California Lawmakers Push to Fix Gaps in Newsom’s Mental Health Court, Reigniting Involuntary Treatment Debate
Why It Matters
California’s CARE Court, a centerpiece of Gov. Gavin Newsom’s strategy to address homelessness and mental illness, is failing to reach the most severely ill residents it was designed to help. Two new bills moving through the state legislature aim to close critical gaps in the program — but they are reigniting a long-standing debate over when government may place someone into mental health treatment without their consent.
The outcome could shape how California — and potentially other states watching closely — handles the intersection of mental illness, homelessness, and individual liberty for years to come.
What Happened
Launched in 2023, CARE Court allows family members of individuals with untreated schizophrenia or other psychotic disorders to refer them into a court-based program. There, participants work with a judge, a public defender, and a case worker on a treatment plan covering medication, therapy, and housing.
However, a CalMatters investigation found the program is falling well short of expectations. State Sen. Catherine Blakespear, a Democrat from Encinitas, is now carrying two bills intended to address the program’s structural failures. Both measures recently passed through the Senate Judiciary Committee despite objections from disability rights advocates.
The first bill, Senate Bill 1016, would allow anyone filing a CARE Court petition to request that a judge order a mental health assessment to determine whether the subject of the petition is gravely disabled or a danger to themselves or others. Depending on the results, a judge could order that person into a conservatorship — likely meaning placement in a locked psychiatric facility with mandatory medication. The goal is to create a formal pathway between voluntary CARE Court participation and involuntary treatment.
The second bill would make it easier for EMTs and other first responders to refer individuals to CARE Court, potentially expanding the program’s reach at the point of crisis.
By the Numbers
3,817 — petitions received by California courts on behalf of prospective CARE Court participants as of January 2026.
893 — treatment agreements actually approved out of those petitions, a fraction of the cases filed.
7,000 to 12,000 — the number of Californians the Newsom administration originally estimated would qualify for CARE Court.
2023 — the year CARE Court launched as part of Newsom’s broader homelessness and mental health strategy.
3 months — the amount of time one San Francisco Bay Area man spent deteriorating on the streets after leaving his CARE Court placement before a case worker located him.
Zoom Out
The struggles of California’s CARE Court mirror a broader national challenge: how to help individuals so severely impaired by mental illness that they are unable to recognize they need care, while balancing civil liberties concerns. Many states have grappled with the limits of voluntary treatment programs, particularly as visible homelessness and untreated psychosis strain public resources and public safety.
As candidates positioning themselves for California’s governor’s race seek to draw contrast on policy effectiveness, CARE Court’s underwhelming results hand critics of the Newsom administration a concrete example of government spending that has not delivered promised outcomes. The debate also reflects tensions playing out nationally over conservatorship laws and the role of the state in compelling psychiatric treatment.
In California, the stakes are particularly high given the scale of the homelessness crisis concentrated in cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco, where untreated mental illness is visibly prevalent on public streets.
Voices in the Debate
Sen. Blakespear argued during a recent committee hearing that “barriers in the current petition process are preventing the program from reaching many of the individuals it was designed to serve,” according to CalMatters reporting.
Opponents, including Samuel Jain of Disability Rights California, contend the legislation would add what he called “an expensive, coercive and convoluted layer to CARE Court” that could erode trust among mentally ill Californians who might otherwise accept voluntary help, according to his remarks at the committee hearing.
Families of severely ill individuals see the situation differently. Jennifer Farrell, who filed a CARE Court petition for her brother in Alameda County in late 2024, told CalMatters she found it “absurd” that no direct link existed between CARE Court and a conservatorship. Her brother, who has struggled with schizophrenia and homelessness since 2017, eventually required hospitalization on a psychiatric hold before being placed on a conservatorship — a process she believes could have happened sooner had such a pathway existed.
What’s Next
Both bills have cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee and will continue moving through the California legislative process. If passed, Senate Bill 1016 would represent a significant expansion of the state’s authority to compel psychiatric treatment for individuals referred through CARE Court. Implementation, funding mechanisms, and legal challenges from disability rights organizations are all expected to follow should either measure become law.
For Californians — and their families — caught between a voluntary system that cannot help those too sick to participate and an involuntary one that raises civil liberties concerns, the outcome of this legislative session may determine whether the state’s multibillion-dