and convincing evidence that the respondent meets the CARE criteria in Section 5972, the court shall dismiss the case without prejudice, unless the court makes a finding, in open court, that the original petitioners filing was not in good faith, in which case the dismissal shall be with prejudice.
(2)If, at the hearing on the merits of the petition, the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent meets the CARE criteria in Section 5972, the court shall order the county behavioral health agency to work with the respondent, the respondents counsel, and the supporter to engage the respondent in behavioral health treatment and attempt to enter into a CARE agreement. The court shall set a case management hearing within 14 days.
(3)If the respondent is enrolled in a federally recognized Indian tribe, the county shall provide notice of the case management hearing to the tribe, subject to the consent of the respondent.
(d)The following shall apply to any written report submitted by a county behavioral health agency to the court pursuant to this section:
(1)The report is confidential and not subject to disclosure or inspection under the California Public Records Act (Division 10 (commencing with Section 7920.000) of Title 1 of the Government Code).
(2)The report is inadmissible in any subsequent legal proceeding, except upon motion of the respondent in that subsequent legal proceeding.
(3)The report shall be confidential pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 5976.5. 5976.5, except when the respondent consents to the release of the report.
(4)This subdivision shall not affect the applicability of paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 5977.1, make admissible any evidence that is not otherwise admissible, or permit a witness to base an opinion on any matter that is not a proper basis for such an opinion. The admission or exclusion of evidence shall be pursuant to the rules of evidence established by the Evidence Code, including, but not limited to, Section 352 of the Evidence Code, and by judicial decision.
SEC. 8.Section 5977.1 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read:5977.1.(a)(1)At the case management hearing, the court shall hear evidence as to whether the parties have entered, or are likely to enter, into a CARE agreement.
(2)If the court finds that the parties have entered, or are likely to enter, into a CARE agreement, the court shall do one of the following:
(A)Approve the terms of the CARE agreement or modify the terms of the CARE agreement and approve the agreement as modified by the court, and continue the matter and set a progress hearing for 60 days.
(B)Continue the matter for 14 days to allow the parties additional time to enter into a CARE agreement, upon stipulation of the parties.
(3)Nothing in this subdivision shall prohibit the parties from agreeing to, and the court from approving, amendments to the CARE agreement.
(4)The court may, in its discretion, call additional progress hearings beyond the hearing set at 60 days, for the duration of the CARE agreement.
(b)If the court finds that the parties have not entered into a CARE agreement, and are not likely to enter into a CARE agreement, the court shall order the county behavioral health agency, through a licensed behavioral health professional, to conduct a clinical evaluation of the respondent, unless there is an existing clinical evaluation of the respondent completed within the last 30 days and the parties stipulate to the use of that evaluation. The evaluation shall address, at a minimum, the following:
(1)A clinical diagnosis of the respondent.
(2)Whether the respondent has the legal capacity to give informed consent regarding psychotropic medication.
(3)Any other information as ordered by the court or that the licensed behavioral health professional conducting the evaluation determines would help the court make future informed decisions about the appropriate care and services the respondent should receive.
(4)An analysis of recommended services, programs, housing, medications, and interventions that support the recovery and stability of the respondent.
(c)(1)The court shall set a clinical evaluation hearing to review the evaluation within 21 days. The court shall order the county to file the evaluation with the court and provide the evaluation to the respondents counsel no later than five days prior to the scheduled clinical evaluation hearing. The clinical evaluation hearing may be continued for a maximum of 14 days upon stipulation of the respondent and the county behavioral health agency, unless there is good cause for a longer extension. The evaluation may be provided to the original petitioner, if participating in ongoing proceedings, if the respondent consents.
(2)At the clinical evaluation review hearing, the court shall review the evaluation and other evidence from the county behavioral health agency and the respondent. The county behavioral health agency and the respondent may present evidence and call witnesses, including the person who conducted the evaluation. Only relevant and admissible evidence that fully complies with the rules of evidence may be considered by the court.
(3)At the conclusion of the hearing, the court shall determine whether the respondent, by clear and convincing evidence, meets the CARE criteria in Section 5972 and make orders as follows:
(A)If the court finds that the respondent meets the CARE criteria, the court shall order the county behavioral health agency, the respondent, and the respondents counsel and supporter to jointly develop a CARE plan within 14 days.
(B)If the court does not find that clear and convincing evidence establishes that the respondent meets the CARE criteria, the court shall dismiss the petition. This dismissal equates to a termination of the respondents participation in the CARE process pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 5979.
(4)If the respondent is a self-identified American Indian or Alaska Native individual, as defined in Sections 1603(13), 1603(28), and 1679(a) of Title 25 of the United States Code, has been determined eligible as an Indian under Section 136.12 of Title 42 of the Code of Federal Regulations, or is currently receiving services from an Indian health care provider or tribal court, the county behavioral health agency shall use its best efforts to meaningfully consult with and incorporate the Indian health care provider or tribal court available to the respondent to develop the CARE plan.
(5)The evaluation and all reports, documents, and filings submitted to the court shall be confidential.
(6)The date for the hearing to review and consider approval of the proposed CARE plan shall be set not more than 14 days from the date of the order to develop a CARE plan, unless the court finds good cause for an extension. The party requesting an extension of time for the CARE plan review hearing shall provide notice to the opposing party and their counsel party, their counsel, and the supporter of the request for extension of time, and the courts order if the request is granted.
(d)(1)At the CARE plan review hearing, the parties shall present their plan or plans to the court. The county behavioral health agency or the respondent, or both, may present a proposed CARE plan.
(2)After consideration of the plans proposed by the parties, the court shall adopt the elements of a CARE plan that support the recovery and stability of the respondent. The court may issue any orders necessary to support the respondent in accessing appropriate services and supports, including prioritization for those services and supports, subject to applicable laws and available funding pursuant to Section 5982. These orders shall constitute the CARE plan and may be amended.
(3)A court may order medication if it finds, upon review of the court-ordered evaluation and hearing from the parties, that, by clear and convincing evidence, the respondent lacks the capacity to give informed consent to the administration of medically necessary stabilization medication. To the extent the court orders medically necessary stabilization medication, the medication shall not be forcibly administered and the respondents failure to comply with a medication order shall not result in a penalty, including, but not limited to, contempt or termination of the CARE plan pursuant to Section 5979.
(4)If the proposed CARE plan includes services and supports, such as housing, provided directly or indirectly through another local governmental entity, that local entity may agree to provide the service or support, or the court may consider a motion by either of the parties to add the local entity as a party to the CARE proceeding. If the local entity agrees to provide the service or support, it may request to be added as a party by the court.
(5)If, after presentation of the CARE plan or plans, the court determines that additional information is needed, including from a licensed behavioral health professional, the court shall order a supplemental report to be filed by the county behavioral health agency for which the court may grant a continuance of no more than 14 days, unless there is good cause for a longer extension.
(6)If there is no CARE plan because the parties have not had sufficient time to complete it, the court may grant a continuance of no more than 14 days, unless there is good cause for a longer extension.
(7)This subdivision does not prohibit the parties from agreeing to, and the court from approving, amendments to the CARE plan. The court may also approve amendments to the CARE plan upon the finding that those amendments are necessary to support the respondent in accessing appropriate services and supports, following a hearing on the issue.
(e)The issuance of an order approving a CARE plan pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) begins the CARE process timeline, which shall not exceed one year.
(f)If the parties previously entered into a CARE agreement but the respondent stops engaging with the CARE process, the court may adopt the CARE agreement as a CARE plan. The adoption of the CARE agreement as a CARE plan shall restart the CARE process timeline, which shall not exceed one year.
SEC. 9.Section 5977.2 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read:5977.2.(a)(1)At intervals set by the court and not less frequently than every 60 days after the court orders the CARE plan, the court shall hold a status review hearing. The county behavioral health agency shall file with the court and serve on the respondent, and the respondents counsel and supporter, a report no fewer than five court days prior to the review hearing with the following information:
(A)The progress that the respondent has made on the CARE plan.
(B)What services and supports in the CARE plan were provided, and what services and supports were not provided.
(C)Any issues the respondent expressed or exhibited in adhering to the CARE plan.
(D)Recommendations for changes to the services and supports to make the CARE plan more successful.
(2)The respondent shall be permitted to respond to the report submitted by the county behavioral health agency and to the county behavioral health agencys testimony. The respondent shall be permitted to introduce their own information and recommendations.
(3)Subject to applicable law, intermittent lapses or setbacks described in this section of the report shall not impact access to services, treatment, or housing.
(b)(1)The county behavioral health agency or the respondent may request, or the court upon its own motion may set, a hearing to occur at any time during the CARE process to address a change of circumstances.
(2)To ensure the respondents safety, the county behavioral health agency shall request a status hearing before the court to address a change in circumstances and request the court to use existing legal authority pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with Section 5200) of Chapter 2 of Part 1 to order an evaluation of the respondent if all of the following conditions are met:
(A)The treatment team has made good faith efforts to solicit adherence to the CARE plan by the respondent that have failed.
(B)The respondents nonadherence to the CARE plan has resulted in behavior that is consistent with an established pattern of psychiatric deterioration or symptoms of decompensation.
(C)The treatment team has assessed the respondent.
(D)The treatment team is concerned that the respondent may be in need of a higher level of care.
SEC. 10.Section 5977.3 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read:5977.3.(a)(1)In the 11th month of the process timeline, the court shall hold a one-year status hearing. Not fewer than five court days prior to the one-year status hearing, the county behavioral health agency shall file a report with the court and shall serve the report on the respondent and the respondents counsel and supporter. The report shall include the following information:
(A)The progress that the respondent has made on the CARE plan, including a final assessment of the respondents stability.
(B)What services and supports in the CARE plan were provided, and what services and supports were not provided, over the life of the program.
(C)Any issues the respondent expressed or exhibited in adhering to the CARE plan.
(D)Recommendations for next steps, including what ongoing and additional services would benefit the respondent that the county behavioral health agency can facilitate or provide.
(2)At an evidentiary hearing, the respondent shall be permitted to respond to the report submitted by the county behavioral health agency and to the county behavioral health agencys testimony. The respondent shall be permitted to introduce their own information and recommendations. The respondent shall have the right at the hearing to call witnesses and to present evidence as to whether the respondent agrees with the report. The respondent may request either to be graduated from the program or to remain in the program.
(3)The court shall issue an order as follows:
(A)If the respondent requests to be graduated from the program, and the respondent has successfully completed the CARE process, the court shall order the county behavioral health agency to work jointly agency, the respondent, and the supporter to work together on a voluntary graduation plan and the court shall schedule a hearing in the 12th month after adoption of the CARE plan for presentation of the graduation plan. The court shall review the graduation plan and recite the terms in open court. The graduation plan shall not place additional requirements on local governmental entities and is not enforceable by the court, except that the graduation plan may, at the respondents election, include a psychiatric advance directive, which shall have the force of law. Upon completion of the hearing, the respondent shall be officially graduated from the program.
(B)If the respondent requests to remain in the CARE process, the respondent may request any amount of time, up to and including one additional year. The court may approve the request and thereby permit the ongoing voluntary participation of the respondent if the court finds both of the following:
(i)The respondent did not successfully complete the CARE plan.
(ii)The respondent would benefit from continuation of the CARE plan.
(C)The court shall issue an order permitting the respondent to continue in the CARE plan or denying the respondents request to remain in the CARE plan, and state its reasons in open court.
(b)The respondent may be involuntarily reappointed to the program only if the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that all of the following conditions apply:
(1)The respondent did not successfully complete the CARE process.
(2)All services and supports required through the CARE process were provided to the respondent.
(3)The respondent would benefit from continuation in the CARE process.
(4)The respondent currently meets the requirements in Section 5972.
(c)A respondent may only be reappointed to the CARE process once, for up to one additional year.
(d)If the court finds that involuntary reappointment is unlikely to stabilize the respondent and supervision is necessary, the court may order a grave disability evaluation pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with Section 5200) of Chapter 2 of Part 1 on its own motion or on motion of the county.
SEC. 11.Section 5977.4 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read:5977.4.(a)(1)In all CARE Act proceedings, the judicial officer shall control the proceedings during the hearings with a view to the expeditious and effective ascertainment of the jurisdictional facts and the ascertainment of all information relative to the present condition and future welfare of the respondent. Except when there is a contested issue of fact or law, the proceedings shall be conducted in an informal nonadversarial atmosphere with a view to obtaining the maximum cooperation of the respondent, all persons interested in the respondents welfare, and all other parties, with any provisions that the court may make for the disposition and care of the respondent. The court and relevant local public agencies agencies, including, but not limited to, cities and first responder agencies, shall cooperate to develop a comprehensive set of objectives established to improve performance of the CARE system in a vigorous and ongoing manner. The court is authorized to coordinate and participate in meetings to improve system performance. All evaluations and reports, documents, and filings submitted to the court pursuant to CARE Act proceedings shall be confidential.
(2)Notwithstanding paragraph (1), and consistent with the requirements of subdivision (d), reports generated by the county behavioral health agency during the CARE process may be disclosed to a provider of health care, as defined in Section 56.05 of the Civil Code, or a covered entity, as defined in Section 160.103 of Title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations, if necessary to assist with ongoing treatment of the respondent.
(b) The hearings described in this chapter shall occur in person unless the court, in its discretion, allows a party or witness to appear remotely through the use of remote technology. The respondent shall have the right to be in person for all hearings.(b)Parties and witnesses may appear remotely through the use of remote technology for the hearings described in this chapter. The court shall have the discretion to order a party or witness to appear in person if necessary. The respondent shall have the right to be in person for all hearings.
(c)Consistent with its constitutional rulemaking authority, the Judicial Council shall adopt rules to implement the policies and provisions in this section and in Sections 5977 to 5977.4, inclusive, to promote statewide consistency, including, but not limited to, what is included in the petition form packet, communications between the CARE Act court and the juvenile court, if applicable, the role of the judiciary to improve system performance, and the process by which counsel will be appointed.
(d)(1)Consistent with paragraph (9) of subdivision (b) of Section 56.10 of the Civil Code, the county behavioral health agency shall include in any report evaluation, or other document filed with the court, the information, including protected health information, necessary to support the determinations, conclusions, and recommendations in the filing. The county behavioral health agency shall not, unless ordered to do so by the court, submit to the court original or photocopied records underlying the information in a report evaluation or other document required or ordered under this subdivision. The county behavioral health agency shall serve an unredacted copy of any report evaluation, or other document filed with the court on the respondent and the respondents counsel and, with the consent of the respondent, on the supporter in ongoing proceedings, in a manner authorized by law. Neither a county nor an employee or agent thereof shall be held civilly or criminally liable for any disclosure authorized or required by this paragraph.
(2)(A)Consistent with paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of Section 56.10 of the Civil Code, a provider of health care, as defined in Section 56.05 of the Civil Code, or a covered entity, as defined in Section 160.103 of Title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations, may disclose to the county behavioral health agency any information, including protected health information, and mental health records excluding psychotherapy notes, in its possession about the respondent that is relevant to the county behavioral health agencys provision, coordination, or management of services and supports under this part, including, but not limited to, the preparation of any required investigations, evaluations, or reports. Such a disclosure is a disclosure for treatment purposes, which may be made only to the extent permitted under Section 164.506 of Title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The information disclosed may include substance use disorder patient records only to the extent permitted by Part 2 (commencing with Section 2.1) of Title 42 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
(B)Consistent with paragraph (9) of subdivision (b) of Section 56.10 of the Civil Code, a provider of health care, as defined in Section 56.05 of the Civil Code, or a covered entity, as defined in Section 160.103 of Title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations, that filed a CARE Act petition or executed an affidavit included with a CARE Act petition pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Section 5975 shall provide to the county behavioral health agency any information, including protected health information, and mental health records excluding psychotherapy notes, in its possession about the respondent that may be relevant in connection with an investigation, evaluation, or other report or hearing under this part, or with the provision of services and supports under this part. The provision of information under this paragraph is a disclosure required by law, which may be made only to the extent permitted under subdivision (a) of Section 164.512 of Title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The information disclosed shall include substance use disorder patient records only to the extent permitted by Part 2 (commencing with Section 2.1) of Title 42 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
(C)The county behavioral health agency may apply to the court ex parte for an order requiring any provider of health care, as defined in Section 56.05 of the Civil Code, or any covered entity, as defined in Section 160.103 of Title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations, to provide to the county behavioral health agency, to the court, or both, any information, including, but not limited to, protected health information, and mental health records excluding psychotherapy notes, in its possession about the respondent that may be relevant in connection with an investigation, evaluation, or other report or hearing under this part, or with the provision of services and supports under this part. The provision of information under this paragraph is a disclosure required by law, which may be made only to the extent permitted under Section 164.512 of Title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The information ordered to be disclosed may include substance use disorder patient records only to the extent permitted by Part 2 (commencing with Section 2.1) of Title 42 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
(D)A provider of health care or covered entity shall not be held civilly or criminally liable for any disclosure authorized or required by this section.
(E)The county behavioral health agency shall notify the respondent of a disclosure under this paragraph as follows:
(i)By mail at the respondents last known address, if any.
(ii)To the respondents counsel.
(iii)By including a copy of the notification under clause (i) or (ii) with the next notice of hearing served upon the respondent, if any.
(F)All information, including the facts and records, or summary thereof, shared under this subdivision pursuant to this paragraph shall further be disclosed to the respondent and the respondents counsel, and with the consent of the respondent, to the supporter.
(3)(A)Consistent with paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of Section 56.10 of the Civil Code, the county behavioral health agency may disclose to a provider of health care, as defined in Section 56.05 of the Civil Code, or a covered entity, as defined in Section 160.103 of Title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations, any information, including protected health information, and mental health records excluding psychotherapy notes, in its possession about the respondent that is relevant to the provider or entitys provision, coordination, or management of services and supports under this part, including, but not limited to, the preparation of any required investigations, evaluations, or reports. Such a disclosure is a disclosure for treatment purposes, which may be made only to the extent permitted under Section 164.506 of Title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The information disclosed may include substance use disorder patient records only to the extent permitted by Part 2 (commencing with Section 2.1) of Title 42 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
(B)The county behavioral health agency shall not be held civilly or criminally liable for any disclosure authorized or required by this section.
(C)The county behavioral health agency shall notify the respondent of a disclosure under this paragraph as follows:
(i)By mail at the respondents last known address, if any.
(ii)To the respondents counsel.
(iii)By including a copy of the notification under clause (i) or (ii) with the next notice of hearing served upon the respondent, if any.
(D)All information, including the facts and records, or summary thereof, shared pursuant to this paragraph shall further be disclosed to the respondent and the respondents counsel, and with the consent of the respondent, to the supporter, and the original petitioner, if participating in ongoing proceedings.
(3)(4)(A)Except as expressly provided, further disclosure or redisclosure of information is not authorized by this subdivision.
(B)Information disclosed to a county behavioral health agency by a provider of health care, as defined in Section 56.05 of the Civil Code, or a covered entity, as defined in Section 160.103 of Title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations Regulations, is confidential and not subject to disclosure or inspection under the California Public Records Act (Division 10 (commencing with Section 7920.000) of Title 1 of the Government Code).
(C)Information disclosed to a provider of health care, as defined in Section 56.05 of the Civil Code, or a covered entity, as defined in Section 160.103 of Title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations, by a county behavioral health agency is confidential and not subject to disclosure or inspection under the California Public Records Act (Division 10 (commencing with Section 7920.000) of Title 1 of the Government Code).
(C)(D)Disclosure of information under this part shall not be deemed to in any way alter the duties or responsibilities of a county behavioral health agency, of a provider of health care, as defined in Section 56.05 of the Civil Code, or of a covered entity, as defined in Section 160.103 of Title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations, with respect to the disclosed information under the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (Part 2.6 (commencing with Section 56) of Division 1 of the Civil Code), or the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-191).
(e)(1)The notice of the initial appearance required by Section 5977 shall be served in accordance with the requirements of Section 5977.
(2)All subsequent reports and notices may be served through an alternative method of service agreed to by the parties.
(f)By January 1, 2028, all counties shall establish a process for electronic submission of CARE Act documents using a secured portal.
SEC. 12.Section 5978.1 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read:5978.1.(a)For purposes of this section, facility means a facility that provides assessment, evaluation, and crisis intervention pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 5150, or a designated facility as defined in subdivision (n) of Section 5008.
(b)A facility may refer an individual treated under an involuntary hold pursuant to Articles 1 to 4.7, inclusive, and Article 6 of Chapter 2 of Part 1 of this Division to the county behavioral health agency of the county in which the individual resides, or the county in which the individual is receiving involuntary treatment, if they believe that the individual meets or is likely to meet criteria to qualify for the CARE process, as described in Section 5972.
(1)Referrals pursuant to this section shall be authorized by a licensed behavioral health professional, employed, by or contracted by the facility, who has knowledge of the individuals case and has been involved in the individuals treatment during their involuntary hold. Documentation of the authority for a referral pursuant to this paragraph shall be signed by the licensed behavioral health professional or their designee. designee, and shall confirm that they believe that the individual meets, or is likely to meet, criteria to qualify for the CARE process, as described in Section 5972.
(2)If the facility chooses to make a referral pursuant to subdivision (b), the facility shall make the referral pursuant to this section as soon as clinically indicated as part of the individuals discharge planning process.
(3)The facility referral shall include contact information for the referred individual, including a telephone number and address, if available, and other information as specified by the department.
(c)Within 14 business days of the referral by the facility, the county behavioral health agency shall complete assessment of the individual referred pursuant to this section and shall file a petition pursuant to Section 5975 if the county behavioral health agency determines that the individual meets or is likely to meet criteria for the CARE process and the individual does not engage in voluntary treatment. An expedited assessment may be necessary where there is concern of imminent discharge and foreseeable challenges with locating the respondent. The behavioral health agency shall provide guidelines to facilities on requesting an expedited assessment.
(d)In accordance with subdivision (b) of Section 5984, the department shall develop a referral form to be used by the facility and issue guidance regarding the following:
(1)The procedure for a facility to refer an individual to a county behavioral health agency pursuant to this section.
(2)County behavioral health agency data reporting requirements regarding referrals made pursuant to this section include, but are not limited to, total referrals, referrals where in-person contact was made, outcomes of referrals, reason for not filing a petition, length of time from referral to initial in-person contact, length of time from referral to outcome, and services provided for those engaged voluntarily.
(e)The department shall include data regarding referrals made pursuant to this section as part of the annual CARE Act report required by Section 5985.
(f)This section does not authorize a facility to continue an involuntary hold on a referred individual who no longer meets the criteria for involuntary treatment solely for the purpose of allowing the county behavioral health agency to complete its assessment pursuant to subdivision (b).
(g)This section does not affect the ability of a facility to make a referral for assisted outpatient treatment pursuant to Section 5346.
SEC. 13.Section 5979 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read:5979.(a)(1)If, at any time during the proceedings, the court determines by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent is not participating in the CARE process, after the respondent receives notice, or is not adhering to their CARE plan, after the respondent receives notice, the court may terminate the respondents participation in the CARE process. The court shall make findings on the record about the basis for termination of the respondents participation in the CARE process.
(2)To ensure the respondents safety, the court may shall utilize existing legal authority pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with Section 5200) of Chapter 2 of Part 1. 1, if appropriate. If the court finds it is in the best interest of the respondent, the court may order an evaluation pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with Section 5200) of Part 1 on its own motion, or on motion of the county. The court shall provide notice to the county behavioral health agency and the Office of the Public Conservator and Guardian if the court utilizes that authority.
(3)If the court has ordered an evaluation pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with Section 5200) of Part 1 pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (a), or if the respondent was timely provided with all of the services and supports required by the CARE plan, the fact that the respondent failed to successfully complete their CARE plan, including reasons for that failure, shall be a fact considered by the court in a subsequent hearing under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (Part 1 (commencing with Section 5000)), provided that the hearing occurs within six months of the termination of the CARE plan 5000)) and shall create a presumption at that hearing that the respondent needs additional intervention beyond the supports and services provided by the CARE plan.
(4)The respondents failure to comply with an order shall not result in a penalty outside of this section, including, but not limited to, contempt or a failure to appear.
(5)The respondents failure to comply with a medication order shall not result in any penalty, including under this section.
(b)(1) If, at any time during the CARE process, the court finds that the county or other local government entity is not complying with court orders, the court shall report that finding to the presiding judge of the superior court or their designee.(b)(1)The court shall not terminate the respondents participation in the CARE process due to a failure of the county or other local government entity to properly engage with the CARE process. If the court finds that the respondent is not participating in the CARE process due to a failure of the county or local government entity, the court shall consider the imposition of fines pursuant to the procedure outlined in this subdivision.
(2)(A) The presiding judge or their designee shall issue an order to show cause why the local government entity should not be fined as set forth in this section. The time set for hearing shall be no earlier than 15 days after the date of the order. The scheduled date of the hearing shall allow adequate time for notice of the hearing to be served upon the local government entity.
(B)The presiding judge, or their designee, shall consider the matter on the record established at the hearing. If the presiding judge or their designee finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that the local government entity has substantially failed to comply with this part, or with lawful orders issued by a court under this part, the presiding judge or their designee may issue an order imposing a fine under this section.
(C)A fine under this section shall be in an amount of up to one thousand dollars ($1,000) per day, not to exceed $25,000 twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) for each individual violation identified in the order imposing fines.
(D)(i) Funds collected pursuant to this subdivision shall be deposited in the CARE Act Accountability Fund, which is hereby created in the State Treasury. Upon appropriation, the department shall administer the funds annually, and shall issue guidance, as necessary, to local government entities, pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 5984, regarding the distribution and conditions associated with the administered funds.
(ii)All moneys in the fund shall be allocated and distributed to the local government entity that paid the fines, to be used by that entity to serve individuals who have schizophrenia spectrum or other psychotic disorders and who are experiencing, or are at risk of, homelessness, criminal justice involvement, hospitalization, or conservatorship.
(3)If, after notice and hearing as set forth in paragraph (2), the presiding judge or their designee finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that the local government entity is persistently noncompliant with this part, or with lawful orders issued by a court under this part, the presiding judge or their designee may appoint a special master to secure court-ordered care for the respondent at the local government entitys cost. The presiding judge, or their designee, shall not make an order under this paragraph unless they have received five or more reports under paragraph (1) pertaining to the same local government entity within a one-year period.
(4)In determining the application of the remedies available under this section, the court shall consider whether there are any mitigating circumstances impairing the ability of the local government entity to fully comply with the requirements of this part, or with court orders issued under this part. The court may consider whether the local government entity is making a good faith effort to come into substantial compliance or is facing substantial undue hardships.
(c)Either the respondent or the county behavioral health agency may appeal an adverse court determination.
SEC. 14.Section 5982 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read:5982.(a)The CARE plan may include only the following:
(1)Behavioral health services funded through the 1991 and 2011 Realignment, Medi-Cal behavioral health, health care plans and insurers, and services supported by the Mental Health Services Act pursuant to Part 3 (commencing with Section 5800).
(2)Medically necessary stabilization medications, to the extent not described in paragraph (1).
(3)Housing resources funded through the No Place Like Home Program (Part 3.9 (commencing with Section 5849.1) of Division 5 of the Welfare and Institutions Code); California Housing Accelerator (Chapter 6.6 (commencing with Section 50672) of Part 2 of Division 31 of the Health and Safety Code); the Multifamily Housing Program (Chapter 6.7 (commencing with Section 50675) of Part 2 of Division 31 of the Health and Safety Code); the Homeless Housing, Assistance, and Prevention Program (Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 50216) of Part 1 of Division 31 of the Health and Safety Code); the Encampment Resolution Funding Program (Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 50250) of Part 1 of Division 31 of the Health and Safety Code); the Project Roomkey and Rehousing Program pursuant to Provision 22 of Item 5180-151-0001 of the Budget Act of 2021 (Ch. 21, Stats. 2021); the Community Care Expansion Program (Chapter 20 (commencing with Section 18999.97) of Part 6 of Division 9 of the Welfare and Institutions Code); the CalWORKs Housing Support Program (Article 3.3 (commencing with Section 11330) of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9 of the Welfare and Institutions Code); the CalWORKs Homeless Assistance pursuant to clause (i) of subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (f) of Section 11450 of Article 6 of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9 of the Welfare and Institutions Code; the Housing and Disability Advocacy Program (Chapter 17 (commencing with Section 18999) of Part 6 of Division 9 of the Welfare and Institutions Code); the Home Safe Program (Chapter 14 (commencing with Section 15770) of Part 3 of Division 9 of the Welfare and Institutions Code); the Bringing Families Home Program (Article 6 (commencing with Section 16523) of Chapter 5 of Part 4 of Division 9 of the Welfare and Institutions Code); the Transitional Housing Placement program for nonminor dependents (Article 4 (commencing with Section 16522) of Chapter 5 of Part 4 of Division 9 of the Welfare and Institutions Code); the Transitional Housing Program-Plus pursuant to subdivision (s) of Section 11400 and paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 11403.2 of Article 5 of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9 of the Welfare and Institutions Code and Article 4 (commencing with Section 16522) of Chapter 5 of Part 4 of Division 9 of the Welfare and Institutions Code; the Behavioral Health Continuum Infrastructure Program (Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 5960) of Part 7 of Division 5 of the Welfare and Institutions Code); the Behavioral Health Bridge Housing Program; HUD-Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Program (Section 8(o)(19) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 [42 U.S.C. Section 1437f(o)(19)]); Supportive Services for Veteran Families (Section 604 of the Veterans Mental Health and Other Care Improvements Act of 2008 [38 U.S.C. Sec. 2044]); HUD Continuum of Care program (Section 103 of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act [42 U.S.C. Sec. 11302]); the Emergency Solutions Grant (Subtitle B of Title IV of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act [42 U.S.C. Secs. 11371-11378]); HUD Housing Choice Voucher program (Section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 [42 U.S.C. Sec. 1437f]); the Emergency Housing Vouchers (Section 3202 of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 [Public Law 117-2]; Section 8(o) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 [42 U.S.C. Sec. 1437f(o)]); HOME Investment Partnerships Program (Title II of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act [42 U.S.C. Sec. 12721 et seq.]); the Community Development Block Grant Program (Title 1 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 [42 U.S.C. Sec. 5301 et seq.]); housing supported by the Mental Health Services Act pursuant to Part 3 (commencing with Section 5800); community development block grants; and other state and federal housing resources. resources, including the Assisted Living Waiver program and the Home- and Community-based Services Waiver program.
(4)Social services funded through Supplemental Security Income/State Supplementary Payment (SSI/SSP), Cash Assistance Program for Immigrants (CAPI), CalWORKs, California Food Assistance Program, In-Home Supportive Services program, and CalFresh.
(5)Services provided pursuant to Part 5 (commencing with Section 17000) of Division 9.
(6)Upon the consent of the respondent and the entity or individual financially responsible for the services, additional services to support the recovery and stability of the respondent.
(b)Individuals who are CARE process participants shall be prioritized for any appropriate bridge housing funded by the Behavioral Health Bridge Housing program.
(c)If the county behavioral health agency elects not to enroll the respondent into a full service partnership, as defined in Section 3620 of Title 9 of the California Code of Regulations, the court may request information on the reasons for this and any barriers to enrollment.
(d)All CARE plan services and supports ordered by the court are subject to available funding and all applicable federal and state statutes and regulations, contractual provisions, and policy guidance governing initial and ongoing program eligibility. In addition to the resources funded through programs listed in subdivision (a), the State Department of Health Care Services may identify other adjacent covered Medi-Cal services, including, but not limited to, enhanced care management and available community supports, which may be suggested, although not ordered, by the court, subject to all applicable federal and state statutes, regulations, contractual provisions, and policy guidance.
(e)This section does not prevent a county or other local governmental entity from recommending their own services that are their own responsibility not listed in subdivision (a) or (c). Any such recommendation is not required by this section and shall be made at the request of the county for the purposes of Section 6 of Article XIIIB, and Sections 6 and 36 of Article XIII of the California Constitution.
(f)(1)For respondents who are Medi-Cal beneficiaries, the county in which the respondent resides is the county of responsibility as defined in Section 1810.228 of Title 9 of the California Code of Regulations.
(2)If a proceeding commences in a county where the respondent is found or is facing criminal or civil proceedings that is different than the county in which the respondent resides, the county in which the respondent is found or is facing criminal or civil proceedings shall not delay proceedings under this part and is the responsible county behavioral health agency for providing or coordinating all components of the CARE agreement or CARE plan.
(3)The county in which the respondent resides, as defined in paragraph (1), shall be responsible for the costs of providing all CARE agreement or CARE plan behavioral health services, as defined in paragraph (1) of subdivision (a).
(4)In the event of a dispute over responsibility for any costs of providing components of the CARE agreement or CARE plan, the impacted counties shall resolve the dispute in accordance with the arbitration process established in Section 1850.405 of Title 9 of the California Code of Regulations for county mental health plans, including for respondents who are not Medi-Cal beneficiaries, and pursuant to any related guidance issued pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 5984.
SEC. 15.Section 5983 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read:5983.(a)The California Health and Human Services Agency, or a designated department within the agency, shall do both all of the following:
(1)Engage an independent, research-based entity, as described in Section 5986, to advise on the development of data-driven process and outcome measures to guide the planning, collaboration, reporting, and evaluation of the CARE Act pursuant to this part.
(2)Convene a working group to provide coordination and on-going engagement with, and support collaboration among, relevant state and local partners and other stakeholders throughout the phases of county implementation to support the successful implementation of the CARE Act. The working group shall meet no more than quarterly. The working group shall meet during the implementation and shall end no later than December 31, 2026.
(b)The department shall provide training and technical assistance to county behavioral health agencies to support the implementation of this part, including training regarding the CARE process, CARE agreement and plan services and supports, supported decisionmaking, the supporter role, trauma-informed care, elimination of bias, court-ordered evaluations pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with Section 5200) of Part 1, the continuum of adult housing options, psychiatric advance directives, family psychoeducation, and data collection.
(c)The Judicial Council, in consultation with the department, other relevant state entities, and the County Behavioral Health Directors Association, shall provide training and technical assistance to judicial officers to support the implementation of this part, including training regarding the CARE process, CARE agreement and plan services and supports, working with the supporter, supported decisionmaking, the supporter role, the family role, trauma-informed care, elimination of bias, court-ordered evaluations pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with Section 5200) of Part 1, best practices, and evidence-based models of care for people with severe behavioral health conditions.
(d)The department, in consultation with other relevant state departments and the California Interagency Council on Homelessness, shall provide training to counsel regarding the CARE process and CARE agreement and plan services and supports.
(e)The office of the Governor shall annually release a list of counties prioritizing CARE Court implementation, known as CARE Champions, and counties experiencing challenges with implementation who need technical support and training, known as CARE ICU (Improvement and Coordination Unit) Counties. The Governor shall release these lists to identify overperforming and underperforming counties to receive additional support through the CARE ICU.
SEC. 16.Section 5985 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read:5985.(a)(1)The department shall develop, in consultation with county behavioral health agencies, other relevant state or local government entities, disability rights groups, individuals with lived experience, families, counsel, racial justice experts, and other appropriate stakeholders, an annual CARE Act report. The department shall post the annual report on its internet website.
(2)The department, in consultation with county behavioral health agencies and courts, shall specify the length of time that data on former participants shall be reported pursuant to subdivision (e), which shall be a minimum of 12 months after completion of and a maximum of 36 months following engagement in CARE Act elective services, a CARE agreement, or CARE plan. The same data shall be tracked for cases involving dismissed respondents.
(3)For the purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply:
(A)Former participant means an individual who enters into CARE Act elective services, a CARE agreement, or a CARE plan, but who has either graduated from CARE, or for whom CARE Act proceedings were dismissed or terminated. Counties shall not be responsible for reporting on any individual who is privately insured or who no longer resides in California.
(B)Active participants means an individual who is an elective client, or who has a CARE plan or CARE agreement.
(b)County behavioral health agencies and any other state or local governmental entity, as identified by the department, shall provide data related to the CARE Act participants, services, and supports to the department. The department shall determine the data measures and specifications, and shall publish them via guidance issues pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 5984.
(c)Each county behavioral health department and any other state and local governmental entity, as identified by the department, shall provide the required data to the department, in a format and frequency as directed by the department.
(d)(1)In consultation with the Judicial Council, the department shall develop an annual reporting schedule for the submission of CARE Act data from the trial courts.
(2)Data from the trial courts shall be submitted to the Judicial Council, which shall aggregate the data and submit it to the department consistent with the reporting schedule developed pursuant to paragraph (1).
(3)On an annual basis to be determined by the Judicial Council and consistent with the annual reporting schedule developed pursuant to paragraph (1), the trial courts shall report to the Judicial Council the following data related to CARE Act petitions:
(A)The number of petitions submitted pursuant to Section 5975.
(B)The number of initial appearance hearings on the petition held pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 5977.
(C)The number of petitions submitted electronically.
(D)The number of declarations of licensed behavioral health professionals pursuant to the form prepared by the Judicial Council submitted electronically.
(C)(E)The total number of hearings held pursuant to this part.
(D)(F)The total number of CARE plans ordered and CARE agreements approved.
(E)(G)The total number of court petitions dismissed, as reported by the Judicial Council.
(H)The number of petitions that were dismissed for failure to make a prima facie showing.
(I)The total number of evaluations ordered by the CARE court pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with Section 5200) of Chapter 2 of Part 1.
(e)The annual report shall include process measures to examine the scope of impact and monitor the performance of CARE Act model implementation. The measures and reporting requirements shall be developed by the department in consultation with county behavioral health agencies. The report shall include trial court petition data pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (d) and, to the extent administrative data is available, all of the following information compiled from county behavioral health departments and courts:
(1)The demographics of all participants, including, but not limited to, the age, sex, race, ethnicity, disability, languages spoken, sexual orientation, gender identity, housing status, veteran status, immigration status, health coverage status, including Medi-Cal enrollment status, information related to CARE criteria outlined in Section 5972, and county of residence.
(2)The petitioners relationship to the CARE Act respondent as defined in Section 5974.
(3)The services and supports ordered, the services and supports provided, and the services and supports ordered but not provided to all active and former participants.
(4)The housing placements of all active and former participants. Placements include, but are not limited to, transition to a higher level of care, independent living in the persons own house or apartment, community-based housing, community-based housing with services, shelter, and no housing.
(5)Treatments continued and terminated of all active and former participants.
(6)Substance use disorder rates and rates of treatment among all active and former participants.
(7)Detentions and other Lanterman-Petris-Short Act involvement for all active and former participants.
(8)Criminal justice involvement of all active and former participants.
(9)Deaths among all active and former participants, along with the cause of death.
(10)Type, format, and frequency of outreach and engagement activities provided by a county behavioral health agency to engage an individual who is the subject of a referral or petition, including interactions about the individuals eligible or likely to be eligible and outcomes of these efforts.
(11)In consultation with the department and county behavioral health departments, the number, rates, and trends of contacts made to the county behavioral health agency about individuals eligible or likely to be eligible for the CARE process, including outcomes of those contacts.
(12)The number, rates, and source of referrals to county behavioral health departments, including, but not limited to, referrals resulting in a petition or reason for not filing a petition, length of time from referral to outcome, and services provided for those engaged voluntarily without a petition.
(13)The number, rates, and trends of petitions resulting in dismissal and hearings.
(14)Information on petition dispositions, including, but not limited to, disposition recommendations and the number of days from petition to disposition.
(15)The number, rates, and trends of supporters.
(16)The number, rates, and trends of approved CARE agreements.
(17)The number, rates, and trends of ordered and completed CARE plans.
(18)Statistics on the services and supports, including court orders for stabilizing medications.
(19)The rates of adherence to medication.
(20)The number, rates, and trends of psychiatric advance directives created for active participants.
(21)The number, rates, and trends of developed graduation plans.
(22)Outcome measures to assess the effectiveness of the CARE Act model, such as improvement in housing status, including gaining and maintaining housing, reductions in emergency department visits and inpatient hospitalizations, reductions in law enforcement encounters and incarceration, reductions in involuntary treatment and conservatorship, and reductions in substance use.
(23)A health equity assessment of the CARE Act to identify demographic disparities based on demographic data in paragraph (1), and to inform disparity reduction efforts.
(24)Data regarding referrals made pursuant to Section 5978.1, as part of the CARE Act.
(25)The number of individuals who were referred to a full-service partnership program pursuant to Part 4.1 (commencing with Section 5887) after dismissal or termination from the CARE Act program.
(26)The number of individuals who were enrolled in a full-service partnership program postreferral.
(27)The number of individuals who maintained enrollment in a full-service partnership program for a year following the date of enrollment.
(f)(1)The report shall include, at a minimum, information on the effectiveness of the CARE Act model in improving outcomes and reducing disparities, homelessness, criminal justice involvement, conservatorships, and hospitalization of participants. The annual report shall include process measures to examine the scope of impact and monitor the performance of CARE Act model implementation, such as the number and source of petitions filed for CARE Court; the number, rates, and trends of petitions resulting in dismissal and hearings; the number, rates, and trends of supporters; the number, rates, and trends of voluntary CARE agreements; the number, rates, and trends of ordered and completed CARE plans; the services and supports included in CARE plans, including court orders for stabilizing medications; the rates of adherence to medication; the number, rates, and trends of psychiatric advance directives; and the number, rates, and trends of developed graduation plans. The report shall include outcome measures to assess the effectiveness of the CARE Act model, such as improvement in housing status, including gaining and maintaining housing; reductions in emergency department visits and inpatient hospitalizations; reductions in law enforcement encounters and incarceration; reductions in involuntary treatment and conservatorship; and reductions in substance use. The annual report shall examine these data through the lens of health equity to identify racial, ethnic, and other demographic disparities and inform disparity reduction efforts.
(2)Data shall be stratified by age, sex, race, ethnicity, languages spoken, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, housing status, veteran status, immigration status, health coverage source, and county, to the extent statistically relevant data is available.
(g)The outcomes shall be presented to relevant state oversight bodies, including, but not limited to, the California Interagency Council on Homelessness.
(h)(1)Beginning in 2026, the department shall include in its annual CARE Act report quantitative, deidentified information concerning the operation of this part.
(2)Based on information provided to the department in a form and manner specified by the department, in consultation with the Judicial Council and county behavioral health departments, in accordance with subdivision (b) of Section 5984, the report shall include all of the following information, aggregated by county, compiled from county behavioral health departments, courts, and the department, depending on the source:
(A)The number of contacts to the county behavioral health department about individuals eligible or likely to be eligible for the CARE process, including outcome of contacts.
(B)The number of CARE petitions filed with the superior court.
(C)The petitioner type for each petition filed with the superior court.
(D)Disposition of each petition filed with the superior court.
(E)The number of days between filing each petition and the petitions disposition.
(F)Demographic information of each CARE Act participant or potentially eligible CARE Act participant, including, but not limited to, age, sex, race, ethnicity, disability, languages spoken, sexual orientation, gender identity, housing status, veteran status, immigration status, health coverage status, including Medi-Cal enrollment status, information related to CARE criteria outlined in Section 5972, and county of residence, to the extent administrative data is available and statistically relevant.
(G)The number of referrals of individuals in conservatorship proceedings made pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 5978, including the disposition of each referral.
(H)The number of referrals made pursuant to Section 5978.1, including the disposition of each referral.
(i)Information publicly released or published pursuant to this part shall not contain data that may lead to the identification of participants or petitioners or information that would otherwise allow an individual to link the published information to a specific person. Data published by the department shall be deidentified in compliance with Section 164.514(a) and (b) of Title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
SEC. 17.Section 5988 is added to the Welfare and Institutions Code, to read:5988.(a)There is established within the California Health and Human Services Agency the position of CARE Court Ombudsperson. The CARE Court Ombudsperson shall be appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate.
(b)The CARE Court Ombudsperson shall oversee and investigate complaints by petitioners, participants, and governmental agencies involved in the CARE process, including, but not limited to, judges, county staff, first responders, and city staff.
(c)The CARE Court Ombudsperson shall be considered an administrative agency for purposes of paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 56.10 of the Civil Code. Disclosures to the CARE Court Ombudsperson shall comply with the requirements of paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) and subdivision (e) of Section 164.512 of Title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
(d)Failure to provide information on a timely basis may be referred by the CARE Court Ombudsperson to the director for proceedings pursuant to Section 10744.
(e)Funds obtained from subparagraph (C) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 5979 shall be used to support the work of the CARE Court Ombudsperson.
SEC. 18.If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
SEC. 19.Any section of Senate Bill 989, Senate Bill 1016, and Senate Bill 1242 enacted by the Legislature during the 2026 calendar year that takes effect on or before January 1, 2027, and that amends, adds, repeals and adds, or repeals a section that is amended or added by this act, shall prevail over this act, whether that act is enacted before, or subsequent to, the enactment of this act.
SECTION 1.Section 11972 of the Health and Safety Code is amended to read:11972.(a)Counties and courts that opt to have treatment court programs shall ensure the programs are designed and operated in accordance with state and national guidelines incorporating the Adult Treatment Court Best Practice Standards and Family Treatment Court Best Practice Standards developed by All Rise (founded as the National Association of Drug Court Professionals), with consideration for the distinct court system within which the program operates. It is the intent of the Legislature that key components of the criminal adult treatment court programs include:(1)Integration by treatment courts of behavioral health treatment services with justice system case processing.(2)Promotion of public safety, while protecting participants due process rights, by prosecution and defense counsel using a nonadversarial approach.(3)Early identification of eligible participants from the appropriate high-risk and high-need target population and prompt placement in the treatment court program.(4)Access provided by treatment courts to a continuum of substance use and other behavioral health treatment and social services that are evidence based and meet the specific needs of the participant.(5)Frequent alcohol and other drug testing to monitor abstinence.(6)A system of incentives, sanctions, and service adjustments to achieve participant success.(7)Ongoing judicial interaction with each treatment court participant at the needed frequency to meet the needs of the participant.(8)Monitoring and evaluation to measure the achievement of program goals and gauge effectiveness.(9)Continuing interdisciplinary education to promote effective treatment court planning, implementation, and operations.(10)Forging partnerships among treatment courts, public agencies, and community-based organizations to generate local support and enhance treatment court program effectiveness and to coordinate access to needed complementary services outside the program.(11)Working to ensure equitable access, services, and outcomes for all sociodemographic and sociocultural groups.(12)Including a drug addiction expert to conduct a substance abuse and mental health evaluation of the defendant. The expert shall submit a report of the evaluation to the court and the parties. For the purposes of this paragraph, expert includes, but is not limited to, a psychiatrist, psychologist, a person as described in Section 5751.2 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, or a person whose knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education qualifies them as an expert.(b)A treatment court program that complies with these standards shall be available and offered to a person that is eligible for treatment pursuant to Section 11395.(c)Treatment court programs in this section shall be used to satisfy the requirements in Section 11395.SEC. 2.This act is an urgency statute necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within the meaning of Article IV of the California Constitution and shall go into immediate effect. The facts constituting the necessity are:In order to facilitate the implementation of Proposition 36, an initiative measure enacted at the November 5, 2024, statewide general election, this act must take effect immediately so that treatment courts have a program available for defendants who choose to participate.(a)Counties and courts that opt to have treatment court programs shall ensure the programs are designed and operated in accordance with state and national guidelines incorporating the Adult Treatment Court Best Practice Standards and Family Treatment Court Best Practice Standards developed by All Rise (founded as the National Association of Drug Court Professionals), with consideration for the distinct court system within which the program operates. It is the intent of the Legislature that key components of the criminal adult treatment court programs include:
(1)Integration by treatment courts of behavioral health treatment services with justice system case processing.
(2)Promotion of public safety, while protecting participants due process rights, by prosecution and defense counsel using a nonadversarial approach.
(3)Early identification of eligible participants from the appropriate high-risk and high-need target population and prompt placement in the treatment court program.
(4)Access provided by treatment courts to a continuum of substance use and other behavioral health treatment and social services that are evidence based and meet the specific needs of the participant.
(5)Frequent alcohol and other drug testing to monitor abstinence.
(6)A system of incentives, sanctions, and service adjustments to achieve participant success.
(7)Ongoing judicial interaction with each treatment court participant at the needed frequency to meet the needs of the participant.
(8)Monitoring and evaluation to measure the achievement of program goals and gauge effectiveness.
(9)Continuing interdisciplinary education to promote effective treatment court planning, implementation, and operations.
(10)Forging partnerships among treatment courts, public agencies, and community-based organizations to generate local support and enhance treatment court program effectiveness and to coordinate access to needed complementary services outside the program.
(11)Working to ensure equitable access, services, and outcomes for all sociodemographic and sociocultural groups.
(b)No later than January 1, 2026, the Judicial Council shall revise the standards of judicial administration to reflect state and nationally recognized best practices and guidelines for collaborative programs, including those described in subdivision (a).(12)Including a drug addiction expert to conduct a substance abuse and mental health evaluation of the defendant. The expert shall submit a report of the evaluation to the court and the parties. For the purposes of this paragraph, expert includes, but is not limited to, a psychiatrist, psychologist, a person as described in Section 5751.2 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, or a person whose knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education qualifies them as an expert.
(b)A treatment court program that complies with these standards shall be available and offered to a person that is eligible for treatment pursuant to Section 11395.
(c)Treatment court programs in this section shall be used to satisfy the requirements in Section 11395.
SEC. 2.This act is an urgency statute necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within the meaning of Article IV of the California Constitution and shall go into immediate effect. The facts constituting the necessity are:
In order to facilitate the implementation of Proposition 36, an initiative measure enacted at the November 5, 2024, statewide general election, this act must take effect immediately so that treatment courts have a program available for defendants who choose to participate.
(a)Treatment court programs shall be available to all eligible California defendants. Courts shall ensure the programs are designed and operated in accordance with state and national guidelines incorporating the Adult Treatment Court Best Practice Standards and Family Treatment Court Best Practice Standards developed by All Rise (founded as the National Association of Drug Court Professionals), with consideration for the distinct court system within which the program operates. It is the intent of the Legislature that key components of the criminal adult treatment court programs include:
(1)Integration by treatment courts of behavioral health treatment services with justice system case processing.
(2)Promotion of public safety, while protecting participants due process rights, by prosecution and defense counsel using a nonadversarial approach.
(3)Early identification of eligible participants from the appropriate high-risk and high-need target population and prompt placement in the treatment court program.
(4)Access provided by treatment courts to a continuum of substance use and other behavioral health treatment and social services that are evidence based and meet the specific needs of the participant.
(5)Frequent alcohol and other drug testing to monitor abstinence.
(6)A system of incentives, sanctions, and service adjustments to achieve participant success.
(7)Ongoing judicial interaction with each treatment court participant at the needed frequency to meet the needs of the participant.
(8)Monitoring and evaluation to measure the achievement of program goals and gauge effectiveness.
(9)Continuing interdisciplinary education to promote effective treatment court planning, implementation, and operations.
(10)Forging partnerships among treatment courts, public agencies, and community-based organizations to generate local support and enhance treatment court program effectiveness and to coordinate access to needed complementary services outside the program.
(11)Working to ensure equitable access, services, and outcomes for all sociodemographic and sociocultural groups.
(12)Including a drug addiction expert to conduct a substance abuse and mental health evaluation of the defendant. The expert shall submit a report of the evaluation to the court and the parties. For the purposes of this paragraph, expert includes, but is not limited to, a psychiatrist, psychologist, a person as described in Section 5751.2 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, or a person whose knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education qualifies them as an expert.
(b)A treatment court program that complies with these standards shall be available and offered to a person that is eligible for treatment pursuant to Section 11395.
(c)Treatment court programs in this section shall be used to satisfy the requirements in Section 11395.
SEC. 2.This act is an urgency statute necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within the meaning of Article IV of the California Constitution and shall go into immediate effect. The facts constituting the necessity are:
In order to facilitate the implementation of Proposition 36, an initiative measure enacted at the November 5, 2024, statewide general election, this act must take effect immediately so that treatment courts have a program available for defendants who choose to participate.
(a)Counties and courts that opt to have treatment Treatment court programs shall be available to all eligible California defendants. Courts shall ensure the programs are designed and operated in accordance with state and national guidelines incorporating the Adult Treatment Court Best Practice Standards and Family Treatment Court Best Practice Standards developed by All Rise (founded as the National Association of Drug Court Professionals), with consideration for the distinct court system within which the program operates. It is the intent of the Legislature that key components of the criminal adult treatment court programs include:
(1)Integration by treatment courts of behavioral health treatment services with justice system case processing.
(2)Promotion of public safety, while protecting participants due process rights, by prosecution and defense counsel using a nonadversarial approach.
(3)Early identification of eligible participants from the appropriate high-risk and high-need target population and prompt placement in the treatment court program.
(4)Access provided by treatment courts to a continuum of substance use and other behavioral health treatment and social services that are evidence based and meet the specific needs of the participant.
(5)Frequent alcohol and other drug testing to monitor abstinence.
(6)A system of incentives, sanctions, and service adjustments to achieve participant success.
(7)Ongoing judicial interaction with each treatment court participant at the needed frequency to meet the needs of the participant.
(8)Monitoring and evaluation to measure the achievement of program goals and gauge effectiveness.
(9)Continuing interdisciplinary education to promote effective treatment court planning, implementation, and operations.
(10)Forging partnerships among treatment courts, public agencies, and community-based organizations to generate local support and enhance treatment court program effectiveness and to coordinate access to needed complementary services outside the program.
(11)Working to ensure equitable access, services, and outcomes for all sociodemographic and sociocultural groups.
(b)No later than January 1, 2026, the Judicial Council shall revise the standards of judicial administration to reflect state and nationally recognized best practices and guidelines for collaborative programs, including those described in subdivision (a).(b)A treatment court program that complies with these standards shall be available and offered to a person that is eligible for treatment pursuant to Section 11395.
(c)Treatment court programs in this section shall be used to satisfy the requirements in Section 11395.
SEC. 2.This act is an urgency statute necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within the meaning of Article IV of the California Constitution and shall go into immediate effect. The facts constituting the necessity are:
In order to facilitate the implementation of Proposition 36, an initiative measure enacted at the November 5, 2024, statewide general election, this act must take effect immediately so that treatment courts have a program available for defendants who choose to participate.
|
Date
|
Status
|
|---|---|
| Aug 13, 2026 | August 13 hearing: Held in committee and under submission. |
| Aug 5, 2026 | August 5 set for first hearing. Placed on suspense file. |
| Jul 2, 2026 | Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR. |
| Jul 1, 2026 | From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 11. Noes 0.) (June 30). |
| Jun 25, 2026 | Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on JUD. |
| Jun 24, 2026 | From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on JUD. (Ayes 14. Noes 0.) (June 23). |
| Jun 15, 2026 | Re-referred to Coms. on HEALTH and JUD. pursuant to Assembly Rule 96. |
| Jun 11, 2026 | From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on PUB. S. |
| Jul 15, 2025 | July 15 hearing postponed by committee. |
| Jun 17, 2025 | June 17 set for first hearing canceled at the request of author. |
| Jun 5, 2025 | Referred to Com. on PUB. S. |
| May 29, 2025 | In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk. |
| May 29, 2025 | Read third time. Urgency clause adopted. Passed. (Ayes 38. Noes 0. Page 1336.) Ordered to the Assembly. |
| May 27, 2025 | Read second time. Ordered to third reading. |
| May 23, 2025 | Read second time and amended. Ordered to second reading. |
| May 23, 2025 | From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 6. Noes 0. Page 1188.) (May 23). |
| May 16, 2025 | Set for hearing May 23. |
| Apr 7, 2025 | April 7 hearing: Placed on APPR. suspense file. |
| Mar 28, 2025 | Set for hearing April 7. |
| Mar 25, 2025 | From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 6. Noes 0. Page 533.) (March 25). Re-referred to Com. on APPR. |
| Mar 10, 2025 | From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on PUB. S. |
| Mar 7, 2025 | Set for hearing March 25. |
| Jan 29, 2025 | Referred to Com. on PUB. S. |
| Dec 3, 2024 | From printer. May be acted upon on or after January 2. |
| Dec 2, 2024 | Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print. |
|
Date
|
Description
|
Location
|
Votes
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 30, 2026 | Do pass as amended and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations] | Assembly Standing Committee on Judiciary |
Passed |
|
| Jun 23, 2026 | Do pass as amended and be re-referred to the Committee on [Judiciary] | Assembly Standing Committee on Health |
Passed |
|
| May 29, 2025 | Senate 3rd Reading SB28 Umberg et al. Urgency Clause | Senate Floor |
Passed |
|
| May 23, 2025 | Do pass as amended | Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations |
Passed |
|
| Apr 7, 2025 | Placed on suspense file | Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations |
Passed |
|
| Mar 25, 2025 | Do pass, but first be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations] | Senate Standing Committee on Public Safety |
Passed |
This list shows positions taken on this bill by organizations on the date displayed, which is linked to the original source.
Positions by individuals are not included.
|
Organization
|
Position
|
Date
|
|---|---|---|
| Aclu California Action | ** Against | |
| All People's Health Collective | ** Against | |
| All People’s Health Collective | ** Against | |
| Anti Police-Terror Project | ** Against | |
| Antiracist MD | ** Against | |
| ARCADIA POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION | ** Support | |
| Black Men Speak, Inc. | ** Against | |
| Brea Police Association | ** Support | |
| Buccola Family Homeless Advocacy Clinic | ** Against | |
| Burbank Police Officers Association | ** Support | |
| Cal Voices | ** Against | |
| California Alliance for Retired Americans (CARA) | ** Against | |
| California Association of Mental Health Peer Run Organizations | ** Against | |
| California Association of School Police Chiefs | ** Support | |
| California Association of Social Rehabilitation Agencies | ** Against | |
| California Coalition for Women Prisoners | ** Against | |
| California Coalition of School Safety Professionals | ** Support | |
| California District Attorneys Association | ** Support | |
| California Narcotic Officers Association | ** Support | |
| California Peer Watch | ** Against | |
| California Public Defenders Association | ** Against | |
| California Reserve Peace Officers Association | ** Support | |
| California State Association Of Counties | ** Against | |
| California State Association of Psychiatrists | ** Support | |
| California State Association Of Public Administrators, Public Guardians, And Public Conservators | ** Against | |
| California United for a Responsible Budget (CURB) | ** Against | |
| Californians for Safety and Justice | ** Against | |
| Canary Resistance | ** Against | |
| CD11 Coalition for Human Rights | ** Against | |
| Center for Independent Living Berkeley | ** Against | |
| Centro Legal de la Raza | ** Against | |
| CLAREMONT POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION | ** Support | |
| Coalition on Homelessness | ** Against | |
| Community Lead Advocacy Program Clap | ** Against | |
| Corona Police Officers Association | ** Support | |
| Corporation for Supportive Housing (CSH) | ** Against | |
| COUNTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION (CBHDA) | ** Against | |
| County Behavioral Health Directors Association of California | ** Against | |
| Culver City Police Officers' Association | ** Support | |
| Disability Community Resource Center | ** Against | |
| Disability Rights California | ** Against | |
| Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund (DREDF) | ** Against | |
| Drug Policy Alliance | ** Against | |
| Food Not Bombs | ** Against | |
| FULLERTON POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION | ** Support | |
| Homeless United for Friendship and Freedom | ** Against | |
| Housing is a Human Right | ** Against | |
| Independent Defense Counsel Office, County of Santa Clara | ** Against | |
| Justice2jobs Coalition | ** Against | |
| Kelechi Ubozoh Consulting | ** Against | |
| LA Defensa | ** Against | |
| Law Foundation of Silicon Valley | ** Against | |
| Los Angeles Community Action Network | ** Against | |
| Los Angeles School Police Management Association | ** Support | |
| los angeles school police officers association | ** Support | |
| Mental Health America of California | ** Against | |
| MURRIETA POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION | ** Support | |
| National Alliance to End Homelessness | ** Against | |
| National Homelessness Law Center | ** Against | |
| Newport Beach Police Association | ** Support | |
| Painted Brain | ** Against | |
| Palos Verdes Police Officers Association | ** Support | |
| People's Homeless Task Force Orange County | ** Against | |
| Placer County Deputy Sheriffs’ Association | ** Support | |
| POMONA POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION | ** Support | |
| Project Return Peer Support Network | ** Against | |
| RIVERSIDE POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION | ** Support | |
| Riverside Sheriffs Association | ** Support | |
| Rural County Representatives of California | ** Against | |
| San Bernardino County SheriffS Department | ** Support | |
| San Diego County District Attorneys Office | ** Support | |
| Santa Ana Police Officers Association | ** Support | |
| Senior and Disability Action | ** Against | |
| Urban Counties of California | ** Against | |
| Venice Justice Committee | ** Against | |
| Western Regional Advocacy Project | ** Against |
Date of Hearing: August 5, 2026
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Buffy Wicks, Chair
SBPCA Bill Id:SB 28
Author:(Umberg) – As Amended Ver:July 2, 2026
Policy Committee: | Health | Vote: | 14 - 0 |
Judiciary | 11 - 0 | ||
|
|
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: Yes
SUMMARY:
This bill makes numerous changes to the Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment (CARE) Act. The bill expands eligibility for referral to the CARE Act, expands the scope of evidence a court may consider as part of a CARE petition, requires the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) develop a model exit plan for individuals who need a higher level of care than is available through the CARE process, and establishes a CARE Court ombudsperson to oversee complaints regarding the program, among many other changes.
Please refer to the Assembly Judiciary Committee analysis for an enumeration of the provisions of this bill.
FISCAL EFFECT:
- DHCS estimates costs of $3.86 million (General Fund (GF)) for fiscal year (FY) 2027-28 and $340,000 GF for FY 2028-29 and ongoing for state operations, as follows: $3.5 million for FY 2027-28 in contract resources to augment its existing contract for CARE Act implementation, training and technical assistance (TTA), data collection, reporting, and operationalizing a process to receive, aggregate, and report CARE Act documentation for up to 58 separate electronic portals. The contract resources would also support development of: a new model exit plan; revision of CARE Act policies, the data dictionary and reporting specifications; statewide training curricula and technical assistance resources; modification of data collection systems, reporting tools, and quality assurance processes; development of new reporting methodologies and statewide performance measures; stakeholder engagement activities; and coordination with county behavioral health agencies (CBHAs) and the Judicial Council (Council). The contracted vendor would also be required to deliver retraining statewide to implement changes to eligibility criteria, petition processes, data reporting, confidentiality and information sharing rules, diversion processes, and court-related procedures. DHCS will help the California Health and Human Services Agency (CalHHS) support underperforming counties.
DHCS will also require $358,000 (GF) in FY 2027-28 and $340,000 (GF) in FY 2028-29 and ongoing for two permanent full-time staff positions to lead cross-system coordination efforts with CBHAs, the Council, CalHHS, the CARE Act Ombudsperson, and other state and local partners, among other activities. - DHCS estimates local costs could reach the low tens of millions of dollars (GF) initially and up to $10 million annually ongoing. A coalition of the County Behavioral Health Directors Association (CBHDA); Urban Counties of California; California State Association of Counties; California State Association of Public Administrators, Public Guardians, and Public Conservators; and Rural County Representatives of California estimates costs of $67.6 million to $150.9 million annually, which would be reimbursable by the state (GF). CBHAs’ CARE Act workload would increase due to additional referrals; new data reporting; monitoring of individuals with dismissed petitions related to the new exit plans; providing notices of disclosures of protected information; increased court reporting time; and additional data gathering, tracking, and reporting.
- CalHHS estimates costs of $3.76 million as follows: $1.76 million for eight staff positions and $2 million in contracts and grants, including $1.5 million annually to contract for capacity and subject matter expertise to provide training and technical assistance to address common complaints or grievances to improve overall CARE Act implementation and $500,000 in mini-grants for local agencies to adopt improvements identified through technical assistance (GF).
- The Council estimates cost pressures between $4.8 million and $7.8 million in the first year of implementation and $1.7 million to $3.7 million in the second year and annually thereafter. All years will include additional staffing needs at the Council and for the courts, as well as increased hearing workload and calendaring cost pressures. The first year also includes the cost to update the case management systems to add the additional data elements as well as the technology upgrades needed to ensure all 58 courts can accept electronic filing of CARE petitions. The Council states that if funding is not provided for the new workload created by this bill, delays and prioritization of court cases may impact access to justice (Trial Court Trust Fund, GF).
COMMENTS:
- Purpose. According to the author:
Now that CARE Court has been active for nearly three years, there is clear data and evidence of unintended implementation issues such as high numbers of dismissed participants and lack of CARE Plans. [This bill] creates numerous, urgently needed, commonsense CARE Court reforms in order to increase accessibility and accountability.
- Background. SB 1338 (Umberg), Chapter 319, Statutes of 2022, established the CARE Act to provide community-based behavioral health services and supports, by means of a civil court process, to Californians living with untreated schizophrenia spectrum or other psychotic disorders who meet certain health and safety conditions. The CARE Act is intended to serve as an upstream intervention for individuals experiencing severe impairment to prevent more restrictive alternatives, including psychiatric hospitalizations, incarceration, and conservatorship under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act. The CARE Act has been in effect statewide since December 1, 2024.
The CARE Act process begins when a person (“petitioner”) files a petition with the court seeking services for a qualifying person with a serious mental disorder (“respondent”). The court orders a clinical evaluation and appoints a public defender and a support person to represent the respondent in legal proceedings and help the respondent navigate the CARE court process. If the court finds that the respondent meets the statutory criteria, the court orders the parties and the CBHA to develop a proposed CARE treatment plan for the respondent. Once the court approves the plan, it becomes a court-ordered treatment plan that requires the respondent to participate in specified clinically appropriate, community-based services for a set period of time. If a respondent fails to complete their CARE treatment plan, a future court may consider that fact when determining whether to place the respondent under a conservatorship. - Support. The California State Association of Psychiatrists (CSAP) writes in support that this bill will result in individuals leaving conservatorship who continue to need intensive community support being more likely to receive ongoing treatment and supervision. CSAP adds that this bill recognizes that frequent use of emergency services is strong evidence that a person is not successfully stabilized in the community. CSAP argues that allowing prior Section 5150 holds and inability to enroll in the Full Service Partnership program to serve as evidence supporting eligibility for the CARE Act, this bill provides city agencies with documentation that can support CARE Act petitions, making CARE Court more accessible. CSAP also argues SB 28 improves care coordination and reduces barriers to treatment by authorizing sharing of CARE Act information among behavioral health professionals.
- Opposition. Among many organizations opposing this bill, a coalition of CBHDA, Urban Counties of California, California State Association of Counties, California State Association of Public Administrators, Public Guardians, and Public Conservators, and Rural County Representatives of California, write that while they appreciate the amendments taken in both Assembly Health and Judiciary committees, SB 28 still proposes significant and concerning changes to the CARE Act, including the requirement for counties to share confidential health information, which could create exposure related to the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) violations, and the establishment of new vague and non-clinically sound thresholds for an expedited CARE assessment. The Drug Policy Alliance argues California should invest in accessible, voluntary, and evidence-based behavioral health services that people can choose to engage with, and that lasting recovery is best supported through trust, autonomy, and meaningful access to care—not through court-based processes that increase coercion and involvement in the legal system.
Analysis Prepared by: Allegra Kim / APPR. / (916) 319-2081
Date of Hearing: June 30, 2026
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Ash Kalra, Chair
SBPCA Bill Id:SB 28
Author:(Umberg) – As Amended Ver:June 25, 2026
As Proposed to be Amended
SENATE VOTE: NOT RELEVANT
SUBJECT: COMMUNITY ASSISTANCE, RECOVERY, AND EMPOWERMENT (CARE) COURT PROGRAM
SYNOPSIS
Senate Bill 1338 (Umberg), Chapter 319, Statutes of 2022, established the Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment (CARE) Act, which provides community-based behavioral health services and supports, by means of a civil court process, to Californians living with untreated schizophrenia spectrum or other psychotic disorders. The CARE Act is intended to serve as an upstream intervention for individuals experiencing severe impairment to prevent more restrictive alternatives, including psychiatric hospitalizations, incarceration, Assisted Outpatient Therapy, and Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) conservatorships. This bill is the latest in a series of seemingly annual bills to modify the CARE Act. The bill proposes a number of changes to the CARE Act, including expanding the scope of evidence that can be considered as part of a CARE petition, requiring the development of a model exit plan for individuals that may need a higher level of care than available through the CARE process, allowing courts to adopt CARE agreements as CARE plans under specified circumstances, and establishing a CARE Court ombudsperson to oversee complaints regarding the program, among other things.
Given the time pressures to hear this recently amended bill, minimal amendments are proposed to be taken at the Committee’s hearing. However, further recommendations are described in the analysis. This bill is author-sponsored and enjoys the support of the California State Association of Psychiatrists and two members of the public. This bill is also opposed by a number of organizations, including civil rights advocacy organizations, disability rights organizations, and organizations representing county behavioral health agencies, as well as public guardians, conservators, and administrators. This bill was recently approved by the Assembly Health Committee 14-0.
SUMMARY: Makes a number of changes to the CARE Act, including expanding the scope of evidence that can be considered as part of a CARE petition, requiring the development of a model exit plan for individuals that may need a higher level of care than available through the CARE process, and establishing a CARE Court ombudsperson to oversee complaints regarding the program, among other things. Specifically, this bill:
- Provides that if, upon the termination of an initial or a succeeding period of conservatorship, the conservator determines that conservatorship is no longer required but additional help is still warranted, the conservator may request the court to refer the conservatee to the CARE Act court. Requires documentation of the authority for a referral to be signed by a physician or licensed psychologist. Specifies that the referral must confirm that the conservatee is no longer gravely disabled as a result of mental disorder or impairment by chronic alcoholism and meets, or is likely to meet, criteria to qualify for the CARE process.
- Allows a CARE petition to include evidence that the respondent was detained for a minimum of two involuntary 5150 holds in the previous 120 days and evidence that the respondent was referred to a full-service partnership program more than once, but was not enrolled due to inability or unwillingness to engage in the previous 120 days.
- Specifies that, beginning July 1, 2028, if the court dismisses a CARE petition because a respondent needs a higher level of services, the court may order the county to develop an exit plan for the respondent.
- Requires the Department of Health Care Services, no later than July 1, 2028, to develop, with input from a stakeholder group, a CARE Act model exit plan that identifies appropriate services and ongoing monitoring of an individual with a petition dismissed from the CARE Act because the court determined that they need a higher level of services. Requires the stakeholder group to include, at a minimum, county behavioral health agencies, county CARE courts, racial justice experts, and other appropriate stakeholders, including providers and CARE court participants.
- Allows the court to adopt the CARE agreement as a CARE plan if all of the following are true:
- The respondent has stopped engaging with the CARE process for 60 days or more despite documented attempts by the county, local agency, or treatment providers to maintain engagement with the respondent.
- All elements of the CARE agreement have been provided to the respondent by the county or other local agency, as required.
- The court finds that a CARE plan would be a more effective alternative than potential dismissal from the CARE process.
- Specifies that the adoption of the CARE agreement as a CARE plan will not reset the one-year timeline in the CARE process.
- Specifies that 5) does not limit or alter the court’s authority to adopt a CARE plan pursuant to existing law.
- Allows parties and witnesses to appear remotely through the use of remote technology for the hearings described in the CARE Act. Specifies that a court has the discretion to order a party or witness to appear in person, if necessary.
- Specifies that all subsequent reports and notices served after the notice of initial appearance on the CARE petition may be served through alternative methods of service agreed to by the parties.
- Requires all counties, by January 1, 2028, to establish a process for electronic submission of CARE Act documents using a secured portal.
- Requires a behavioral health professional or their designee to confirm that they believe the individual meets or is likely to meet the CARE Act eligibility criteria for a referral from an LPS designated facility to the CARE program.
- Specifies that an expedited assessment may be necessary for referrals from an LPS- designated facility to the CARE program where there is concern of imminent discharge and foreseeable challenges with locating the respondent.
- Requires the court to make findings on the record about the basis for termination of the respondent’s participation in the CARE process.
- Provides that, the court must not terminate the respondent’s participation in the CARE process solely due to a failure of the county or other local government entity to properly engage with the CARE process.
- Specifies that the same data that is tracked for former participants pursuant to existing law must also be tracked for cases involving dismissed respondents.
- Specifies that the trial courts must report to the Judicial Council the following additional data related to CARE Act petitions:
- The number of petitions submitted electronically.
- The number of declarations of licensed behavioral health professionals pursuant to the form prepared by the Judicial Council submitted electronically.
- The number of petitions that were dismissed for failure to make a prima facie showing.
- The total number of court-ordered mental evaluations ordered by the CARE court.
- Specifies that the annual CARE Act report must include all of the following additional information compiled from county behavioral health departments and courts:
- The number of individuals who were referred to a full-service partnership program after dismissal or termination from the CARE Act program.
- The number of individuals who were enrolled in a full-service partnership program postreferral.
- The number of individuals who maintained enrollment in a full-service partnership program for a year following the date of enrollment.
- Provides that consistent with existing law, the county behavioral health agency may disclose to a provider of health care, or a covered entity, any information, including protected health information, and mental health records excluding psychotherapy notes, in its possession about the respondent that is relevant to the provider or entity’s provision, coordination, or management of services and supports, including, but not limited to, the preparation of any required investigations, evaluations, or reports. Specifies that such a disclosure is a disclosure for treatment purposes, which may be made only to the extent permitted under existing law. The information disclosed may include substance use disorder patient records only to the extent permitted by federal law.
- Specifies that the county behavioral health agency cannot be held civilly or criminally liable for any disclosure authorized or required.
- The county behavioral health agency shall notify the respondent of a disclosure pursuant to 18) as follows:
- By mail at the respondent’s last known address, if any.
- To the respondent’s counsel.
- By including a copy of the notification with the notice of the next hearing served upon the respondent, if any.
- Specifies that all information, including the facts and records, or summary thereof, shared pursuant to 18) must further be disclosed to the respondent and the respondent’s counsel and with the consent of the respondent, to the supporter, and the original petitioner, if participating in the ongoing proceedings.
- Specifies that information disclosed to a provider of health care or a covered entity by a county behavioral health agency is confidential and not subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act.
- Allows reports generated by the county behavioral health agency during the CARE process to be disclosed to a provider of health care or a covered entity, if necessary to assist with ongoing treatment of the respondent.
- Allows an evaluation of a petition to be provided to the petitioner and the licensed behavioral health professional who submitted the declaration pursuant to the form prepared by the Judicial Council.
- Specifies that a clinical evaluation of the respondent may be provided to the original petitioner, if participating in ongoing proceedings, if the respondent consents.
- Specifies the Assisted Living Waiver program and the Home- and Community-based Services Waiver program as federal housing programs to be considered for the respondent’s CARE plan.
- Specifies that it is the intent of the Legislature to identify appropriate metrics of success to measure counties successfully implementing the CARE Act and counties experiencing challenges with implementation who need technical support and training.
- Requires the California Health and Human Services Agency to annually release a list identifying overperforming counties, known as CARE Champions.
- Requires the California Health and Human Services Agency to annually provide a written notice identifying areas of concern and opportunities for improvement for underperforming counties.
- Establishes within the California Health and Human Services Agency the position of CARE Court Ombudsperson. Specifies that the CARE Court Ombudsperson will be appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate.
- Requires the CARE Court Ombudsperson to oversee and investigate complaints by petitioners, respondents, participants, and governmental agencies involved in the CARE process, including, but not limited to, judges, county staff, first responders, and city staff.
EXISTING LAW:
- Establishes the LPS Act to end the inappropriate, indefinite, and involuntary commitment of persons with mental health disorders, developmental disabilities, and chronic alcoholism, as well as to safeguard a person’s rights, provide prompt evaluation and treatment, and provide services in the least restrictive setting appropriate to the needs of each person. (Welfare and Institutions Code Section 5000 et seq. All further statutory references are to this code, unless otherwise indicated.)
- Defines the following for the purposes of the LPS Act:
- “Evaluation” consists of multidisciplinary professional analyses of a person’s medical, psychological, educational, social, financial, and legal conditions as may appear to constitute a problem.
- “Intensive treatment” consists of such hospital and other services as may be indicated. Intensive treatment shall be provided by properly qualified professionals and carried out in facilities qualifying for reimbursement under the Medi-Cal or Medicare program. Intensive treatment may be provided in hospitals of the United States government by properly qualified professionals.
- “Gravely disabled” means any of the following, as applicable:
- A condition in which a person, as a result of a mental health disorder, a severe substance use disorder, or a co-occurring mental health disorder and a severe substance use disorder, is unable to provide for their basic personal needs for food, clothing, shelter, personal safety, or necessary medical care.
- A condition in which a person has been found mentally incompetent and specified facts exist. (Section 5008.)
- Provides that when a person, as a result of a mental health disorder, is a danger to others, or to themselves, or gravely disabled, a peace officer, professional person in charge of a facility designated by the county for evaluation and treatment, member of the attending staff, as defined by regulation, of a facility designated by the county for evaluation and treatment, designated members of a mobile crisis team, or professional person designated by the county may, upon probable cause, take, or cause to be taken, the person into custody for a period of up to 72 hours for assessment, evaluation, and crisis intervention, or placement for evaluation and treatment in a facility designated by the county for evaluation and treatment and approved by the State Department of Health Care Services. (Section 5150.)
- Specifies that if a person is detained for 72 hours under Section 5150, or under court order for evaluation, and has received an evaluation, the person may be certified for not more than 14 days of intensive treatment related to the mental health disorder or impairment by chronic alcoholism, under the following conditions:
- The professional staff of the agency or facility providing evaluation services has analyzed the person’s condition and has found the person is, as a result of a mental health disorder or impairment by chronic alcoholism, a danger to others or to themselves, or is gravely disabled.
- The facility providing intensive treatment is designated by the county to provide intensive treatment and agrees to admit the person. A facility will not be designated to provide intensive treatment unless it complies with the certification review hearing required by the LPS Act. The procedures must be described in the county Short-Doyle plan.
- The person has been advised of the need for, but has not been willing or able to accept, treatment on a voluntary basis.
- A person is not “gravely disabled” if that person can survive safely without involuntary detention with the help of responsible family, friends, or others who are both willing and able to help provide for the person’s basic personal needs for food, clothing, or shelter. (Section 5250.)
- Establishes the Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment (CARE) Act, which provides community-based behavioral health services and supports, by means of a civil court process, to Californians living with untreated schizophrenia spectrum or other psychotic disorders that meet specified criteria. (Section 5970 et seq.)
- Defines the following terms:
- “CARE agreement” means a voluntary settlement agreement entered into by the parties. A CARE agreement includes the same elements as a CARE plan to support the respondent in accessing community-based services and supports.
- “CARE plan” means an individualized, appropriate range of community-based services and supports, which include clinically appropriate behavioral health care and stabilization medications, housing, and other supportive services, as appropriate.
- “Petitioner” means the person who files the CARE Act petition with the court.
- “Respondent” means the person who is the subject of the petition for the CARE process.
- “Supporter” means an adult designated by the respondent who assists the person who is the subject of the petition for the CARE process, which assistance may include supporting the person to understand, make, communicate, implement, or act on their own life decisions during the CARE process, including a CARE agreement, a CARE plan, and developing a graduation plan. (Section 5971.)
- Specifies that an individual will qualify for the CARE process only if all of the following criteria are met:
- The person is 18 years or older.
- The person is currently experiencing a serious mental health disorder and has a diagnosis identified in the disorder class: schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorders, or bipolar I disorder with psychotic features, except psychosis related to current intoxication, as defined in the most current version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Specifies that the statute does not establish respondent eligibility based upon a psychotic disorder that is due to a medical condition or is not primarily psychiatric in nature, including, but not limited to, physical health conditions such as traumatic brain injury, autism, dementia, or neurologic conditions. Specifies that a person who has a current diagnosis of substance use disorder, as defined, but who does not also meet the required criteria will not qualify for the CARE process.
- The person is not clinically stabilized in ongoing voluntary treatment.
- At least one of the following is true:
- The person is unlikely to survive safely in the community without supervision and the person’s condition is substantially deteriorating.
- The person is in need of services and supports in order to prevent a relapse or deterioration that would be likely to result in grave disability or serious harm to the person or others, as defined.
- Participation in a CARE plan or CARE agreement would be the least restrictive alternative necessary to ensure the person’s recovery and stability.
- It is likely that the person will benefit from participation in a CARE plan or CARE agreement. (Section 5972.)
- Allows the following adult persons to file a petition to commence the CARE process:
- A person with whom the respondent resides.
- A spouse, parent, sibling, child, or grandparent or an individual who stands in loco parentis to the respondent.
- The director of a hospital or director’s designee in which the respondent is hospitalized.
- The director of a public charitable organization, agency, or home, or their designee, who has within the previous 30 days, provided or who is currently providing behavioral health services to the respondent or in whose institution the respondent resides.
- A licensed behavioral health professional, or their designee, who is, or has been within the previous 30 days, either supervising the treatment of, or treating the respondent for a mental health illness.
- A first responder, including a peace officer, firefighter, paramedic, emergency medical technician, mobile crisis response worker, or homeless outreach worker, who has had repeated interactions with the respondent in the form of multiple arrests, multiple “5150” detentions and transportation pursuant, multiple attempts to engage the respondent in voluntary treatment, or other repeated efforts to aid the respondent in obtaining professional assistance.
- The public guardian or public conservator, or their designee, of the county in which the respondent resides or is found.
- The director of county behavioral health agency, or their designee, of the county in which the respondent resides or is found.
- The director of county adult protective services, or their designee, of the county in which the respondent resides or is found.
- The director of California Indian health services program, California tribal behavioral health department, who has, within the previous 30 days, provided or who is currently providing behavioral health services to the respondent, or the director’s designee.
- The judge of a tribal court located in California before which the respondent has appeared within the previous 30 days, or the judge’s designee.
- The respondent. (Section 5974.)
- Requires the Judicial Council to develop a mandatory form for use to file a CARE process petition with the court and any other forms necessary for the CARE process. Requires the petition to be signed under penalty of perjury and contain all of the following:
- The name of the respondent and, if known, the respondent’s address.
- The petitioner’s relationship to the respondent.
- Facts supporting the petitioner’s assertion that the respondent meets the CARE criteria.
- Either of the following:
- An affidavit of a licensed behavioral professional, including, nurse practitioners and physician assistants, stating that the licensed behavioral health professional or their designee has examined the respondent within 60 days of the submission of the petition, or has made multiple attempts to examine, but has not been successful in eliciting the cooperation of the respondent, or has reason to believe, explained with specificity in the affidavit, that the respondent meets the diagnostic criteria for CARE proceedings.
- Evidence that the respondent was detained for a minimum of two intensive treatments, as defined, the most recent one within the previous 60 days. Evidence may include, but is not limited to, documentary evidence from the facility where the respondent was detained, or a signed declaration from the petitioner if the petitioner had personal knowledge of the detentions. (Section 5975.)
- Specifies that if, at any time during CARE court proceedings, the court determines by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent is not participating in the CARE process, after the respondent receives notice, or is not adhering to their CARE plan, after the respondent receives notice, the court may terminate the respondent’s participation in the CARE process. (Section 5979 (a).)
- Specifies that a court may, to ensure the respondent’s safety, utilize existing legal authority to order an LSP mental health evaluation. Requires the court to provide notice to the county behavioral health agency and the Office of the Public Conservator and Guardian if the court utilizes that authority. (Id.)
- Specifies that if the respondent was timely provided with all of the services and supports required by the CARE plan, the fact that the respondent failed to successfully complete their plan, will be a fact considered by the court in a subsequent hearing under the LPS Act, provided that the hearing occurs within six months of the termination of the CARE plan and will create a presumption at that hearing that the respondent needs additional intervention beyond the supports and services provided by the CARE plan. (Id.)
- Requires the Department of Health Care Services to develop, in consultation with county behavioral agencies, other relevant or local government entities, disability rights groups, individuals with lived experience, families, counsel, racial justice experts, other appropriate stakeholders, an annual CARE Act report. Requires the department to post the report on its internet website. (Section 5985 (a).)
FISCAL EFFECT: As currently in print this bill is keyed fiscal.
COMMENTS: Senate Bill 1338 (Umberg), Chap. 319, Stats. 2022, established the Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment (CARE) Act, which provides community-based behavioral health services and supports, by means of a civil court process, to Californians living with untreated schizophrenia spectrum or other psychotic disorders who meet certain health and safety conditions. The CARE Act is intended to serve as an upstream intervention for individuals experiencing severe impairment to prevent more restrictive alternatives, including psychiatric hospitalizations, incarceration, Assisted Outpatient Therapy (AOT), and Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) conservatorship. This bill is the latest in a series of annual bills to modify the CARE Act which has only been in effect statewide since December 1, 2024. The bill proposes a number of changes to the CARE Act, which modify the scope of evidence that can be considered in the petition, allow for the adoption of a CARE agreement as a CARE plan, and require the development of a model exit plan from CARE court for individuals requiring a higher level of care, among other things. According to the author:
SB 28 addresses gaps in the current CARE Act program (colloquially known as CARE Court) by ensuring greater accessibility and accountability throughout the process. Now that CARE Court has been active for nearly three years, there is clear data and evidence of unintended implementation issues. Therefore, SB 28 is desperately needed to reform several CARE Court procedures and create more accountability.
Background – CARE Act. A central feature of the CARE Act are “CARE Courts,” intended to deliver mental health and substance use disorder services as an alternative to incarceration in a jail or psychiatric facility of a person with schizophrenia or another psychotic disorder, or to that person becoming subject to an LPS conservatorship. The CARE Act provides for court-ordered CARE plans for persons suffering from a mental health crisis for up to 12 months, with possible extensions. The plan is supposed to provide individuals with clinically appropriate, community-based services. These might include court-ordered stabilization medications, wellness and recovery support, help with finding social services and housing.
This bill makes several major changes to the CARE Act, which are specified in detail below. Other minor provisions of the bill, include additional data collection requirements for the annual CARE Act report, provisions allowing for the use of alternative methods of service for notices issued as part of the CARE process, the development of an electronic submission process for CARE petitions, and other technical aspects of the program that may not be within this Committee’s jurisdiction, and as such, are not discussed in this analysis.
Expanding the scope of evidence within a CARE petition. The first step in the CARE Court process is a “referral” – that is, a petition to the court by a family member, mental health provider, or first responder, among others. As part of the implementation of the Act, the Judicial Council was required to develop a CARE process petition form that can be filed with the court. (Section 5975.) The petition has to be signed under penalty of perjury and must contain specified information. (Id.) In addition to specified contact information and any facts supporting the petitioner’s contention that the respondent meets the CARE eligibility criteria, the petition must include either: 1) a declaration from a licensed behavioral health professional attesting that the professional has examined the respondent within 60 days of the submission of the petition, or has made multiple attempts to examine them, and that the respondent meets the diagnostic criteria for CARE proceedings; or 2) evidence that a respondent was detained for a minimum of two intensive treatments with the most recent one being within the previous 60 days. (Id.)
Right now, without an affidavit from the licensed behavioral health professional or evidence of detention for two intensive treatments, a CARE petition is considered incomplete. This bill makes changes to the petition form and allows two additional forms of evidence of a person’s condition to be submitted in addition to the two identified above. Specifically, the bill allows a petitioner to submit evidence that a respondent was detained for a minimum of two “5150” holds in the previous 120 days and evidence that the respondent was referred to a full-service partnership program (i.e., recovery-oriented, comprehensive services targeted to individuals who are unhoused, or at risk of becoming unhoused, and who have a severe mental health disorders) more than once, but was not enrolled due to an inability or unwillingness to engage in the previous 120 days. The bill also allows the affidavit from the licensed behavioral health professional and the evidence of the two intensive treatment detentions to be within the previous 120 days, rather than 60 days.
While a respondent must still qualify for the CARE process by meeting the eligibility criteria before being admitted into the program, stakeholders have suggested that expanding the scope of the evidence considered in the petition expands the eligibility criteria for CARE Court. To be sure, the number of completed petitions will likely increase given the expansion of the evidence petitioners can submit; however, the court is still required to make a determination as to whether the petition itself makes a prima facie showing that a respondent meets the eligibility criteria. (Id.) That being said, there is a serious question as to whether this additional evidence will provide courts with an accurate picture of an individual’s mental health condition as they make this determination.
The LPS Act provides for the “5150” hold and the detentions for the two intensive treatments described above. For a 5150 hold, a peace officer, or an individual or facility authorized by the county may involuntarily detain a person for up to 72 hours for an assessment, evaluation and crisis intervention, or placement for evaluation and treatment in a facility designated by the county if they are determined to be, because of a mental health disorder, a threat either to themselves or to others, or gravely disabled. Following a 72-hour hold, the individual may be held for an additional 14 days of intensive treatment pursuant to Section 5250, if they are found to still be, because of a mental health disorder, a threat to themselves or others, or gravely disabled. As pointed out during the hearing for the Assembly Committee on Health on June 23, 2026, two 5150 holds could occur in a single day. Those holds could also be initiated by law enforcement as opposed to a designated clinician. Further, there are individuals who have been improperly detained pursuant to this authority. By contrast, when a person is certified for intensive treatment under Section 5250, the individual is entitled to a certification review hearing. (Section 5256.)
The author may wish to reconsider the inclusion of only two 5150 holds as part of the petition.
Stepping down from LPS conservatorships to CARE court. The LPS Act also provides for conservatorships, resulting in involuntary commitment for the purposes of treatment, if an individual is found to meet the “grave disability” standard. The purpose of an LPS conservatorship is to provide individualized treatment, supervision, and placement for the gravely disabled individual. The individual for whom such a conservatorship is sought has the right to demand a court or jury trial on the issue of whether they meet the gravely disabled requirement, and they have the right to be represented by counsel. The LPS temporary conservatorship lasts for 30 days unless the person is awaiting a court or jury trial on the issue of whether they are gravely disabled, in which case the conservatorship may be extended up to six months. A permanent conservatorship lasts for one year and can be renewed.
Under current law, individuals can also become connected with CARE court if the court refers an individual from an LPS conservatorship to the program. (Section 5978.) According to the author, concerns have been raised about the abuse of step-down referrals from conservatorships to CARE court, including concerns that public guardians are not heeding the medical advice of clinicians and pursuing the step-down regardless.
This bill specifies that if upon the termination of a conservatorship, the conservator determines that additional help for the conservatee may still be warranted, the conservator can request that the court refer the conservatee to CARE court. In order to do so, the bill requires a licensed physician or psychologist to confirm the conservatee is no longer gravely disabled and meets the CARE Act eligibility criteria. While it appears all stakeholders agree that anyone who still meets the gravely disabled criteria should not be improperly removed from a conservatorship, it appears there is some disagreement as to the logistics of the referral. County stakeholders are concerned because once a person is determined to be “no longer gravely disabled,” the court is required to act immediately and that could mean potentially ending the conservatorship before the county has had a chance to connect them to CARE court. Given the underlying agreement surrounding the policy goals, the author is encouraged to work with county stakeholders to mitigate potential challenges for conservatees who could eventually benefit from CARE court.
Dismissals from CARE court involving individuals requiring higher levels of care. According to the author, implementation data shows an ongoing gap between CARE Court and higher levels of care. The author contends that a number of dismissals are occurring because a respondent needs a higher level of care than available through the CARE process. While some counties have identified that they continue to monitor and check in with individuals dismissed from CARE, it is unclear which counties are doing so, and which services are being provided, when they do so.
To address these concerns, the bill now requires the Department of Health Care Services, with input from a stakeholder group, to develop a model exit plan that identifies appropriate services and ongoing monitoring of an individual who was dismissed from the CARE court program because they need a higher level of care. The department will have until July 1, 2028 to develop the plan, and as of that date, if a court dismisses a CARE petition because a respondent needs a higher level of care, the court may order the county to develop an exit plan for the respondent. This approach is intended to ensure that individuals who come through the system are connected with services, even if CARE court is not the right program for their needs.
Adopting a CARE agreement as a CARE plan. Under the CARE Act, respondents can enter into a CARE agreement or a CARE plan. A CARE agreement includes the same elements as a CARE plan. (Section 5971 (a) – (b).) Both are designed to identify a range of appropriate community-based services and supports, which can include behavioral health care, housing and other supportive services. (Id.) The CARE agreement is defined as a voluntary settlement agreement, which the court can modify and approve. (Id.; Section 5977.1.) By contrast, the court only orders the parties to develop a CARE plan if a CARE agreement is unlikely to be reached. (Section 5977.1.)
This bill provides the court with additional authority to adopt a CARE agreement as a CARE plan if all of the following circumstances are true:
- The respondent has stopped engaging with the CARE process for 60 days or more despite document attempts by county, local agency, or treatment providers to maintain engagement with the respondent.
- All elements of the CARE agreement have been provided to the respondent by the county or other local agency, as required; and
- The court finds that a CARE plan would be a more effective alternative than potential dismissal from the CARE process.
Again, the author has introduced this provision into the bill because of concerns surrounding the implementation of the program. In this case, the author is concerned that courts are not ordering CARE plans. Failure to successfully complete a CARE plan can be considered in a subsequent LPS conservatorship hearing and will create a presumption that the respondent needs additional intervention beyond the services provided by the CARE plan. (Section 5979 (a).) Beyond this presumption, there are no consequences for an individual who fails to adhere to a CARE plan. Because the CARE process is voluntary, the court has no mechanism for truly enforcing the order. Accordingly, it is not surprising that courts are not exercising their discretion to order these plans.
With that in mind, it is unclear whether courts will begin adopting CARE agreements as CARE plans should this provision be enacted. If courts are not exercising their existing authority to order these plans now, it is unlikely they will do so following the passage of this bill, given the permissive nature of this authority. Finally, it is worth considering whether the lack of CARE plans is truly problematic. To be sure, if individuals were not entering into CARE agreements, this could suggest that there are underlying problems with implementation of the program. However, the lack of CARE plans may simply suggest that counties and courts are finding more success through entering into voluntary agreements and working collaboratively with respondents. Ultimately, the number of CARE plans ordered may not be an appropriate metric of the success of the overall program.
Assessing county implementation of CARE court. In March of this year, Governor Newsom publicly identified 10 counties as “CARE Champions.” (Governor Gavin Newsom, Governor Newsom announces new CARE Court accountability measures to get more chronically mentally ill off our streets, awards $291 million in funding for services and housing, (March 2, 2026) available at: https://www.gov.ca.gov/2026/03/02/governor-newsom-announces-new-care-court-accountability-measures-to-get-more-chronically-mentally-ill-off-our-streets-awards-291-million-in-funding-for-services-and-housing/.) According to the press release, this designation reflected that these counties had “successfully implemented CARE Court within their communities and [had] the highest rates of petitions on a per capita basis.” (Id.) The Governor also identified 10 underperforming counties as “CARE ICU” (Improvement and Coordination Unit) counties. (Id.)
Following the release of the CARE Champion and CARE ICU lists, some stakeholders took issue with the metrics being used to assess county success in implementing the program. As others have pointed out, the rates of petitions on a per capita basis reveal nothing about outcomes of individuals in the program.
To that end, the author took amendments in the Assembly Committee on Health to clarify that it is the intent of the Legislature to identify appropriate metrics of success to measure implementation of the CARE Act. The author similarly agrees to take the following amendments in this Committee to ensure that, counties struggling with implementation of the Act are not simply being publicly admonished but are being provided with actionable feedback to assist with their improvement.
(e) (1) It is the intent of the Legislature to identify appropriate metrics of success to measure counties successfully implementing the CARE Act, known as CARE Champions, and counties experiencing challenges with implementation who need technical support and training., known as CARE ICU (Improvement and Coordination Unit) Counties. The agency shall annually release a list identifying overperforming and underperforming counties to receive additional support through CARE ICU. counties, known as CARE Champions. For underperforming counties, the agency shall annually provide a written notice identifying areas of concern and opportunities for improvement.
(2) Nothing in this subdivision shall any alter existing obligations to produce records under the California Public Records Act.
Creating a central location for participants to express their complaints. The bill also establishes a CARE Court Ombudsperson within the California Health and Human Services Agency. The purpose of this position is to provide all participants with a forum for their complaints. Under this bill, the CARE Court Ombudsperson is tasked with overseeing and investigating complaints by petitioners, participants, and governmental agencies involved in the CARE process, including but not limited to judges, county staff, first responders, and city staff. While the bill in print clearly contemplates that all participants will be able to take advantage of the ombudsperson’s services, some stakeholders have questioned whether respondents were exempt from these provisions, given their exclusion from the above list of participants. Accordingly, the author has agreed to take the following amendment to make it abundantly clear that respondents too can submit complaints to the CARE Court Ombudsperson.
(b) The CARE Court Ombudsperson shall oversee and investigate complaints by petitioners, respondents, participants, and governmental agencies involved in the CARE process, including, but not limited to, judges, county staff, first responders, and city staff.
Disclosures of protected health information. Finally, the bill provides for various disclosures of protected health information with health care providers and covered entities for the purpose of facilitating treatment and care for the respondent. Most of the provisions related to the disclosures appear to require compliance with existing state and federal privacy laws. However, there are some provisions of the bill that suggest that evaluations done by the county pursuant to the process can be provided to a licensed behavioral health professional that provides a declaration as part of the initial petition, even if that professional is not involved in the respondent’s ongoing treatment and care. It is unclear what purpose the sharing of this information would serve, and the author may wish to consider limiting the sharing of evaluations and other reports generated as part of the CARE process with providers who are actually involved in the respondent’s treatment and care.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: In support of the bill, the California State Association of Psychiatrists posits:
SB 28 strengthens linkages between Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) conservatorships and the CARE Court program. As a result, individuals leaving conservatorship who continue to require intensive community support will be more likely to receive ongoing treatment and supervision. SB 28 helps avoid the unfortunate scenario in which a conservatorship is terminated, and an individual is left without adequate care in the community.
[…]
By allowing prior 5150 holds and an inability to enroll in a Full-Service Partnership program to serve as evidence supporting CARE Act eligibility, SB 28 provides city agencies with practical documentation that can support CARE petitions. This change will make CARE Court more accessible to individuals who are chronically gravely disabled and repeatedly cycle through emergency departments, psychiatric hospitals, jails, homelessness, and other acute settings.
Importantly, SB 28 permits the sharing of CARE Act information among behavioral health professionals, helping ensure continuity of care when individuals transition into acute treatment settings. Current CARE Court confidentiality requirements can impede effective coordination among treating professionals, particularly when a CARE respondent requires treatment in an emergency department or inpatient psychiatric setting. By facilitating communication among behavioral health providers, SB 28 improves care coordination and reduces barriers to treatment.
[…]
SB 28 also creates a pathway from a court-supervised CARE agreement to a court-ordered CARE plan, accompanied by enhanced county accountability measures. The legislation explicitly recognizes cities first responder agencies as key stakeholders in CARE Court's success. Finally, SB 28 establishes a CARE Court Ombudsperson to investigate and review complaints from petitioners, participants, and governmental agencies involved in the CARE process.
Together, these reforms strengthen CARE Court's ability to identify, engage, and support individuals with the most serious mental illnesses while improving accountability, continuity of care, and coordination across systems. SB 28 recognizes that individuals with the most severe mental illnesses often require coordinated interventions across multiple systems and levels of care, and it ensures that CARE Court functions as a bridge to treatment rather than a dead end.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: A previous version of this bill was opposed by a broad coalition of organizations, including those dedicated to advancing civil rights, and disability rights. Collectively these groups submit.
SB 28 was substantially amended on June 11, 2026 after advancing through much of the legislative process as a different bill. These sweeping changes late in the legislative process deprive stakeholders and impacted communities of a full opportunity to evaluate the bill’s significant civil rights or budget implications. This late-stage gut-and-amend approach continues a troubling pattern of advancing major CARE Court expansions without adequate opportunity for public input.
[…]
SB 28 increases coercion in the CARE Court process by allowing CARE agreements to be converted into CARE plans when a person disengages from the process. Instead of respecting a person’s decision about their own care, the bill allows the court to impose a mandatory CARE plan if engagement falters, turning what is meant to be a voluntary pathway into a coercive one. This dynamic creates pressure to comply out of fear of escalation, rather than fostering genuine engagement in services, and undermines trust in both providers and the system as a whole.
In addition, SB 28 weakens privacy protections by allowing CARE Court reports to be disclosed to health care providers “if necessary to assist with ongoing treatment.” This broad and vague standard creates significant discretion to share highly sensitive health information beyond the immediate CARE team. This type of information sharing can undermine trust between individuals and their providers, making people less likely to seek care or speak openly about their needs.
[…]
CARE Court is a new program that has not yet demonstrated improved outcomes. In fact, early data shows a majority of CARE Court respondents are not being connected with court-ordered services and that outcomes are poor. SB 28 would significantly expand CARE Court’s scope and intensify its coercive features before the efficacy of the program is adequately determined. This bill diverts resources from the kinds of investments that are proven to support recovery, like housing and community-based treatment.
California should prioritize expanding access to low-barrier, evidence-based services that people can choose—not court-based processes that increase coercion and involvement in the legal system.
Similarly, representatives of counties, county behavioral health agencies, and public administrators, guardians, and conservators are opposed to the previous version of the bill. Based on communications with Committee staff, these representatives remain opposed to the bill despite significant amendments taken in the Assembly Committee on Health. The County Behavioral Health Directors Association, the California State Association of Counties, the Urban Counties of California, the Rural County Representatives of California, and California State Association of Public Administrators and Public Guardians and Public Conservators submit many concerns, including but not limited to the following:
SB 28 proposes significant changes to both the CARE and LPS Acts. The lateness of the recent amendments, which rewrote the bill, do not allow for the necessary time for analysis and input by the legislature or relevant stakeholders such as county behavioral health departments providing these services, conservators and public guardians that administer LPS conservatorships, as well as judicial officers that would be involved in CARE proceedings.
Concerns with Senate Bill 28, June 11th Amendments
[…]
Creates new involuntary pathways to CARE following conservatorship termination or long-term participation in voluntary treatment. Conservatorship of an individual is one of the most extreme measures taken for individuals who are gravely disabled, part of which requires an investigation of all available alternatives to conservatorship and is only recommended if no suitable alternatives are available. Pursuant to state and federal law, counties are required to consider the least restrictive treatment options available. Conservatorships are terminated after one year unless the conservator determines further conservatorship is required, however this does not consider situations in which the conservatorship ends but additional services are deemed necessary. SB 28 creates a pathway in which individuals who have had their conservatorship terminated, but need a continued level of care, could be involuntarily funneled into CARE court. In addition, this bill would also establish CARE eligibility for individuals who have been undergoing voluntary treatment, but have not been clinically stabilized, citing high utilization of any emergency services, whether related to their behavioral health condition or not, a sign someone is not clinically stable. Given that federal policies will soon mean that thousands of Californians will lose access to Medi-Cal coverage, many more individuals may need to access emergency departments for their physical health needs, for example.
[…]
Requires sharing of confidential health information with various new parties. Under HIPAA, counties can already share sensitive medical information with other providers for the purpose of care coordination. Consideration of state and federal privacy laws is a requirement for county behavioral health and other covered entities. As such, CBHDA is concerned with expanded requirements to share personal medical information as proposed with individuals and agencies without consideration of state and federal privacy protections.
Requires counties to develop an “expedited assessment” as an alternative to a 14 day assessment when receiving a CARE referral from a facility. Given that 14 days is already a brief timeline to schedule and perform an assessment, and there is no clear indication of the quality of information or access to be provided by the facility, along with workforce challenges, CBHDA has serious concerns with this requirement which would add significant new costs to CARE. In the alternative, facilities sending CARE petitions should ensure sufficient lead time for CARE petitions and robust, quality discharge planning processes to ensure individuals do not fall through the cracks upon discharge.
Requires the office of the Governor to annually release a list of counties prioritizing CARE Court implementation, known as CARE Champions, and counties experiencing challenges with implementation who need technical support and training, known as CARE ICU (Improvement and Coordination Unit) Counties. CBHDA has significant concerns with this requirement as the determination of CARE Champions and CARE ICU counties was not based on a valid measure of success under CARE. CBHDA encourages the legislature to work with subject matter experts to develop independent and valid measures of quality and success under CARE, to be overseen by the Department of Health Care Services.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
California State Association of Psychiatrists (CSAP)
Two individuals
Opposition
All People's Health Collective
Anti Police-terror Project
Antiracist Md
Black Men Speak, INC.
Buccola Family Homeless Advocacy Clinic
Cal Voices
California Alliance for Retired Americans (CARA)
California Association of Mental Health Peer Run Organizations
California Association of Social Rehabilitation Agencies
California Coalition for Women Prisoners
California Peer Watch
California Public Defenders Association
California State Association of Counties (CSAC)
California State Association of Public Administrators, Public Guardians, and Public Conservators
California United for a Responsible Budget (CURB)
Canary Resistance
Cd11 Coalition for Human Rights
Center for Independent Living Berkeley
Centro Legal De LA Raza
Coalition on Homelessness
Community Lead Advocacy Program Clap
Corporation for Supportive Housing (CSH)
County Behavioral Health Directors Association of California
County Behavioral Health Directors Association (CBHDA)
Disability Community Resource Center
Disability Rights California
Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund (DREDF)
Drug Policy Alliance
Food Not Bombs
Homeless United for Friendship and Freedom
Housing Is a Human Right
Independent Defense Counsel Office, County of Santa Clara
Justice2jobs Coalition
Kelechi Ubozoh Consulting
LA Defensa
Law Foundation of Silicon Valley
Los Angeles Community Action Network
Mental Health America of California
National Alliance to End Homelessness
National Homelessness Law Center
Painted Brain
People's Homeless Task Force Orange County
Project Return Peer Support Network
Rural County Representatives of California (RCRC)
Senior and Disability Action
Urban Counties of California (UCC)
Venice Justice Committee
Western Regional Advocacy Project
Analysis Prepared by: Kristian Wright / JUD. / (916) 319-2334
Date of Hearing: June 23, 2026
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HEALTH
Mia Bonta, Chair
SBPCA Bill Id:SB 28
Author:(Umberg) – As Amended Ver:June 11, 2026
SENATE VOTE: Not relevant.
SUBJECT: Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment (CARE) court program.
SUMMARY: Makes several changes to the implementation of the CARE Act, including to eligibility criteria, referrals to involuntary treatment under the Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) Act, and considerations of alternative treatment programs during the petition review process. Establishes the position of a CARE Court Ombudsperson within the California Health and Human Services Agency (CalHHS). Requires the Governor’s office to annually release a list of overperforming and underperforming counties, with respect to CARE implementation, directing additional support to the latter through the CARE Improvement and Coordination Unit. Specifically, this bill:
- Authorizes a conservator to, upon the termination of a conservatorship, request that the court refer the conservatee to CARE court. Requires documentation of the authority for this referral to be signed by a physician or licensed psychologist and to confirm that the conservatee is no longer gravely disabled as a result of mental disorder or impairment by chronic alcoholism and meets, or is likely to meet, criteria to qualify for the CARE process.
- Authorizes individuals to qualify for the CARE program if they have not been clinically stabilized in ongoing voluntary treatment for more than 90 days prior to the CARE Court filing and if supervision is required to allow for services and supports to be effective and to prevent substantial deterioration or relapse, in addition to current eligibility criteria.
- States that high utilization of emergency services is strong evidence that a person is not clinically stabilized and that current enrollment in a full-service partnership (FSP) program does not automatically exclude a person from the CARE Act program. Defines “high utilization of emergency services” to mean utilizing 911 or emergency department services 20 times or more in a 12-month period.
- Allows a CARE petition to include evidence that the respondent was either detained for a minimum of two involuntary holds in the last six months, or that they were referred to an FSP program more than once but were not enrolled due to an inability or unwillingness to engage.
- Extends the period for an affidavit of a licensed behavioral health professional stating the licensed behavioral health professional or their designee has examined or made multiple unsuccessful attempts to examine the respondent within 60 days of submission of the petition from 60 days to 270 days.
- Authorizes the county behavioral health agency, their designee, or the court to recommend the respondent be considered for alternative treatment, including, but not limited to, assisted outpatient treatment program (AOT) or a grave disability evaluation under the LPS Act, if the respondent requires a higher level of care than the CARE process. Prohibits a determination that a respondent requires a higher level of care than the CARE process if they otherwise meet, or are likely to meet, the criteria for CARE Court.
- Permits a clinical evaluation, required if a CARE agreement is not entered, to be shared with the original petitioner, if the respondent consents.
- Permits the court to adopt the CARE agreement as a CARE plan if the parties previously entered into a CARE agreement but the respondent stops engaging with the CARE process. Requires the adoption of the CARE agreement as a CARE plan to restart the CARE process timeline, which shall not exceed one year.
- Requires the county behavioral health agency to request a status hearing to address a change in circumstances and request the court to order an evaluation under the LPS Act of the respondent if prescribed conditions are met, including that the respondent’s nonadherence to the CARE plan has resulted in behavior consistent with an established pattern of psychiatric deterioration or symptoms of decompensation and the respondent may be in need of a higher level of care.
- Requires, if appropriate, rather than permits, the court to order an LPS evaluation to ensure the respondent’s safety if the court terminates the respondent’s participation in the CARE process. Permits the court to order an LPS evaluation upon termination if the court finds it is in the best interest of the respondent.
- Deletes the six month limitation on the court considering the respondent’s failure of their CARE plan and the reasons for that failure in any subsequent hearings under the LPS Act and creating a presumption that the respondent needs additional intervention beyond the supports and services provided by the CARE plan, thereby requiring the court to consider that evidence at any future LPS Act hearing and extending the presumption indefinitely.
- Authorizes the court to order a grave disability evaluation on its own motion or by motion from the county if the court finds that involuntary reappointment is unlikely to stabilize the respondent and supervision is necessary, or if the court finds it is in the best interest of the respondent, at the one-year status meeting.
- Limits the current requirement for a court to order a county behavioral health agency to investigate and file a written report when a petition is filed by any entity that is not county behavioral health to only when a petitioner is a cohabitant or family member.
- Adds the following to the definition of a “licensed behavioral health professional” for the purposes of the CARE Act:
- A licensed advance practice provider who renders behavioral health services in accordance with a physician assistant (PA) practice agreement; and,
- A licensed nurse practitioner specializing in behavioral health.
- Adds the director or chief of a governmental agency offering first responder services, or their designee, to the list of people and entities permitted to file a CARE petition.
- Explicitly authorizes county behavioral health agencies to disclose reports generated by the county behavioral health agency during the CARE process to healthcare providers or covered entities, if necessary to assist with ongoing treatment of the respondent. Provides that the county behavioral health agency will not be held civilly or criminally liable for any disclosure authorized or required by this bill and requires the respondent to be notified of a disclosure by mail at the respondent’s last known address, to the respondent’s counsel, and including a notification with the next notice of hearing served to the respondent.
- Adds to the information to be included in a petition, or reported by the county behavioral health agency if not included in the petition, efforts and timeframes of efforts by county and noncounty providers to voluntarily engage the respondent prior to the filing of the petition. Adds documentation regarding how past attempts at voluntary engagement failed, cognitive deficits, and unmet mental health needs were assessed to the information contained in the petition or report.
- Requires the county behavioral health agency to provide guidelines to facilities providing involuntary treatment on requesting an expedited assessment, where there is concern of imminent discharge and foreseeable challenges with locating the respondent, rather than the current 14 business day window for the county to complete an assessment upon referral from a facility.
- Requires the court to make findings on the record about the basis for termination of the respondent’s participation in the CARE process.
- Prohibits the court from terminating the respondent’s participation in the CARE process due to a failure of the county or other local government entity to properly engage with the CARE process. Requires the court to consider the imposition of fines if the court finds that the respondent is not participating in the CARE process due to a failure of the county or local government entity.
- Specifies the Assisted Living Waiver program and the Home- and Community-based Services Waiver program as federal housing programs to be considered for the respondent.
- Establishes the position of a CARE Court Ombudsperson within CalHHS, to be appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate. Requires the ombudsperson to oversee and investigate complaints by petitioners, participants, and governmental agencies involved in the CARE process, including, but not limited to, judges, county staff, first responders, and city staff. Requires the ombudsperson to be funded by the CARE Act Accountability Fund.
- Requires the Governor’s office to annually release a list of overperforming and underperforming counties, directing additional support to the latter through the CARE Improvement and Coordination Unit (CARE ICU).
- Authorizes all parties and witnesses to appear remotely via technology, though the court retains discretion to mandate in-person appearances if deemed necessary.
- Requires all counties to establish a process for the electronic submission of CARE Act documents using a secured portal by January 1, 2028.
- Expands the data compiled from county behavioral health departments and courts to include the number of petitions submitted electronically, the number of individuals successfully enrolled in an FSP program post-referral, the number of petitions dismissed for failure to make a prima facie showing, and the total number of LPS evaluations ordered by the CARE court.
- Requires the tracking of data for cases involving dismissed respondents.
- Adds court ordered LPS evaluations and the continuum of housing options to the training and technical assistance that the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) must provide to county behavioral health agencies. Adds court ordered LPS evaluations to the training and technical assistance provided to judicial officers.
EXISTING LAW:
- Establishes the LPS Act to end the inappropriate, indefinite, and involuntary commitment of individuals with mental health disorders, developmental disabilities, and chronic alcoholism, as well as to safeguard their rights, provide prompt evaluation and treatment, and provide services in the least restrictive setting appropriate to their needs. Permits involuntary detention of an individual deemed to be a danger to self or others, or “gravely disabled,” as defined, for periods of up to 72 hours (known as “5150 holds”) for evaluation and treatment; for up-to 14 days after certification of the need for initial intensive treatment; and up-to 30 days for additional intensive treatment in counties that opt in to provide additional intensive treatment. [Welfare & Institutions Code (WIC) § 5000, et seq.]
- Defines “gravely disabled,” for purposes of evaluating and treating an individual who has been involuntarily detained or for placing an individual in conservatorship, as a condition in which a person, as a result of a mental health disorder, a severe substance use disorder (SUD), or both, is unable to provide for their basic personal needs for food, clothing, shelter, personal safety, or necessary medical care. [WIC § 5008]
- Permits any individual to apply to the county for a petition alleging that a person is, as a result of mental disorder a danger to others, or to himself, or is gravely disabled, and request that an evaluation of the person’s condition be made. [WIC § 5201]
- Requires the person or agency designated by the county to prepare the petition and all other forms required in the proceeding, and to be responsible for filing the petition. Requires the person or agency designated by the county to request a prepetition screening to determine whether there is probable cause to believe the allegations. Requires the person or agency providing prepetition screening to conduct a reasonable investigation of the allegations and make a reasonable effort to personally interview the subject of the petition. Requires the screening to also determine whether the person will agree voluntarily to receive crisis intervention services or an evaluation in their own home or in a facility designated by the county and approved by DHCS. Requires the filing of the petition if there is probable cause to believe that the person is, as a result of mental disorder, a danger to others, or to himself or herself, or gravely disabled, and that the person will not voluntarily receive evaluation or crisis intervention. [WIC § 5202]
- Requires the petition, if filed, to be accompanied by a report containing the findings of the person or agency designated by the county to provide prepetition screening. Requires the prepetition screening report submitted to the superior court to be confidential. [WIC § 5202]
- Implements AOT (also known as “Laura’s Law”) statewide, whereby an entity can petition for a court to order a person over the age of 18 with a mental illness to receive AOT if the court finds the individual meets specified criteria, including: a clinical determination that the person is unlikely to survive safely in the community without supervision; the person has a history of noncompliance with treatment for their mental illness; the person's condition is substantially deteriorating; and, participation in AOT would be the least restrictive placement necessary to ensure the person's recovery. Permits a county or group of counties that do not wish to implement Laura’s Law to opt out of the requirements of AOT services through a specified process. [WIC § 5345, et seq.]
- Establishes the CARE Act to help connect an individual (known as a “respondent”) with a court-ordered CARE agreement or CARE plan for up to 12 months, with the possibility to extend for an additional 12 months, that provides individualized, appropriate community-based services and supports, which include clinically appropriate behavioral health care and stabilization medications, housing, and other supportive services. [WIC § 5970, et seq.]
- Requires an individual, to qualify as a respondent in the CARE process, to meet the following criteria:
- Be 18 years of age or older;
- Be currently experiencing a serious mental disorder and have a diagnosis of bipolar I disorder with psychotic features, or a schizophrenia spectrum or other psychotic disorder. Prohibits an individual who has a current diagnosis of SUD, but who does not also meet the required criteria, from qualifying for the CARE process;
- Not be clinically stabilized in ongoing voluntary treatment;
- Be unlikely to survive safely in the community without supervision and their condition is substantially deteriorating; or, be in need of services and supports in order to prevent a relapse or deterioration that would be likely to result in grave disability or serious harm to self or others, resulting in involuntary detention;
- Participation in a CARE plan or CARE agreement would be the least restrictive alternative necessary to ensure the individual’s recovery and stability; and,
- Be likely to benefit from participation in a CARE plan or CARE agreement. [WIC § 5972]
- Permits the following adult persons to file a petition to commence the CARE process:
- A person with whom the respondent resides;
- A spouse, parent, sibling, child, or grandparent or an individual who stands in loco parentis to the respondent;
- The director of a hospital or the director’s designee, in which the respondent is hospitalized, including hospitalized pursuant to the LPS Act involuntary detention law;
- The director of a public or charitable organization, agency, or home, or their designee, who has, within the previous 30 days, provided or who is currently providing behavioral health services to the respondent or in whose institution the respondent resides;
- A licensed behavioral health professional, or their designee, who is, or has been within the previous 30 days, either supervising the treatment of, or treating the respondent for a mental illness;
- A first responder, including a peace officer, firefighter, paramedic, emergency medical technician, mobile crisis response worker, or homeless outreach worker, who has had repeated interactions with the respondent in the form of multiple arrests, multiple detentions and transportation pursuant to the LPS, multiple attempts to engage the respondent in voluntary treatment, or other repeated efforts to aid the respondent in obtaining professional assistance;
- The public guardian or public conservator, or their designee, of the county in which the respondent resides or is found;
- The director of a county behavioral health agency, or their designee, of the county in which the respondent resides or is found;
- The director of county adult protective services, or their designee, of the county in which the respondent resides or is found;
- The director of a California Indian health services program, California tribal behavioral health department, who has, within the previous 30 days, provided or who is currently providing behavioral health services to the respondent, or the director’s designee;
- The judge of a tribal court located in California before which the respondent has appeared within the previous 30 days, or the judge’s designee; or,
- The respondent. [WIC § 5974]
- Sets out the respondent's rights, including the right to be represented by counsel at all stages of a CARE proceeding, and requires the court to appoint specified counsel if the respondent does not have their own attorney. [WIC § 5976]
- Provides that all CARE Act hearings are presumptively closed to the public. Allows the respondent to demand that the hearings be public or request the presence of a family member or friend without waiving their right to keep the hearing closed to the general public. A request by another party to make a hearing public may be granted if the court finds that the public interest clearly outweighs the respondent's privacy interest. [WIC § 5976.5]
- Requires, for all CARE Act proceedings, that the judge control all hearings with a view to the expeditious and effective ascertainment of the jurisdictional facts and the ascertainment of all information relative to the present condition and future welfare of the respondent. Except where there is a contested issue of fact or law, requires the proceedings to be conducted in an informal, non-adversarial atmosphere with a view to obtaining the maximum cooperation of the respondent, all persons interested in the respondent's welfare, and all other parties, with any provisions that the court may make for the disposition and care of the respondent. [WIC § 5977.4 (a)]
- Upon receipt of a CARE Act petition, requires the court to promptly review the petition to see if it makes a prima facie showing that the respondent is or may be a person eligible for services under the CARE Act. [WIC § 5977 (a)(1)]
- If the court finds the petitioner has not made a prima facie showing that the respondent is or may be a person who is eligible for services under the CARE Act, the court must dismiss without prejudice, except if the court finds that the petition is without merit, or intended to harass the respondent. Allows a petition to be refiled with new information. [WIC § 5977 (a)(2)]
- If the court finds the petitioner has made a prima facie showing that the respondent is or may be a person who is eligible for services under the CARE Act, and the petitioner is the county behavioral health agency, the court must do all of the following: (i) set the matter for an initial appearance; (ii) appoint counsel; (iii) determine if the petition includes all the required information and, if not, order the county to submit a report with the information; and (iv) require notice be provided. [WIC § 5977 (a)(3)(A)]
- If the court finds the petitioner has made a prima facie showing that the respondent is or may be a person who is eligible for services under the CARE Act, and the petitioner is not the county behavioral health agency, the court must order the county agency to investigate whether the respondent meets the eligibility criteria of the CARE Act and is willing to engage voluntarily with the county, file a written report with the court, and provide notice, as required by the Act. [WIC § 5977 (a)(3)(B)]
- Provides at the hearing on the merits:
- If the court finds that the petitioner has not shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that the respondent meets the CARE criteria, requires the court to dismiss the case without prejudice, unless the court makes a finding, on the record, that the petitioner's filing was not in good faith; and,
- If the court finds that the petitioner has shown by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent meets the CARE criteria, requires the court to order the county behavioral health agency to work with the respondent, the respondent's counsel, and the supporter to engage in behavioral health treatment and determine if the parties will be able to enter into a CARE agreement. Requires the court to set a case management hearing. Requires notice to the tribe, if applicable. [WIC § 5977 (c)]
- Provides at the case management hearing:
- If the parties have entered, or are likely to enter, a CARE agreement, requires the court to approve or modify and approve the CARE agreement, stay the matter, and set a progress hearing for 60 days.
- If the court finds that the parties have not entered, and are not likely to enter, into a CARE agreement, requires the court to order a clinical evaluation of the respondent, as provided. Requires the evaluation to address, at a minimum, a clinical diagnosis, whether the respondent has capacity to give informed consent regarding psychotropic medication, other information, as provided, and an analysis of recommended services, programs, housing, medications, and interventions that support the respondent's recovery and stability.
- Requires the court to set a clinical evaluation hearing. [WIC § 5977.1]
- Provides at the clinical evaluation review hearing:
- The court must consider the evaluation, and other evidence, including calling witnesses, but only relevant and admissible evidence that fully complies with the rules of evidence may be considered by the court.
- If the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, after review of the evaluation and other evidence, that the respondent meets the CARE criteria, requires the court to order the county behavioral health agency, the respondent, and the respondent's counsel and supporter to jointly develop a CARE plan.
- If the court finds, in reviewing the evaluation, that clear and convincing evidence does not support that the respondent meets the CARE criteria, requires the court to dismiss the petition. [WIC § 5977.1 (c)]
- Provides at the hearing to review the proposed CARE plan:
- The parties must present their plan or plans to the court. [WIC § 5977.1 (d)(1)]
- The court must adopt the elements of a CARE plan that support the recovery and stability of the respondent. Allows the court to issue any orders necessary to support the respondent in accessing appropriate services and supports, including prioritization for those services and supports, subject to applicable laws and available funding, as provided. These orders are the CARE plan. [WIC § 5977.1 (d)(2)]
- A court may order medication if it finds, upon review of the court-ordered evaluation and hearing from the parties that, by clear and convincing evidence, the respondent lacks the capacity to give informed consent to the administration of medically necessary stabilization medication. To the extent that the court orders medically necessary stabilization medications, prohibits the medication from being forcibly administered and the respondent's failure to comply with a medication order may not result in a penalty, including but not limited to a court order of contempt or imposition of accountability measures. [WIC § 5977.1 (d)(3)]
- Specifies that the above provisions do not prohibit the parties from agreeing to, and the court from approving, amendments to the CARE plan. The court may also approve amendments to the CARE plan upon the finding that those amendments are necessary to support the respondent in accessing appropriate services and supports, following a hearing on the issue. [WIC § 5977.1 (d)(7)]
- Requires that a status review hearing occur at least every 60 days during the CARE plan implementation. [WIC § 5977.2 (a)(1)]
- Requires the petitioner to file with the court, and serve on the respondent and the respondent's counsel and supporter, a report not less than five court days prior to the hearing, with specified information, including progress the respondent has made on the CARE plan, what services and supports in the CARE plan were provided, and what services and supports were not provided, and any recommendations for changes to the services and supports to make the CARE plan more successful.
- Allows the respondent to respond to the report and introduce their own information and recommendations.
- Allows the petitioner, the respondent, or the court to request more frequent reviews as necessary to address changed circumstances. [WIC § 5977.2 (a)(1)(A) – (b)]
- Allows the court, at any point in the proceedings, if it determines, by clear and convincing evidence, that the respondent, after receiving notice, is not participating in the CARE proceedings, to terminate respondent's participation in the CARE process. Allows the court to make a referral under the LPS Act, as provided. [WIC § 5979 (a)]
- Provides that all CARE plan services and supports ordered by the court are subject to available funding and all applicable federal and state statutes, regulations, contractual provisions and policy guidance governing program eligibility, as provided. [WIC § 5982(d)]
- Requires DHCS to provide training and technical assistance to county behavioral health agencies to support CARE implementation, including training regarding the CARE process; CARE agreement and plan services and supports; supported decision making; the supporter role; trauma-informed care; elimination of bias; psychiatric advance directives’ family psychoeducation; and, data collection. [WIC § 5983 (b)]
- Requires DHCS to develop, in consultation with county behavioral health agencies, other relevant state or local government entities, disability rights groups, individuals with lived experience, families, counsel, racial justice experts, and other appropriate stakeholders, an annual CARE Act report. Requires DHCS to post the annual report on its internet website. [WIC § 5985]
- Establishes the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (CMIA), which establishes protections for the use of medical information. [Civil Code (CIV) § 56, et seq.]
- Prohibits providers of health care, health care service plans, or contractors, as defined, from sharing medical information without the patient’s written authorization, subject to certain exceptions. [CIV § 56.10]
- Provides that every provider of health care, health care service plan, pharmaceutical company, or contractor who creates, maintains, preserves, stores, abandons, destroys, or disposes of medical information shall do so in a manner that preserves the confidentiality of the information contained therein. Makes any provider of health care, health care service plan, pharmaceutical company, or contractor who negligently creates, maintains, preserves, stores, abandons, destroys, or disposes of medical information subject to remedies and penalties, as specified. [CIV § 56.101]
- Defines “provider of health care,” for purposes of CMIA, to mean any person licensed or certified pursuant to the Business and Professions Code, as specified; the Osteopathic Initiative Act or the Chiropractic Initiative Act; the Health and Safety Code, as specified; or any licensed clinic, health dispensary, or health facility, as specified. The term does not include insurance institutions, as defined. [CIV § 56.05 (o)]
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown. As recently amended, this bill has not been analyzed by a fiscal committee.
COMMENTS:
- PURPOSE OF THIS BILL. According to the author, this bill addresses major gaps in the original CARE Court process. Now that CARE Court has been active for nearly three years, there is clear data and evidence of unintended implementation issues such as high numbers of dismissed participants and lack of CARE Plans. The author states this bill creates numerous, urgently needed, commonsense CARE Court reforms in order to increase accessibility and accountability. Implementation data and other evidence shows that accountability tools in CARE Court are not being used. Public reporting and data have revealed that the number of court-supervised CARE Plans is unusually low relative to the number of CARE Agreements, with some counties having only a few or no CARE Plans at all. Some counties have even stated their intention publicly and privately to not use the CARE Plan process at all, despite the program having substantial public support. Additionally, the author notes, not a single county has been fined under CARE Court’s enforcement provision. In fact, not a single fine has even been considered despite widespread reporting on several individuals and families claiming that CARE Court failed them. Although CARE Court was designed as an intervention before conservatorship is necessary, implementation data showcases an ongoing gap between CARE Court and higher levels of care. The author contends that there is no evidence that any CARE Court respondent has ever been referred into conservatorship despite a high number of dismissals for respondents needing a “higher level of care.” The author says that, according to the DHCS Annual CARE Act Report, participants who required a “higher level of care” accounted for a significant portion of dismissals. The author states that in Los Angeles County, 29 of 130 dismissals (22%) were classified as “needs higher level of care,” raising concerns about how to assist those who may be too ill for CARE Court, but are not ultimately placed under conservatorship. Another unintentional gap in CARE Court is in the eligibility process where it is obvious certain individuals are eligible, but, for technical reasons, the individual is denied access to CARE Court. Some of this can be attributed to lack of data on the potential CARE court enrollee, lack of consideration of longer-term patterns of psychiatric deterioration, previous rejection of voluntary services, high utilization of emergency services, and excessive service of process requirements.
- BACKGROUND.
- CARE Act. In 2022, the Governor signed SB 1338 (Umberg), Chapter 319, Statutes of 2022, known as the CARE Act. The CARE Act established a new civil court process to provide clinically appropriate, community-based services and supports that are culturally and linguistically competent, to Californians with schizophrenia spectrum disorders and other psychotic disorders, while also preserving these individuals’ self-determination to the greatest extent possible. To be eligible under the CARE Act, a person must meet all of the following:
- 18 years of age or older;
- Have a serious mental illness and a diagnosis of bipolar I with psychotic features, or a schizophrenia spectrum or other psychotic disorder;
- They are not clinically stabilized in ongoing voluntary treatment;
- They are unlikely to survive safely in the community without supervision and the person’s condition is substantially deteriorating or they are in need of services and supports in order to prevent a relapse or deterioration that would be likely to result in grave disability or serious harm to the person or others;
- CARE would be the least restrictive alternative necessary to ensure the person’s recovery and stability; and,
- It is likely that the person will benefit from participation in CARE.
- CARE Act. In 2022, the Governor signed SB 1338 (Umberg), Chapter 319, Statutes of 2022, known as the CARE Act. The CARE Act established a new civil court process to provide clinically appropriate, community-based services and supports that are culturally and linguistically competent, to Californians with schizophrenia spectrum disorders and other psychotic disorders, while also preserving these individuals’ self-determination to the greatest extent possible. To be eligible under the CARE Act, a person must meet all of the following:
The first seven pilot counties implemented the CARE Act in October 2023, Los Angeles implemented in December 2023, and all counties were required to begin accepting CARE petitions as of December 1, 2024.
Under the CARE Act, a county behavioral health agency, spouse, parent, sibling, child, or grandparent of the respondent, a treating behavioral health professional, the county public guardian or public conservator, and others, as specified, may petition to begin the CARE process. If the original petitioner is not the county behavioral health agency, the county behavioral health agency replaces the original petitioner as the CARE petition proceeds. There are two paths to court-ordered services: if the respondent and the behavioral health agency are able to agree on a plan, it is known as a “CARE Agreement” and if they are unable to reach an agreement, one or both parties may present a proposed “CARE Plan” to the court and the court may accept a proposed plan or adopt a modified plan, which becomes a court order that lasts for up to one year. The CARE Plan or Agreement may provide for behavioral health services and housing supports, as well as other services, and counties may face financial penalties for failure to provide the required services. The author reports that no county has faced any penalties for failure to provide court ordered services. The court may allow the original petitioner to participate in the respondent’s CARE proceedings, to the extent that the respondent consents.
- CARE agreement v. CARE plan. The author notes that there are counties that choose not to seek CARE plans and rely on agreements. In training and technical assistance provided by DHCS, the CARE agreement is referred to as a “voluntary settlement agreement” that all parties have agreed to. The CARE agreement is presented to the court for approval at the case management hearing. A CARE agreement specifically outlines behavioral health services, medications, and other housing and community services that the participant agrees to follow, and the county agrees to provide. With a focus on supporting autonomy and recovery, many counties prioritize CARE agreements, recognizing that participants are more likely to engage when actively involved in the decision-making process. If a CARE agreement is reached, there will be at least one court review hearing within 60 days, although many courts and county behavioral health agencies have chosen to continue progress review hearings.
A CARE plan occurs after it is determined that a CARE agreement cannot be reached. The court will order the county behavioral provider to complete a clinical evaluation, which will include a specific assessment of capacity to provide consent to psychotropic medication. If the respondent is still found to meet eligibility requirements for CARE at the clinical evaluation hearing, the court will order the parties to present recommended elements for the CARE plan. Rather than coming to the court with an agreed course of action, the county behavioral agency, the participant, or both may present elements of a CARE plan to the court during the CARE plan review hearing. During this hearing, the court will decide which elements submitted will be included in the CARE plan and will adopt the elements that support the recovery and stability of the participant.
The CARE Act stipulates that the county is also court ordered to provide these services to the respondent. The respondent is ordered to follow the CARE plan as well, but because this is a civil case, there will be no criminal penalties if they don’t engage. However, information of non-participation in a CARE plan may inform a future LPS Act proceeding. Like a CARE agreement, the intent of a CARE plan is to promote the individual’s stability and recovery. And, also like a CARE agreement, a CARE plan should include behavioral health services, medications, housing, and community support. After a CARE plan is ordered, the court will continue to conduct progress review hearings every 60 days (but may hold the hearing sooner, if necessary). This bill proposes that a CARE agreement may be converted into a CARE plan if an individual is not participating. This change would create a more direct path from CARE agreement to an LPS proceeding, which opponents argue will disincentivize respondents from engaging in the CARE process.
- CARE Act outcomes and reporting. AB 102 (Ting) Chapter 38, Statutes of 2023, required DHCS to issue an early implementation report on the CARE Act. In the first nine months of implementation (October 2023 through June 2024), across the early implementation counties, 557 total petitions were filed and 217 of those were dismissed at the discretion of a judge. Preliminary data from July through September 2024 indicates an additional 231 petitions were filed. The report further indicates that dismissals will require further research, since the reasons for their dismissal are not available for the preliminary report, and could include people who are receiving care, those whose cases were dismissed for successful voluntarily engagement, people not being eligible for CARE who receive needed treatment another way, or people who are still not receiving care. The report also states that the CARE process can take time, like all mental health and SUD care, to build the trust and develop the self-directed plans needed for long-term recovery and stability.
The first CARE Act annual report was released in June 2025 and covered the same reporting period as the early implementation report. The annual report clarified that 556 petitions were filed and 101 (18%) resulted in CARE agreements or court-ordered CARE plans. Thirty-nine percent of petitions were dismissed and 229 were still pending at the end of the reporting period. Fifty-five respondents were found ineligible for CARE but received services from a county behavioral health agency, while an additional 90 found ineligible did not receive any county behavioral health services. Most respondents were male (64%) and aged 26–45 (64%), and 37% of respondents were white, 21% Hispanic, 18% Black, and 7% Asian, with 11.6% unknown. The most common petitioner type is personal contacts (such as family and household members) who filed 68% of petitions. County behavioral health agencies and public guardians are unlikely to refer because they may prefer to engage in services without court involvement, as some indicated in the early implementation report.
CARE respondents largely access mental health treatment (93%) and three-quarters of respondents accessed specialized mental health programs like Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) or FSP. Many respondents received stabilizing medications (72%) with 40% of those individuals receiving long-acting injectable medications. Long-acting injectable antipsychotic medications can be given as a shot in the muscle or under the skin and they usually are given every two to four weeks, according to the Mayo Clinic.
The report notes that housing remains a challenge, though the share of respondents in permanent housing increased from 46% at time of petition to 56% in the most current reporting period. The most common unmet need for CARE participants was securing and maintaining permanent housing. Over half of CARE participants did not receive at least one ordered mental health service during their active service period (the most common was peer supports). Sixty-three percent received all three foundational services (medication, treatment, and housing supports) though unmet needs remain. Twenty-five percent had criminal justice involvement during their service period, 21% had emergency visits, and 20% were hospitalized or placed on psychiatric holds. The report notes that only 15 individuals became "elective clients," those who voluntarily engaged with services outside court oversight. These clients generally accessed fewer services, especially medications and housing supports, suggesting disparities in care quality.
Along with the first annual report, CalHHS released a companion document to provide an update on implementation. As of May 31, 2025, 2,008 petitions had been filed across California since October 2023. Since the CARE Act took effect in all counties in December 2024, 1,063 petitions were filed, which is more total petitions than had been filed in the previous 14 months. The update also states that, through 2024, counties “diverted” 1,358 individuals to other services through CARE outreach. CalMatters reports that as of January 2026, California courts had received 3,817 petitions on behalf of prospective CARE Court participants and approved just 893 treatment agreements. The first annual report with statewide data is expected in July 2026.
In addition to the early implementation report and annual reporting from DHCS, an independent, research-based entity must be retained by DHCS to develop, in consultation with county behavioral health agencies, county CARE courts, racial justice experts, and other appropriate stakeholders, including providers and CARE court participants, an independent evaluation of the effectiveness of the CARE Act. This will be conducted by the RAND Corporation. The preliminary report is expected to the Legislature by December 31, 2026, and a final report is expected by December 31, 2028.
- LPS. The LPS Act provides for involuntary detentions for varying lengths of time for the purpose of evaluation and treatment, provided certain requirements are met. Typically, one first interacts with the LPS Act through a “5150” hold initiated by a peace officer or other person authorized by a county, who must determine and document that the individual meets the standard for a hold. A county-designated facility is authorized to then involuntarily detain an individual for up to 72 hours for evaluation and treatment if they are determined to be, as a result of a mental health disorder, a danger to self or others, or gravely disabled. The professional person in charge of the county-designated facility is required to assess an individual to determine the appropriateness of the involuntary detention prior to admitting the individual. Subject to various conditions, a person who is found to be a danger to self or others, or gravely disabled, can be subsequently involuntarily detained for an initial period of intensive treatment up to 14 days, an additional period of 14 days (or up to an additional 30 days in counties that have opted to provide this additional up-to 30-day intensive treatment episode), and ultimately a conservatorship, which is typically for up to one year and may be extended as appropriate. A person can also be released prior to the end of intensive treatment if they are found to no longer meet the criteria or are prepared to accept treatment voluntarily.
Throughout this process, existing law requires specified entities to notify family members or others identified by the detained individual of various hearings, where it is determined whether a person will be further detained or released, unless the detained person requests that this information is not provided. Additionally, a person cannot be found to be gravely disabled if they can survive safely without involuntary detention with the help of responsible family, friends, or others who indicate they are both willing and able to help. SB 43 (Eggman), Chapter 637, Statutes of 2023, expanded the definition of gravely disabled to also include a condition in which a person, as a result of a severe SUD, or a co-occurring mental health disorder and SUD, is unable to provide for their personal safety or necessary medical care, in addition to the inability to provide for basic personal needs of food, clothing, and shelter. SB 43 also defined these additional criteria, but implementation by the counties and consideration of these criteria by hearing officers and the courts will determine how they are interpreted in practice.
Following the release of a white paper earlier this year by Quarter Turn Strategies titled “The Lost Legal Pathway to Mental Health Care,” several bills have made reference directly to the mental health evaluation process contained in the LPS Act and described in 3) and 4) of Existing Law above. The CARE Act also currently references this evaluation process and authorizes courts to utilize this existing authority to ensure the respondent’s safety. The focus of the white paper is that this existing legal mechanism for evaluating those who may be a danger to self or others or gravely disabled is not often utilized and presents an opportunity to strengthen the continuum of behavioral health care and save money by preventing those with serious mental illness from seeking emergency care and being incarcerated. In drafting this paper, the authors sent Public Records Act requests to all counties regarding their policies for these evaluations, and the paper notes that the responses indicate that these evaluation orders are not currently in use by responding counties and that it is a “legacy” or “antiquated” process. Stakeholders report that is seldom used, but that Humboldt County has successfully referred to LPS out of CARE. Without more information on counties’ processes for actually implementing this existing law, it’s difficult to evaluate if this will close a gap in treatment or offer more false hope to those filing CARE petitions.
- Licensed Behavioral Health Professional. The current definition of “licensed behavioral health professional” in the CARE Act includes a licensed physician, a licensed psychologist, a licensed clinical social worker, a licensed marriage and family therapist, or a licensed professional clinical counselor. It also includes social workers, marriage and family therapists, professional clinical counselors who are registered with their licensing board and working toward licensure, and psychologists, clinical social workers, marriage and family therapists, or professional clinical counselors recruited from out of state that would otherwise meet the criteria to gain admission to a licensing examination.
Under the CARE Act, a licensed behavioral health professional is able to:
- File a CARE petition [WIC § 5974 (e)];
- Sign an affidavit stating they or their designee has examined the respondent within 60 days of the submission of the petition, or has made multiple attempts to examine, but has not been successful in eliciting the cooperation of the respondent to submit to an examination, within 60 days of the petition, and that they have determined that the respondent meets, or has reason to believe, explained with specificity in the affidavit, that the respondent meets the diagnostic criteria for CARE proceedings. [WIC § 5975 (d)(1)];
- Testify as an expert concerning whether the respondent meets the CARE criteria provided that the court finds that the professional has special knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education sufficient to qualify as an expert. [WIC § 5977 (b)(7)(A)];
- Conduct a clinical evaluation of a respondent, including a clinical diagnosis, whether the respondent has the legal capacity to give informed consent regarding psychotropic medications, any other information they feel is appropriate for the evaluation, and an analysis of recommended services, programs, housing, medications, and interventions that support the recovery and stability of the respondent. This would be on behalf of the county behavioral health department, at the direction of the court, if there is no CARE agreement. [WIC § 5977.1 (b)]; and,
- Authorize referrals to CARE from an individual on an LPS hold. [WIC § 5978.1].
This bill would add nurse practitioners (NPs) specializing in behavioral health and PAs who render behavioral health services to the definition of “Licensed Behavioral Health Professional” under the CARE Act. SB 27 (Umberg), Chapter 528, Statutes of 2025, added NPs and PAs specifically to ii) above, allowing them to sign an affidavit. This bill would allow them to carry out all of the activities above.
PAs are health care providers who can provide a wide range of medical services under the supervision of a physician, including prescribing, when authorized by a supervising physician under a document known as a practice agreement. They can make clinical decisions and provide a broad range of diagnostic, therapeutic, preventative, and health maintenance services. The practice agreement outlines what a PA may or may not do based on the PA’s competence and the level of physician supervision required. A physician is authorized to supervise more than one PA, but no more than four at a time, other than in limited circumstances for PAs providing limited home health evaluations.
An NP is a registered nurse (RN) who has additionally earned a postgraduate nursing degree, such as a Master’s or Doctorate, and obtained a certificate from a certifying body. As RNs, NPs generally have the same base scope of practice as non-NP RNs, although their additional education and training allows them to perform more advanced functions under standardized procedures. NPs can meet additional requirements to practice independently without standardized procedures.
- Clinically stabilized in ongoing voluntary treatment. One of the requirements to be eligible under the CARE Act is that a respondent not be clinically stabilized in ongoing voluntary treatment. That term was not originally defined and last year SB 27 defined the term to mean that the person’s condition is stable and not deteriorating and that the person is currently engaged in treatment and managing symptoms through medication or other therapeutic interventions. The definition specifies that enrollment in treatment alone shall not be considered clinically stabilized in ongoing voluntary treatment. This bill proposes adding a time frame to the eligibility criteria, allowing a person to be eligible for CARE if they have not been clinically stabilized for the prior 90 days. Under this change, a person could be clinically stabilized for 89 days and considered eligible. Further, when the court is determining whether voluntary engagement with a respondent is effective, this bill would permit the court, rather than require it, to dismiss the petition even when an individual has stabilized.
Taken together, it’s unclear how requiring respondents to continue in the CARE process even when they are stable and voluntarily engaging is consistent with the original intent of the Act.
- Senate Health and Judiciary Joint Oversight Hearing. On November 13, 2025, the Senate Health and Judiciary Committees held a Joint Oversight Hearing on the first annual CARE Act report. The committees heard from judges, attorneys, representatives from DHCS, CalHHS, the Judicial Council, petitioners, county representatives, behavioral health professionals, and disability rights advocates. At that time, a vast majority of the formalized court arrangements were collaborative, with 620 CARE agreements approved compared to only 19 mandated CARE plans. Judges and public defenders noted that the program is highly effective when participants feel empowered to choose their treatment from a "menu of services" rather than facing forced compliance. Some of the challenges identified by panelists include the following:
- Housing Shortages: A severe lack of appropriate housing, specifically board and care homes or permanent supportive housing, prevents participants from stepping down into safe environments.
- Lack of Coercive Power: Family members testified that loved ones suffering from anosognosia (lack of insight into their illness) routinely reject voluntary help, leaving families helpless without involuntary treatment options.
- Financial Strain on Counties: Because 43% of participants have an unknown health insurance status, counties may be forced to absorb the costs of care.
- Service Delivery Gaps: Preliminary data indicated that 82% of individuals under CARE agreements or plans did not receive at least one court-ordered social service.
- Missing Data on Dismissals: Individuals whose petitions are dismissed or who elect out of the program are not comprehensively tracked, obscuring how many ultimately cycle back into jails or emergency rooms.
- Senate Health and Judiciary Joint Oversight Hearing. On November 13, 2025, the Senate Health and Judiciary Committees held a Joint Oversight Hearing on the first annual CARE Act report. The committees heard from judges, attorneys, representatives from DHCS, CalHHS, the Judicial Council, petitioners, county representatives, behavioral health professionals, and disability rights advocates. At that time, a vast majority of the formalized court arrangements were collaborative, with 620 CARE agreements approved compared to only 19 mandated CARE plans. Judges and public defenders noted that the program is highly effective when participants feel empowered to choose their treatment from a "menu of services" rather than facing forced compliance. Some of the challenges identified by panelists include the following:
Some of the recommendations from panelists include:
- Promote and enforce the use of the LPS Act for court-ordered psychiatric evaluations when individuals fail in the CARE Court process.
- Create a streamlined judicial pathway to transfer individuals directly from CARE Court to AOT or LPS conservatorships when needed.
- Establish a statutory mechanism to convert failing CARE agreements into CARE plans without resetting the 12-month procedural clock.
- Implement an anonymous petitioning option to protect fragile family relationships from being destabilized when a family petition is filed.
- Invest more heavily in peer support roles, peer respites, and dedicated support networks for family members.
- SUPPORT. The California State Association of Psychiatrists (CSAP) supports this bill stating that it helps avoid the unfortunate scenario in which a conservatorship is terminated, and an individual is left without adequate care in the community. CSAP argues that this bill recognizes that frequent utilization of emergency medical services is strong evidence that an individual is not successfully stabilized in the community. This population is often primarily served by city first responders, law enforcement agencies, and homeless outreach workers, many of whom struggle to connect individuals to the county behavioral health continuum of care. Because these agencies generally lack access to information regarding an individual's legal status during inpatient psychiatric hospitalization, and often do not employ or contract with behavioral health professionals, identifying individuals who meet CARE eligibility criteria can be difficult. CSAP also contends that by allowing prior 5150 holds and an inability to enroll in an FSP program to serve as evidence supporting CARE Act eligibility, this bill provides city agencies with practical documentation that can support CARE petitions. This change will make CARE Court more accessible to individuals who are chronically gravely disabled and repeatedly cycle through emergency departments, psychiatric hospitals, jails, homelessness, and other acute settings. CSAP states that these reforms strengthen CARE Court's ability to identify, engage, and support individuals with the most serious mental illnesses while improving accountability, continuity of care, and coordination across systems. CSAP concludes that this bill recognizes that individuals with the most severe mental illnesses often require coordinated interventions across multiple systems and levels of care, and it ensures that CARE Court functions as a bridge to treatment rather than a dead end.
- OPPOSITION. A coalition of more than 30 organizations, including Disability Rights California, ACLU California Action, CalVoices, the Corporation for Supportive Housing, Mental Health America of California, and many more opposes this bill, stating that it transforms CARE Court into a pipeline to involuntary commitment, eroding civil liberties and furthering racial disparities. The coalition argues that the LPS evaluations proposed in this bill take place in locked facilities and may result in someone being held for up to 71 hours against their will before the evaluation takes place. As a result, CARE Court respondents would face the ongoing threat of involuntary commitment throughout their time in CARE Court, creating a more coercive environment that undermines voluntary engagement and trust and is not conducive to long-term recovery. The coalition notes that this bill significantly broadens CARE Court eligibility by allowing people to be subject to CARE Court even if they are currently participating in voluntary treatment, including individuals already receiving intensive services, such as FSPs. Subjecting individuals to court oversight while they are actively participating in treatment risks disrupting their progress and undermining therapeutic relationships, particularly when participation requires attending court hearings and complying with court orders. Rather than improving access to care, these provisions risk disruption and destabilization. The coalition argues that instead of respecting a person’s decision about their own care, the bill allows the court to impose a mandatory CARE plan if engagement falters, turning what is meant to be a voluntary pathway into a coercive one. This dynamic creates pressure to comply out of fear of escalation, rather than fostering genuine engagement in services, and undermines trust in both providers and the system as a whole. On the recent June 11 amendments, the coalition argues that these sweeping changes late in the legislative process deprive stakeholders and impacted communities of a full opportunity to evaluate this bill’s significant civil rights or budget implications. This late-stage gut-and-amend approach continues a troubling pattern of advancing major CARE Court expansions without adequate opportunity for public input.
The California Public Defenders Association (CPDA) opposes this bill, stating that the sweeping and dramatic changes that this bill proposes to CARE Court cannot be adequately evaluated and debated this late in the legislative session. CPDA argues this bill would change CARE eligibility criteria, investigation timelines, reporting requirements, privacy protections, remote appearances, and information sharing. Most troubling and drastically at odds with the promise of CARE Court, these changes constitute a significant shift in emphasis from CARE’s foundational principles. Instead of focusing on holding behavioral health care providers accountable for the quality of care that they provide to CARE participants, this bill shifts its focus to the consequences participants may face for inadequate or unsatisfactory participation in treatment. CPDA contends the cumulative impact of these changes is to draw the court’s attention away from the current condition and current needs of a potential CARE participant, and to instead invite decisions based on information that is 6 months, 9 months, or a year old. CPDA concludes that these changes to CARE Court are too sweeping to be adequately evaluated and refined at this stage in the legislative process. Just as CARE Courts are finding their footing throughout the state, it is not time to rush through changes this fundamental.
The County Behavioral Health Directors Association (CBHDA) opposes this bill stating that it proposes significant changes to both the CARE and LPS Acts, and does so while foregoing the necessary time for analysis and input by the Legislature or relevant stakeholders such as county behavioral health departments providing these services, conservators and public guardians that administer LPS conservatorships, as well as judicial officers that would be involved in CARE proceedings. CBHDA argues this bill grants courts the authority to order an involuntary LPS evaluation for an individual if the courts terminate the individual’s participation in the CARE process. While the CARE process is fundamentally a voluntary program, there are still measures in place for courts to determine when an individual is not participating in the CARE process and can terminate participation altogether. CBHDA notes that existing law already allows a court to order an evaluation under LPS. This bill would remove clinical and judicial discretion by requiring courts to pursue this pathway if the court finds it in the best interest of the individual. This further undermines the voluntary nature of CARE court, instituting involuntary practices bypassing an individual’s legal protections under existing law as well as the requirement to treat individuals at the least restrictive level of care. CBHDA also shares serious concerns with the requirement to develop an “expedited assessment” as an alternative to a 14 day assessment when receiving a CARE referral from a facility, which would add significant new costs to CARE. In the alternative, facilities sending CARE petitions should ensure sufficient lead time for CARE petitions and robust, quality discharge planning processes to ensure individuals do not fall through the cracks upon discharge. CBHDA has significant concerns with the determination of CARE Champions and CARE ICU counties as this was not based on a valid measure of success under CARE. CBHDA encourages the Legislature to work with subject matter experts to develop independent and valid measures of quality and success under CARE, to be overseen by the Department of Health Care Services.
- DOUBLE REFERRAL. This bill has been double referred; upon passage in this committee, it will be referred to the Assembly Judiciary Committee.
- RELATED LEGISLATION.
- SB 989 (Blakespear) would authorize a first responder to contact the county behavioral health agency in the county in which an individual resides to request the agency file a petition to commence the CARE process. Would require the agency to review the request and determine whether to file a petition within 30 business days and, upon completion of the review, to notify the first responder that made the referral of specified information, including whether or not a petition was filed. SB 989 is pending in the Assembly Judiciary Committee.
- SB 1016 (Blakespear) would authorize a petitioner of a CARE Act petition to request that the court order a mental health evaluation under the LPS Act under certain conditions and would authorize the court to issue an order for a mental health evaluation under the LPS Act if the CARE Act petition or report prepared by the county behavioral health agency establishes probable cause to support the evaluation and the respondent will not voluntarily receive crisis intervention services or an evaluation, as specified. SB 1016 is pending in the Assembly Health Committee.
- SB 1242 (Choi) would permit an original petitioner in a CARE Court action who is a family member of the respondent to remain involved in the respondent’s CARE proceedings, for the purpose of assisting in care coordination and providing relevant information to the CARE team, unless the court finds that the participation is likely to be detrimental to the respondent’s treatment or wellbeing. SB 1242 is pending in the Assembly Judiciary Committee.
- PREVIOUS LEGISLATION.
- SB 27 adds Bipolar I Disorder with psychotic features to the disorders eligible under the CARE Act, and authorizes nurse practitioners and physician assistants to prepare an affidavit supporting a CARE petition. Defines the phrase “clinically stabilized in ongoing voluntary treatment,” which is a status considered when determining eligibility for the CARE Act. Authorizes a court to refer an individual from felony proceedings to the CARE Act program and authorizes a CARE court to consider a referral as a petition for participation in the CARE program if certain requirements are met. Revises additional court processes relative to the CARE Act.
- SB 42 (Umberg), Chapter 640, Statutes of 2024, among other things, clarifies what evidence may establish a respondent’s eligibility for CARE proceedings; reduces a CARE court’s obligation to inform the respondent of their rights; and, gives the original petitioner the right to notice of ongoing CARE proceedings unless the court specifically finds it would be detrimental to the respondent.
- SB 1323 (Menjivar), Chapter 646, Statutes of 2024, among other things, requires the court, when the defendant is found to be incompetent to stand trial and not eligible for diversion, or diversion is terminated early, to do various things, including referring the defendant to assisted outpatient treatment, to the county conservatorship investigator for possible conservatorship proceedings, or to CARE.
- SB 1400 (Stern), Chapter 647, Statutes of 2024, among other things, requires, rather than permits, the court to hold a hearing to determine whether the defendant would be referred to outpatient treatment, conservatorship, or CARE, or if the defendant’s treatment plan would be modified. SB 1400 also expanded the data to be compiled and reported to the Judicial Council, and expanded the information compiled from county behavioral health departments to include information on all active and former participants for a period of time after the conclusion of CARE services.
- AB 102 (Ting), Chapter 38, Statutes of 2023, required DHCS, in consultation with the Judicial Council of California, to provide an early implementation report by December 1, 2024 to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee and the Budget Committees of each house of the Legislature, on key data for each trial court implementing CARE.
- SB 35 (Umberg), Chapter 283, Statutes of 2023, makes various revisions and clarifications to the CARE process, including to the obligations and responsibilities of CARE petitioners and county behavioral health agencies; provisions relating to a respondent’s privacy and the circumstances their health information may be shared with the county; and, the level of participation in CARE proceedings a petitioner who is an eligible family member or a person who lives with the respondent may maintain if the court grants privileges.
- SB 43 (Eggman) expanded the definitions of “gravely disabled” and “basic personal needs” in relation to a person’s mental health disorder.
- SB 1338 (Umberg), Chapter 319, Statutes of 2022, establishes the CARE Act.
- POLICY COMMENTS.
- Pattern of late amendments. Of the many CARE Act bills since the passage of SB 1338, several have followed a pattern of significant amendments very late in the legislative process. SB 35 had 19 sections added with amendments on June 12, 2023. SB 42 had 11 sections added on August 19, 2024. SB 27 had seven sections added on June 17, 2025. This bill was “gutted and amended” (when amendments to a bill remove the current contents in their entirety and replace them with different provisions) on June 11, 2026, with 17 sections added. While amendments to all bills are standard throughout the year, advocates have identified the pattern of these amendments to bills regarding the CARE Act. Advocates have contacted the committee about this pattern, stating that it is “bypassing public engagement and limiting time to properly discern the impacts of the bill,” and argue that legislation “that can take people’s rights away, must face public opinion, and members of the Legislature must be given the chance to engage in public debate on concerns raised.” Further, some of the most significant changes proposed by this bill were mentioned in the November 2025 oversight hearing noted above and conducted by the author, but were not included in this bill until the most recent amendments. Many stakeholders have shared their displeasure with another CARE Act bill being amended this late in the process. This is not just an issue for members of the public and impacted populations: it also severely diminishes this committee’s ability to understand fully the author’s intent and the practical implications of each provision, making it difficult for committee members to be informed about the policy they are considering.
- Program updates without robust data. As noted above, since the passage of the CARE Act in 2022, there have been annual updates to the process, reporting, eligibility, and more. While continued monitoring of implementation and the ability to course correct are crucial to ensuring program success, it must be noted that all of these changes have happened in the absence of a single statewide annual report. While the early implementation report, first annual report on early implementation counties, and the update provided by CalHHS in July 2025 have provided valuable insight into the operation of the program, this committee may wish to consider additional changes to the CARE Act in the context of pending statewide reporting and the preliminary evaluation by an independent, research-based entity due December 31 this year.
Current law requires the annual the report to include, at a minimum, information on the effectiveness of the CARE Act model in improving outcomes and reducing disparities, homelessness, criminal justice involvement, conservatorships, and hospitalization of participants. The annual report must include process measures to examine the scope of impact and monitor the performance of CARE Act model implementation, such as the number and source of petitions filed for CARE Court; the number, rates, and trends of petitions resulting in dismissal and hearings; the number, rates, and trends of supporters; the number, rates, and trends of voluntary CARE agreements; the number, rates, and trends of ordered and completed CARE plans; the services and supports included in CARE plans, including court orders for stabilizing medications; the rates of adherence to medication; the number, rates, and trends of psychiatric advance directives; and the number, rates, and trends of developed graduation plans. The report must include outcome measures to assess the effectiveness of the CARE Act model, such as improvement in housing status, including gaining and maintaining housing; reductions in emergency department visits and inpatient hospitalizations; reductions in law enforcement encounters and incarceration; reductions in involuntary treatment and conservatorship; and reductions in substance use. The annual report also must examine these data through the lens of health equity to identify racial, ethnic, and other demographic disparities and inform disparity reduction efforts.
All of this is information that would be valuable and relevant when considering further changes to the CARE Act.
- This bill may diminish the voluntary nature of the CARE Act. There is disagreement across the spectrum of stakeholders about which aspects of the CARE Act are working and which are not. The author notes that people who are dismissed from CARE because they need a higher level of services are falling through the cracks, and the proposed solution is to further integrate CARE with involuntary treatment. As noted by CPDA, this bill may have the impact of discouraging those respondents with significant behavioral health issues, individuals that may be truly engaging with treatment for the first time, from participating at all if the threat of involuntary treatment is hanging over the process. Under current law, if a person is gravely disabled or a danger to self or others as a result of a mental disorder, they are eligible to be detained for evaluation and treatment under LPS, regardless of their enrollment in CARE.
- Conflicts with other bills. This bill includes a blanket conflict section stating that if there are conflicts between provisions of this bill and SB 989, SB 1016, or SB 1242, the provisions of those bills would take effect. As currently drafted, this bill does conflict with all three and would need to address those conflicts to avoid chaptering out issues.
- COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS. The committee may wish to amend this bill, as follows:
- Reduce the proposed extension of the period for an affidavit of a licensed behavioral health professional stating the licensed behavioral health professional or their designee has examined or made multiple unsuccessful attempts to examine the respondent within 60 days of submission of the petition from the 270 days currently proposed to 120 days.
- Authorize the court to order the county to develop an exit plan, rather than a grave disability evaluation, if the petition is dismissed because the respondent needs a higher level of services. Require DHCS to convene stakeholders to develop a model exit plan.
- Strike the requirement that the CARE Act Accountability Fund be used to fund the ombudsperson.
- Limit new information in the petition or report containing documentation regarding how past attempts at voluntary engagement failed to 120 days prior to the petition, rather than indefinite.
- Limit the following information to the 120 days prior to a petition: evidence that the respondent was either detained for a minimum of two involuntary holds, or that they were referred to an FSP program more than once but were not enrolled due to an inability or unwillingness to engage.
- Clarify a court may not terminate a respondent’s participation solely for the county’s failure to engage.
- Modify the CARE Champion/ICU section to state the intent of the Legislature to require CalHHS to identify those counties performing well and those not rather than the Governor, and to provide counties with technical assistance and support. Appropriate metrics to be determined should the bill move forward.
- Permits the court to adopt the CARE agreement as a CARE plan if certain conditions are met, including that the respondent was provided with all services required in the CARE agreement and that respondent has stopped engaging for 60 days or more with documented attempts to engage them. Prohibits the adoption of the CARE agreement as a CARE plan from restarting the CARE process timeline.
- Strike the following provisions from the bill:
- Requires the county behavioral health agency to request a status hearing to address a change in circumstances, only if necessary to ensure the respondent’s safety, and remove the requirement that they use legal authority for an LPS evaluation.
- Deletes the 6 month limitation on the court considering the respondent’s failure of their CARE plan and the reasons for that failure in any subsequent hearings under the LPS Act and creating a presumption that the respondent needs additional intervention beyond the supports and services provided by the CARE plan, thereby requiring the court to consider that evidence at any future LPS Act hearing and extending the presumption indefinitely.
- Authorizes individuals to qualify for the CARE program if they have not been clinically stabilized in ongoing voluntary treatment for more than 90 days prior to the CARE Court filing and if supervision is required to allow for services and supports to be effective and to prevent substantial deterioration or relapse, in addition to current eligibility criteria.
- States that high utilization of emergency services is strong evidence that a person is not clinically stabilized and that current enrollment in a full-service partnership (FSP) program does not automatically exclude a person from the CARE Act program. Defines “high utilization of emergency services” to mean utilizing 911 or emergency department services 20 times or more in a 12-month period.
- Authorizes, during the petition review phase, the county behavioral health agency, their designee, or the court to recommend the respondent be considered for alternative treatment, including, but not limited to, assisted outpatient treatment program (AOT) or a grave disability evaluation under the LPS Act, if the respondent requires a higher level of care than the CARE process. Prohibits a determination that a respondent requires a higher level of care than the CARE process if they otherwise meet, or are likely to meet, the criteria for CARE Court.
- Permits the court to order an LPS evaluation upon termination if the court finds it is in the best interest of the respondent.
- States that if a court dismisses a petition because the person does not meet the criteria by clear and convincing evidence, this is a termination pursuant to another section of the law, which could lead to an LPS evaluation.
- Limits the current requirement for a court to order a county behavioral health agency to investigate and file a written report when a petition is filed by any entity that is not county behavioral health to only when a petitioner is a cohabitant or family member.
- Adds NPs and PAs to the definition of a “licensed behavioral health professional” for the purposes of the CARE Act.
- Adds the director or chief of a governmental agency offering first responder services, or their designee, to the list of people and entities permitted to file a CARE petition.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
California State Association of Psychiatrists (CSAP)
One individual
Opposition
All People's Health Collective
Anti Police-terror Project
Antiracist MD
Black Men Speak, Inc.
Buccola Family Homeless Advocacy Clinic
Cal Voices
California Alliance for Retired Americans (CARA)
California Association of Mental Health Peer Run Organizations
California Association of Social Rehabilitation Agencies
California Coalition for Women Prisoners
California Peer Watch
California Public Defenders Association
California United for a Responsible Budget (CURB)
CD11 Coalition for Human Rights
Center for Independent Living Berkeley
Centro Legal De LA Raza
Community Lead Advocacy Program Clap
Corporation for Supportive Housing (CSH)
County Behavioral Health Directors Association
Disability Community Resource Center
Disability Rights California
Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund (DREDF)
Drug Policy Alliance
Food Not Bombs
Independent Defense Counsel Office, County of Santa Clara
Kelechi Ubozoh Consulting
Law Foundation of Silicon Valley
Los Angeles Community Action Network
Mental Health America of California
National Alliance to End Homelessness
Painted Brain
People's Homeless Task Force Orange County
Project Return Peer Support Network
Senior & Disability Action
Venice Justice Committee
Western Regional Advocacy Project
Analysis Prepared by: Logan Hess / HEALTH / (916) 319-2097
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478 | SB 28 |
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 28
Author: Umberg (D), et al.
Amended: 5/23/25
Vote: 27 - Urgency
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 6-0, 3/25/25
AYES: Arreguín, Seyarto, Caballero, Gonzalez, Pérez, Wiener
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 6-0, 5/23/25
AYES: Caballero, Seyarto, Cabaldon, Grayson, Richardson, Wahab
NO VOTE RECORDED: Dahle
SUBJECT: Treatment court program standards
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST:
This bill adds a treatment court standard that a drug addiction expert, as defined, conduct a substance use and mental health evaluation of the defendant; requires that a treatment program that complies with the treatment court standards be available and offered to a person who is eligible for treatment pursuant to the Treatment-Mandated Felony Act; and requires that treatment court programs be used to satisfy the requirements of the Treatment-Mandated Felony Act.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
- Establishes the Drug Court Programs Act and permits any county, at its option, to provide a drug court program. (Health & Safety (HSC) Code §§ 11970.5, 11971, subd. (a).)
- Requires, if a county chooses to provide a drug court program, a county alcohol and drug program administrator and the presiding judge in the county to develop, as part of the contract for substance use disorder (SUD) services, a plan for the operation of a drug court program that includes the information necessary for the state to ensure a county’s compliance with the provisions for receipt of federal grant funds for prevention and treatment of SUDs. (HSC § 11971, subd. (b).)
- Requires the plan to do all of the following:
- Describe existing programs that serve substance-abusing adults, juveniles, and parents of children who are detained by, or are dependents of, the juvenile court;
- Provide a local action plan for implementing cost-effective drug court systems, including any or all of specified drug court systems;
- Develop information-sharing systems to ensure that county actions are fully coordinated, and to provide data for measuring the success of the local action plan in achieving its goals; and,
- Identify outcome measures that will determine the cost effectiveness of the local action plan. (HSC § 11971, subd. (c).)
- Provides that counties and courts that opt to have treatment court programs are required to ensure the programs are designed and operated in accordance with state and national guidelines incorporating the “Adult Treatment Court Best Practice Standards” and “Family Treatment Court Best Practice Standards” developed by All Rise (founded as the National Association of Drug Court Professionals), with consideration for the distinct court system within which the program operates. Identifies key components to be included in criminal adult treatment court programs. (HSC § 11972, subd. (a).)
- Establishes the Treatment-Mandated Felony Act (TMFA). (HSC § 11395, subd. (a).)
- Requires a person who possesses a hard drug, except as specified, to be punished by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year or pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 of the Penal Code, except as provided. Provides that a second or subsequent conviction is punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year or by imprisonment in the state prison. (HSC § 11395, subd. (b)(1).)
- Prohibits a person from being sentenced to jail or prison pursuant to the TMFA unless a court determines that the person is not eligible or suitable for treatment or that any other circumstance, as described, applies to that person. (HSC § 11395, subd. (b)(2).)
- Provides that the provisions above related to possession of a hard drug apply to a person who has two or more prior convictions for specified felony or misdemeanor drug offenses, including a conviction that occurred before the effective date of the TMFA. Requires prior convictions to be alleged in the accusatory pleading, and either admitted by the defendant in open court or found to be true by the trier of fact. (HSC § 11395, subd. (c).)
- Provides that a defendant charged with a violation of the TMFA may elect treatment in lieu of a jail or prison sentence, or a grant of probation with jail as a condition of probation, by pleading guilty or no contest and admitting the alleged prior convictions, waiving time for sentencing and the pronouncement of judgment, and agreeing to participate in, and complete, a detailed treatment program developed by a drug addiction expert and approved by the court. Provides that a defendant’s plea of guilty or no contest does not constitute a conviction for any purpose unless judgment is entered, as described. (HSC § 11395, subd. (d)(1)(A).)
- Provides that a treatment program may include, but is not limited to, drug treatment, mental health treatment, job training, and any other conditions related to treatment or a successful outcome for the defendant that the court finds appropriate. (HSC § 11395, subd. (d)(2).)
- Requires the court, upon the defendant’s successful completion of the treatment program, the positive recommendation of the treatment program, and the motion of the defendant, prosecuting attorney, the court, or the probation department, to dismiss the charge against the defendant. Provides that the arrest upon which the defendant was deferred shall be deemed to have never occurred. Provides that a dismissal based on the successful completion of treatment shall not count as a conviction for any purpose, including for determining punishment. (HSC § 11395, subd. (d)(3).)
- Defines “hard drug” to mean a substance listed in Section 11054 or 11055, including a substance containing fentanyl, heroin, cocaine, cocaine base, methamphetamine, or phencyclidine, and the analogs of any of these substances as defined in Sections 11400 and 11401. specifies that “hard drug” does not include cannabis, cannabis products, peyote, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), other psychedelic drugs, including mescaline and psilocybin (mushrooms), any other substance listed in subdivisions (d) and (e) of Section 11054, or, with the exception of methamphetamine, any other substance listed in subdivision (d) of Section 11055. (HSC § 11395, subd. (e)(1), (2).)
This bill:
- Adds a treatment court standard that a drug addiction expert conduct a substance abuse and mental health evaluation of the defendant.
- Requires the expert to submit a report of the evaluation to the court and the parties. Provides that “expert” includes, but is not limited to, a psychiatrist, psychologist, clinical social worker, marriage and family therapist, professional clinical counselor, or a person whose knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education qualifies them as an expert.
- Removes the requirement that Judicial Council revise the standards of judicial administration by January 1, 2026.
- Requires that a treatment court program that complies with these standards be available and offered to a person that is eligible for treatment pursuant to the TMFA.
- Requires treatment court programs to be used to satisfy the requirements in the TMFA.
Background
Drug Courts. Collaborative courts, also known as problem-solving courts, combine judicial supervision with rehabilitation services to reduce recidivism and improve offender outcomes. Over 400 collaborative courts exist throughout 56 of the state’s 58 counties, with many counties operating several types of collaborative courts. Examples of collaborative courts include drug courts, DUI courts, mental health courts, and veterans’ courts, among others. The state’s collaborative courts broadly fall into two categories, treatment and non-treatment courts.
Drug court is one type of treatment court. According to the Judicial Council, there are currently 83 drug courts operating within the state. (Judicial Council of California, Collaborative Justice Court Fact Sheet (Mar. 2025), p. 2 available at <https://www.courts.ca.gov/system/files/file/collaborativcourts_factsheet.pdf .)
Existing law, the Drug Court Programs Act, permits any county, at its option, to provide a drug court program. (HSC §§ 11970.5, 11971.) If a county chooses to provide a drug court program, the presiding judge in the county and a county alcohol and drug program administrator must develop a plan for the operation of a drug court program. (HSC § 11971, subd. (b).) Prior to the enactment of SB 910 (Umberg), Chapter 641, Statutes of 2024, Health and Safety Code Section 11972 delineated a list of best-practice standards as guidelines for the state’s drug courts. SB 910 revised those standards and applied the standards to all counties and courts that opt to have treatments courts.
Proposition 36. Proposition 36 was approved by the voters on November 5, 2024. Among its many provisions, Proposition 36 established the treatment-mandated felony. This offense can be charged when a person is arrested for possession of specified controlled substances and who has two or more prior convictions for specified drug offenses. (HSC § 11395, subds. (b) & (c).) This offense can be charged as a misdemeanor or a felony. (HSC § 11395, subd. (b)(1).) The treatment-mandated felony allows a person charged under its provisions to complete a treatment program in lieu of serving time in jail or prison. (HSC § 11395, subds. (b) & (c).) A person charged with a treatment-mandated offense must be given an opportunity to elect treatment, and a person who agrees to accept treatment must plead guilty or no contest. (HSC § 11395, subds. (b)(2) & (d)(1)(A).)
Upon or subsequent to arraignment, the court must order a drug addiction expert to conduct a substance abuse and mental health evaluation of the defendant, and the expert must submit a report of the evaluation to the court and parties. (HSC § 11395, subd. (d)(1)(B).) A “treatment program may include, but is not limited to, drug treatment, mental health treatment, job training, and any other conditions related to treatment or a successful outcome for the defendant that the court finds appropriate.” (HSC § 11395, subd. (d)(2).) The court is required to hold regular progress hearings but the frequency of those hearings is not provided in the statute. (HSC § 11395, subd. (d)(2).) Upon successful completion of the treatment program, the recommendation of the treatment program, and the motion of the defendant, prosecuting attorney, court, or the probation department, the court is required to dismiss the charge against the defendant. (HSC § 11395, subd. (d)(3).)
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
- Unknown, significant costs to the state funded trial courts (General Fund, Trial Court Trust Fund).
- Unknown, significant ongoing costs (local funds, General Fund) to treatment courts, including public defenders, district attorneys, inpatient and outpatient treatment programs, social workers, probation, and county behavioral health services agencies, to the extent that the evaluations create additional responsibilites. General Fund costs will depend on whether the duties imposed by this bill constitute a reimbursable state mandate, as determined by the Commission on State Mandates.
SUPPORT: (Verified 5/23/25)
Arcadia Police Officers’ Association
Brea Police Association
Burbank Police Officers’ Association
California Association of School Police Chiefs
California Coalition of School Safety Professionals
California District Attorneys Association
California Narcotic Officers’ Association
California Reserve Peace Officers Association
California State Association of Psychiatrists
Claremont Police Officers Association
Corona Police Officers Association
Culver City Police Officers’ Association
Fullerton Police Officers’ Association
Los Angeles School Police Management Association
Los Angeles School Police Officers Association
Murrieta Police Officers’ Association
Newport Beach Police Association
Palos Verdes Police Officers Association
Placer County Deputy Sheriffs’ Association
Pomona Police Officers’ Association
Riverside Police Officers Association
Riverside Sheriffs’ Association
San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department
San Diego County District Attorney’s Office
Santa Ana Police Officers Association
OPPOSITION: (Verified 5/23/25)
ACLU California Action
Californians for Safety and Justice
Drug Policy Alliance
ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT:
According to the San Diego County District Attorney:
SB 28 is an important piece of legislation that will improve treatment court accessibility and help individuals involved in the justice system by improving their outcomes. … This bill would allow counties to use existing collaborative courts to ensure best practices throughout California and advance the betterment of our communities.
…
In the 2024 general election, California voters passed Prop 36, which, among other provisions, contained the Treatment-Mandated Felony Act. This Act allows people convicted of possession illegal drugs (specifically those who possess certain drugs such as methamphetamine or fentanyl or those who have two or more past convictions for drug crimes) to be charged with a “treatment-mandated felony” instead of a misdemeanor. Upon completion of treatment, charges will be dismissed. If a defendant fails to complete treatment, they would be charged and face three years in state prison. Existing law authorizes counties to implement drug court programs, and until the passage of SB 910 (Umberg), the standards by which they operate varied. SB 910 created statewide standards for collaborative courts to operate in accordance with the “Adult Treatment Court Best Practices Standards” developed by All Rise.
SB 28 assists in the implementation of Prop 36 standards by clarifying that all counties must have drug courts to facilitate mandated treatment and that these courts must use best practices to ensure participant success. However, by creating a blanket application of high-risk/high-need population standards to all individuals dealing with drug addiction, we could be hindering their progress. High-risk individuals require different resources and treatment compared to lower-risk and lower-need people. By generalizing the standards set by All Rise to every sect of the population, our state risks an overutilization of resources and could severely impact counties that currently deal with limited treatment options. Respectfully, we would ask the author take consideration of treatment standards and emphasize that there will be flexibility in addressing the different facets of drug addiction.
ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION:
Californians for Safety and Justice writes:
SB 28 seeks to expand existing treatment court programs to satisfy the treatment program requirements pursuant to the Treatment-Mandated Felony Act, established by Proposition 36. SB 28 would burden treatment court programs with a potential influx that the current infrastructure and allocated resources would not be able to appropriately accommodate.
…
… Today, California has four different models of treatment courts with varying eligibility and operational requirements. Over three decades have passed since the inception of treatment courts and experts continue to work on fine tuning the process to be its most effective. …
…
Proposition 36 relies on the availability of new treatment pathways, not repurposing existing state and local treatment capacity to meet the needs of a different population. The initiative’s provisions outlining the nature of the treatment programs available for defendants pleading guilty to PC 11395 are lengthy and allow for treatment programs tailored to the specific needs of each defendant … [and] do not include any reference to treatment courts as avenues for providing this treatment. While we recognize that courts statewide are working hard to build out treatment programs in line with PC 11395’s new requirements, we are concerned that creating a clear pathway for the use treatment courts to meet these needs may result in outcomes not in line with the intent of Proposition 36.
Treatment courts today serve as potential interventions for people with treatment needs facing a variety of different criminal charges. The potentially significant influx of referrals for 11396 cases, a small subset of the statewide population of people with criminal cases driven by substance use problems, could crowd out existing defendant populations including those with a risk and needs profile much more aligned with the intensive intervention treatment courts offer. …
…
SB 28 will crowd the existing treatment court programs, without allocating additional resources or providing any limitations or guidance. Treatment courts are currently restructuring to accommodate the required changes from legislation passed just last year. At a time when clarity and increased resources are needed, burdening existing systems without additional support is no the appropriate response.
Prepared by: Stephanie Jordan / PUB. S. /
5/27/25 11:16:59
**** END ****
SENATE COMMITTEE ON
Senator Anna Caballero, Chair
2025 - 2026 Regular Session
SB 28 (Umberg) - Treatment court program standards
Version: | Policy Vote: |
Urgency: | Mandate: |
Hearing Date: | Consultant: |
Bill Summary:
SB 28 requires counties and courts that opt to have treatment court programs to ensure that, a “drug addiction expert”, as defined, conducts a substance use and mental health evaluation of the defendant.
*********** ANALYSIS ADDENDUM – SUSPENSE FILE ***********
The following information is revised to reflect amendments
adopted by the committee on May 23, 2025
Fiscal Impact:
- Unknown, significant costs to the state funded trial courts (General Fund, Trial Court Trust Fund).
- Unknown, significant ongoing costs (local funds, General Fund) to treatment courts, including public defenders, district attorneys, inpatient and outpatient treatment programs, social workers, probation, and county behavioral health services agencies, to the extent that the evaluations create additional responsibilites. General Fund costs will depend on whether the duties imposed by this bill constitute a reimbursable state mandate, as determined by the Commission on State Mandates.
Committee Amendments:
Strike the provision requiring drug treatment courts to be available to all defendants.
-- END --
SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Senator Anna Caballero, Chair
2025 - 2026 Regular Session
SB 28 (Umberg) - Treatment court program standards
Version: March 10, 2025 | Policy Vote: PUB. S. 6 - 0 |
Urgency: Yes | Mandate: No |
Hearing Date: April 7, 2025 | Consultant: Liah Burnley |
Bill Summary:
SB 28 requires treatment court programs be available to all eligible California defendants and requires a “drug addiction expert”, as defined, conduct a substance use and mental health evaluation of the defendant.
Fiscal Impact:
- Unknown, significant one-time and ongoing costs to the state funded trial courts (General Fund, Trial Court Trust Fund). (See Staff Comment).
- Unknown, significant ongoing costs (local funds, General Fund) to public defenders, district attorneys, inpatient and outpatient treatment programs, social workers, probation, and county behavioral health services agencies. General Fund costs will depend on whether the duties imposed by this bill constitute a reimbursable state mandate, as determined by the Commission on State Mandates.
Background:
Proposition 36 was approved by the voters on November 5, 2024. Among its many provisions, Proposition 36 established a new class of crime—a treatment-mandated felony. This offense can be charged when a person is arrested for possession of specified controlled substances and has two or more prior convictions for specified drug offenses.
The treatment-mandated felony allows a person charged under its provisions to complete a treatment program in lieu of serving time in jail or prison. A person charged with a treatment-mandated offense must be given an opportunity to elect treatment and must plead guilty or no contest. Proposition 36 further provides that, upon or subsequent to arraignment, the court must order a "drug addiction expert" to conduct a substance abuse and mental health evaluation of the defendant and submit a report of the evaluation to the court and parties. The court is required to hold regular progress hearings, but the frequency of those hearings is not provided in the statute. Proposition 36 does not define or contain any criteria for who qualifies as a "drug addiction expert."
Upon successful completion of the treatment program, the recommendation of the treatment program, and the motion of the defendant, prosecuting attorney, court, or probation department, the court is required to dismiss the charge against the defendant. However, if at any time it appears that the defendant is performing unsatisfactorily in the program, is not benefiting from treatment, is not amenable to treatment, has refused treatment, or has been convicted of a crime committed since starting treatment, the prosecutor, probation department, or court on its own may make a motion for entry of judgment and sentencing.
While Proposition 36 created a new pathway to services, it did not provide funding for additional services and related work. It did not provide funding for additional judicial officers and staff, resources, experts, clinicians, social workers, probation officers, behavioral health service and treatment providers, public defenders, or facilities for evaluations and treatment programs. County caseloads vary, heavily influenced by the DA’s local approach. Scott Cooper, Supervising Judge for Collaborative Courts in Orange County, recently testified that the county has seen approximately 11,000 treatment-mandated felony filings, accounting for approximately 30% of all felony filings in the county.
This bill would expand Proposition 36’s treatment-mandated felony by requiring the program to be available to all eligible defendants in California.
Proposed Law:
- Strikes current provisions of existing law that allow counties and courts to opt to have treatment court programs and instead requires treatment court programs be available to all eligible California defendants.
- Requires courts to ensure the programs are designed and operated in accordance with state and national guidelines incorporating the “Adult Treatment Court Best Practice Standards” and “Family Treatment Court Best Practice Standards” developed by All Rise (founded as the National Association of Drug Court Professionals), with consideration for the distinct court system within which the program operates.
- Requires a “drug addiction expert” to conduct a substance abuse and mental health evaluation of the defendant.
- Provides that the expert shall submit a report of the evaluation to the court and the parties.
- Provides that “expert” “includes, but is not limited to, a psychiatrist, psychologist, clinical social worker, marriage and family therapist, professional clinical counselor, registered nurse, or hospital administrator, who meets standards of education and experience established by the Director of Health Care Services, or a person whose knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education qualifies them as an expert.”
Related Legislation:
SB 910 (Umberg), Ch. 641, Stats. of 2024, made updates to drug treatment court program standards.
Staff Comments:
The Judicial Council indicates that, if collaborative courts are intended to be the mechanism for implementing Proposition 36, the initiative itself does not provide funding for the significant expectations surrounding behavioral health services. The Judicial Council notes that it has been engaging with the author of this bill on language that would provide necessary flexibility for courts to utilize existing treatment courts for Proposition 36 defendants who meet the criteria for those courts in alignment with the evidence-based model and treatment-based goals of All Rise. This would mean referring high-risk, high-need defendants to service-intensive collaborative courts.
The Judicial Council also indicates that its analysis of the fiscal impact of this bill is dependent on the outcome of budgetary actions (specifically funding requests for SB 910 (Umberg; 2024) and Proposition 36). If the bill is amended and their budget requests funded, the Judicial Council estimates approximately $340,000 in one-time funding to establish 10 new treatment courts. This estimate could increase if other existing treatment courts are found to be insufficient to meet this bill’s requirements.
The Judicial Council also anticipates an ongoing cost of $5.6 million for increased operational costs to new and existing adult drug courts. If the requests for SB 910 and Proposition 36 are not funded, the ongoing estimate would increase to $17.5 million. If the requirement that every county have a treatment court is not amended out of the bill, it is likely these numbers will also increase, though the estimated amount is still being determined.
-- END --
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Jesse Arreguín, Chair
2025 - 2026 Regular
Bill No: SB 28 Hearing Date: March 25, 2025
Author: | Umberg | ||
Version: | March 10, 2025 | ||
Urgency: | Yes | Fiscal: | Yes |
Consultant: | SJ | ||
Subject: Treatment court program standards
HISTORY
Source: Author
Prior Legislation: Proposition 36, as approved by the voters on November 5, 2024
SB 910 (Umberg), Ch. 641, Stats. of 2024
AB 208 (Eggman), Ch. 778, Stats. of 2017
SB 1014 (Comm. on Budget), Ch. 36, Stats. of 2012
Proposition 36, as approved by the voters on November 7, 2000
SB 1369 (Kopp), Ch. 1132, Stats. of 1996
Support: California District Attorneys Association; California State Association of Psychiatrists; San Diego County District Attorney’s Office; (if amended) County Behavioral Health Directors Association
Opposition: ACLU California Action; Californians for Safety and Justice; Drug Policy Alliance
PURPOSE
The purposes of this bill are to remove permissive language under existing law that authorizes counties and courts to opt to have treatment court programs and instead require that treatment court programs be available to all eligible California defendants; add a treatment court standard that a drug addiction expert, as defined, conduct a substance use and mental health evaluation of the defendant; and, require that a treatment program that complies with existing judicial standards be offered to a person who is eligible for treatment pursuant to the Treatment-Mandated Felony Act.
Existing law establishes the Drug Court Programs Act. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11970.5.)
Existing law permits any county, at its option, to provide a drug court program. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11971, subd. (a).)
Existing law requires, if a county chooses to provide a drug court program, a county alcohol and drug program administrator and the presiding judge in the county to develop, as part of the contract for substance use disorder (SUD) services, a plan for the operation of a drug court program that includes the information necessary for the state to ensure a county’s compliance with the provisions for receipt of federal grant funds for prevention and treatment of SUDs. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11971, subd. (b).)
Existing law requires the plan to do all of the following:
- Describe existing programs that serve substance-abusing adults, juveniles, and parents of children who are detained by, or are dependents of, the juvenile court;
- Provide a local action plan for implementing cost-effective drug court systems, including any or all of specified drug court systems;
- Develop information-sharing systems to ensure that county actions are fully coordinated, and to provide data for measuring the success of the local action plan in achieving its goals; and,
- Identify outcome measures that will determine the cost effectiveness of the local action plan.
(Health & Saf. Code, § 11971, subd. (c).)
Existing law provides that counties and courts that opt to have treatment court programs are required to ensure the programs are designed and operated in accordance with state and national guidelines incorporating the “Adult Treatment Court Best Practice Standards” and “Family Treatment Court Best Practice Standards” developed by All Rise (founded as the National Association of Drug Court Professionals), with consideration for the distinct court system within which the program operates. Provides that it is the intent of the Legislature that key components of the criminal adult treatment court programs include:
- Integration by treatment courts of behavioral health treatment services with justice system case processing.
- Promotion of public safety, while protecting participants’ due process rights, by prosecution and defense counsel using a nonadversarial approach.
- Early identification of eligible participants from the appropriate high-risk and high-need target population and prompt placement in the treatment court program.
- Access provided by treatment courts to a continuum of substance use and other behavioral health treatment and social services that are evidence based and meet the specific needs of the participant.
- Frequent alcohol and other drug testing to monitor abstinence.
- A system of incentives, sanctions, and service adjustments to achieve participant success.
- Ongoing judicial interaction with each treatment court participant at the needed frequency to meet the needs of the participant.
- Monitoring and evaluation to measure the achievement of program goals and gauge effectiveness.
- Continuing interdisciplinary education to promote effective treatment court planning, implementation, and operations.
- Forging partnerships among treatment courts, public agencies, and community-based organizations to generate local support and enhance treatment court program effectiveness and to coordinate access to needed complementary services outside the program.
- Working to ensure equitable access, services, and outcomes for all sociodemographic and sociocultural groups.
(Health & Saf. Code, § 11972, subd. (a).)
Existing law requires the Judicial Council to revise the standards of judicial administration to reflect state and nationally recognized best practices and guidelines for collaborative programs by January 1, 2026. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11972, subd. (b).)
Existing law establishes the Treatment-Mandated Felony Act (TMFA). (Health & Saf. Code, § 11395, subd. (a).)
Existing law requires a person who possesses a hard drug, except as specified, to be punished by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year or pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 of the Penal Code, except as provided. Provides that a second or subsequent conviction is punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year or by imprisonment in the state prison. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11395, subd. (b)(1).)
Existing law prohibits a person from being sentenced to jail or prison pursuant to the TMFA unless a court determines that the person is not eligible or suitable for treatment or that any other circumstance, as described, applies to that person. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11395, subd. (b)(2).)
Existing law provides that the provisions above related to possession of a hard drug apply to a person who has two or more prior convictions for specified felony or misdemeanor drug offenses, including a conviction that occurred before the effective date of the TMFA. Requires prior convictions to be alleged in the accusatory pleading, and either admitted by the defendant in open court or found to be true by the trier of fact. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11395, subd. (c).)
Existing law provides that a defendant charged with a violation of the TMFA may elect treatment
in lieu of a jail or prison sentence, or a grant of probation with jail as a condition of probation, by pleading guilty or no contest and admitting the alleged prior convictions, waiving time for sentencing and the pronouncement of judgment, and agreeing to participate in, and complete, a detailed treatment program developed by a drug addiction expert and approved by the court. Provides that a defendant’s plea of guilty or no contest does not constitute a conviction for any purpose unless judgment is entered, as described. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11395, subd. (d)(1)(A).)
Existing law requires the court to order a drug addiction expert to conduct a substance abuse and mental health evaluation of the defendant upon or subsequent to arraignment and at the request or with the consent of the defendant or their attorney. Requires the expert to submit a report of the evaluation to the court and parties. Provides that the evaluation may be based on an interview of the defendant or other individuals with relevant knowledge and review of records the expert deems appropriate, including medical records, criminal history, prior treatment history, and records pertaining to the current offense. Provides that if the defendant participates in the interview, neither the defendant’s interview nor evidence derived from the interview may be used against the defendant at any subsequent trial for the instant offense except for the purposes of impeachment should the defendant testify inconsistently. Requires the evaluation to detail the defendant’s drug abuse or mental health issues, if any, so the court and parties may better determine appropriate handling of the defendant’s case. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11395, subd. (d)(1)(B).)
Existing law requires the court to also order that a case worker or other qualified individual determine whether the defendant is eligible to receive Medi-Cal, Medicare, or any other relevant benefits for any programs or evaluations concurrent with the order for a substance abuse and mental health evaluation of the defendant, and with the defendant’s consent. Requires the court to order the eligibility determination upon and as a condition of the defendant’s agreement to participate in and complete a treatment program, as described, if the defendant did not previously consent to an eligibility determination at arraignment. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11395, subd. (d)(1)(C).)
Existing law provides that a treatment program may include, but is not limited to, drug treatment, mental health treatment, job training, and any other conditions related to treatment or a successful outcome for the defendant that the court finds appropriate. Requires the court to hold regular hearings to review the progress of the defendant. Requires the court to make referrals to programs that provide services at no cost to the participant and have been deemed by the court, the drug addiction expert, and the parties to be credible and effective. Provides that a defendant may also choose to pay for a program that is approved by the court. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11395, subd. (d)(2).)
Existing law requires the court, upon the defendant’s successful completion of the treatment program, the positive recommendation of the treatment program, and the motion of the defendant, prosecuting attorney, the court, or the probation department, to dismiss the charge against the defendant. Provides that the arrest upon which the defendant was deferred shall be deemed to have never occurred. Provides that a dismissal based on the successful completion of treatment shall not count as a conviction for any purpose, including for determining punishment. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11395, subd. (d)(3).)
Existing law authorizes the prosecuting attorney, the court on its own, or the probation department to make a motion for entry of judgment and sentencing if at any time it appears that the defendant is performing unsatisfactorily in the program, is not benefiting from treatment, is not amenable to treatment, has refused treatment, or has been convicted of a crime that was committed since starting treatment. Requires the court to hold a hearing to determine whether judgment should be entered and the defendant sentenced after notice to the defendant. Requires judgment to be imposed and the defendant sentenced if the court finds true one or more of the foregoing circumstances. Provides that the court may rerefer the defendant to treatment if the court finds that it is in the interest of justice to do so, that the defendant is currently amenable to treatment, and if the defendant agrees to participate in, and complete, a treatment program, except when the defendant has been found to have been convicted of a crime that was committed since starting treatment. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11395, subd. (d)(4).)
Existing law defines “hard drug” to mean a substance listed in Section 11054 or 11055, including a substance containing fentanyl, heroin, cocaine, cocaine base, methamphetamine, or phencyclidine, and the analogs of any of these substances as defined in Sections 11400 and 11401. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11395, subd. (e)(1).)
Existing law specifies that “hard drug” does not include cannabis, cannabis products, peyote, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), other psychedelic drugs, including mescaline and psilocybin (mushrooms), any other substance listed in subdivisions (d) and (e) of Section 11054, or, with the exception of methamphetamine, any other substance listed in subdivision (d) of Section 11055. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11395, subd. (e)(2).)
Existing law requires, upon an arrest for a violation of this section, judicial review prior to release to make an individualized determination of risk to public safety and likelihood to return to court. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11395, subd. (f).)
This bill removes permissive language under existing law that authorizes counties and courts to opt to have treatment court programs and requires that treatment court programs be available to all eligible California defendants.
This bill adds a treatment court standard that a drug addiction expert conduct a substance abuse and mental health evaluation of the defendant.
This bill requires the expert to submit a report of the evaluation to the court and the parties. Provides that “expert” includes, but is not limited to, a psychiatrist, psychologist, clinical social worker, marriage and family therapist, professional clinical counselor, registered nurse, or hospital administrator, who meets standards of education and experience established by the Director of Health Care Services, or a person whose knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education qualifies them as an expert.
This bill removes the requirement that Judicial Council revise the standards of judicial administration.
This bill requires that a treatment court program that complies with these standards be available and offered to a person that is eligible for treatment pursuant to the TMFA.
This bill requires treatment court programs to be used to satisfy the requirements in the TMFA.
This bill contains an urgency clause.
COMMENTS
- Need For This Bill
According to the author:
SB 28 assists in the implementation by clarifying that all counties must have courts to facilitate the treatment mandated by Proposition 36 and that those courts must use best-practices to ensure the success of the participants. Drug courts provided an alternative to criminal adjudication for individuals struggling with substance use disorder. Participants usually attend after pleading guilty to a drug-related crime. If the participant graduates, the original charges can be reduced or dismissed. Drug courts are some of the most thoroughly researched court programs, and the overwhelming evidence suggests that they are effective and cost-beneficial when best practices are used.
In the 2024 general election, California voters passed Proposition 36, which, among other provisions, contained the Treatment-Mandated Felony Act. Allowing people convicted of possession of illegal drugs (specifically those who possess certain drugs such as methamphetamines or fentanyl or those who have two or more past convictions for drug crimes) to be charged with a “treatment-mandated felony” instead of a misdemeanor. Upon completion of treatment, charges will be dismissed. The proposition language is somewhat ambiguous regarding how counties should implement the new “treatment-mandated felony.” However, there are already preexisting programs in effect that have a proven track record of implementing diversion programs coinciding with a low recidivism rate. SB 28 will clarify that these existing courts can facilitate treatment-mandated felonies.
- Drug Courts
Collaborative courts, also known as problem-solving courts, combine judicial supervision with rehabilitation services to reduce recidivism and improve offender outcomes. Over 400 collaborative courts exist throughout 56 of the state’s 58 counties, with many counties operating several types of collaborative courts. Examples of collaborative courts include drug courts, DUI courts, mental health courts, and veterans’ courts, among others. The state’s collaborative courts broadly fall into two categories, treatment and non-treatment courts. According to the Judicial Council of California:
Adult treatment courts target high risk, high need participants–participants who are assessed as having a high risk of returning to the criminal justice system and a serious or severe substance use disorder or mental illness. These courts follow an evidence-based model informed by the Adult Treatment Court Best Practice Standards developed by All Rise (founded as the National Association of Drug Court Professionals). Each treatment court operates in a slightly different way with varying eligibility criteria, requirements, and lengths, types of sanctions and incentives, services provided, and graduation criteria. Juvenile treatment courts take account of adolescent brain development, unique ways that substance use and mental health manifest in youth, and other issues unique to youth, including the original rehabilitative nature of juvenile court.
The treatment court model appreciates that no one program works for everyone. For example, providing too much, too little or the wrong type of treatment or service can reduce court effectiveness and fail to improve participant outcomes. Embracing the risk, need, responsivity (RNR) principle, treatment courts provide supervision and treatment based on the individual needs of each participant and incorporate service adjustments to support participant success. California courts have successfully used the RNR principle to design alternative tracks to expand treatment court access to participants with low or moderate risk and/or need levels, and to participants with other behavioral health needs, such as intellectual and developmental disabilities. The alternative tracks provide modified supervision and services and adapt best practices as necessary and appropriate to effectively serve each participant.
(Judicial Council of California, Collaborative Justice Court Fact Sheet (Mar. 2025), pp. 1-2 available at <https://www.courts.ca.gov/system/files/file/collaborativcourts_factsheet.pdf>.)
Drug court is one type of treatment court. According to the Judicial Council, there are currently 83 drug courts operating within the state. (Id. at p. 2.) Existing law, the Drug Court Programs Act, permits any county, at its option, to provide a drug court program. (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11970.5, 11971.) If a county chooses to provide a drug court program, the presiding judge in the county and a county alcohol and drug program administrator must develop a plan for the operation of a drug court program. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11971, subd. (b).) Prior to the enactment of SB 910 (Umberg), Chapter 641, Statutes of 2024, Health and Safety Code section 11972 delineated a list of best-practice standards as guidelines for the state’s drug courts. SB 910 revised those standards and applied the standards to all counties and courts that opt to have treatments courts.
- Proposition 36
Proposition 36 was approved by the voters on November 5, 2024. Among its many provisions, Proposition 36 established the treatment-mandated felony. This offense can be charged when a person is arrested for possession of specified controlled substances and who has two or more prior convictions for specified drug offenses. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11395, subds. (b) & (c).) This offense can be charged as a misdemeanor or a felony. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11395, subd. (b)(1).) The treatment-mandated felony allows a person charged under its provisions to complete a treatment program in lieu of serving time in jail or prison. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11395, subds. (b) & (c).) A person charged with a treatment-mandated offense must be given an opportunity to elect treatment, and a person who agrees to accept treatment must plead guilty or no contest. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11395, subds. (b)(2) & (d)(1)(A).)
Upon or subsequent to arraignment, the court must order a drug addiction expert to conduct a substance abuse and mental health evaluation of the defendant, and the expert must submit a report of the evaluation to the court and parties. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11395, subd. (d)(1)(B).) A “treatment program may include, but is not limited to, drug treatment, mental health treatment, job training, and any other conditions related to treatment or a successful outcome for the defendant that the court finds appropriate.” (Health & Saf. Code, § 11395, subd. (d)(2).) The court is required to hold regular progress hearings but the frequency of those hearings is not provided in the statute. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11395, subd. (d)(2).) Upon successful completion of the treatment program, the recommendation of the treatment program, and the motion of the defendant, prosecuting attorney, court, or the probation department, the court is required to dismiss the charge against the defendant. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11395, subd. (d)(3).)
Section 11395 specifies that if at any time it appears that the defendant is performing unsatisfactorily in the program, is not benefiting from treatment, is not amenable to treatment, has refused treatment, or has been convicted of a crime that was committed since starting treatment, the prosecutor, probation department, or court on its own may make a motion for entry of judgment and sentencing. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11395, subd. (d)(4).) If a motion is made for entry of judgment and sentencing, the court must hold a hearing to determine whether judgment should be entered, and the judgment must be imposed and the defendant sentenced if the court finds true that the defendant is not benefiting from or is not amenable to treatment, has refused treatment, or has been convicted of a crime that was committed since starting treatment. (Ibid.) However, the court may re-refer the defendant to treatment if the court finds that it is in the interest of justice to do so, that the defendant is currently amenable to treatment, and if the defendant agrees to participate in and complete a treatment program, except when the defendant has been found to have been convicted of a crime that was committed since starting treatment. (Ibid.)
If the judgment is imposed and the defendant is sentenced, the defendant can be sentenced up to 3 years in county jail for a first offense if charged as a felony and up to 3 years in state prison for any subsequent offense. If charged as a misdemeanor, the punishment is up to one year in a county jail.
- Effect of This Bill
This bill removes permissive language under existing law that authorizes counties and courts to opt to have treatment court programs and requires that treatment court programs be available to all eligible California defendants. This bill also adds a treatment court standard that a drug addiction expert conduct a substance abuse and mental health evaluation of the defendant. This bill defines “expert” to includes but specifies that the term is not limited to, a psychiatrist, psychologist, clinical social worker, marriage and family therapist, professional clinical counselor, registered nurse, or hospital administrator, who meets standards of education and experience established by the Director of Health Care Services, or a person whose knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education qualifies them as an expert.
This bill additionally requires that a treatment court program that complies with the treatment court standards be available and offered to a person who is eligible for treatment pursuant to the TMFA, and requires treatment court programs to be used to satisfy the requirements in the TMFA.
This bill raises a number of questions. Given that not all counties have treatment courts, and specifically drug courts, will each county be able to meet the requirements of this bill? Supporters and opponents of the bill have raised concerns about applying treatment court standards designed for high-risk/high-needs individuals to all defendants. Should these standards apply to all defendants? Will the existing drug courts be able to absorb the additional caseload for individuals charged under Health and Safety Code section 11395 which would be required under this bill? Should the definition of drug addiction expert be narrowed to ensure that only individuals with some type of specified education, training, or experience related to substance use disorders are included?
- Argument in Support
According to the San Diego County District Attorney:
SB 28 is an important piece of legislation that will improve treatment court accessibility and help individuals involved in the justice system by improving their outcomes. … This bill would allow counties to use existing collaborative courts to ensure best practices throughout California and advance the betterment of our communities.
…
We know addiction is a treatable disease, but there is no real incentive for people to engage with the difficult work that addresses this lifelong program. As of January of last year, California has more than 400 collaborative courts. … Each court operates in a slightly different way and has varying eligibility criteria. San Diego County has four adult drug courts, each capable of handling 110 people, but they were only 59 percent full last year. …
…
In the 2024 general election, California voters passed Prop 36, which, among other provisions, contained the Treatment-Mandated Felony Act. This Act allows people convicted of possession illegal drugs (specifically those who possess certain drugs such as methamphetamine or fentanyl or those who have two or more past convictions for drug crimes) to be charged with a “treatment-mandated felony” instead of a misdemeanor. Upon completion of treatment, charges will be dismissed. If a defendant fails to complete treatment, they would be charged and face three years in state prison. Existing law authorizes counties to implement drug court programs, and until the passage of SB 910 (Umberg), the standards by which they operate varied. SB 910 created statewide standards for collaborative courts to operate in accordance with the “Adult Treatment Court Best Practices Standards” developed by All Rise.
SB 28 assists in the implementation of Prop 36 standards by clarifying that all counties must have drug courts to facilitate mandated treatment and that these courts must use best practices to ensure participant success. However, by creating a blanket application of high-risk/high-need population standards to all individuals dealing with drug addiction, we could be hindering their progress. High-risk individuals require different resources and treatment compared to lower-risk and lower-need people. By generalizing the standards set by All Rise to every sect of the population, our state risks an overutilization of resources and could severely impact counties that currently deal with limited treatment options. Respectfully, we would ask the author take consideration of treatment standards and emphasize that there will be flexibility in addressing the different facets of drug addiction.
- Argument in Opposition
Californians for Safety and Justice writes:
SB 28 seeks to expand existing treatment court programs to satisfy the treatment program requirements pursuant to the Treatment-Mandated Felony Act, established by Proposition 36. SB 28 would burden treatment court programs with a potential influx that the current infrastructure and allocated resources would not be able to appropriately accommodate.
…
… Today, California has four different models of treatment courts with varying eligibility and operational requirements. Over three decades have passed since the inception of treatment courts and experts continue to work on fine tuning the process to be its most effective. …
…
Proposition 36 relies on the availability of new treatment pathways, not repurposing existing state and local treatment capacity to meet the needs of a different population. The initiative’s provisions outlining the nature of the treatment programs available for defendants pleading guilty to PC 11395 are lengthy and allow for treatment programs tailored to the specific needs of each defendant … [and] do not include any reference to treatment courts as avenues for providing this treatment. While we recognize that courts statewide are working hard to build out treatment programs in line with PC 11395’s new requirements, we are concerned that creating a clear pathway for the use treatment courts to meet these needs may result in outcomes not in line with the intent of Proposition 36.
Treatment courts today serve as potential interventions for people with treatment needs facing a variety of different criminal charges. The potentially significant influx of referrals for 11396 cases, a small subset of the statewide population of people with criminal cases driven by substance use problems, could crowd out existing defendant populations including those with a risk and needs profile much more aligned with the intensive intervention treatment courts offer. …
…
SB 28 will crowd the existing treatment court programs, without allocating additional resources or providing any limitations or guidance. Treatment courts are currently restructuring to accommodate the required changes from legislation passed just last year. At a time when clarity and increased resources are needed, burdening existing systems without additional support is no the appropriate response.
-- END --
Discussed in Hearing
Assembly Standing Committee on Judiciary
Assembly Standing Committee on Health
Senate Floor
Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations
Senate Standing Committee on Public Safety
Bill Author
Bill Co-Author(s):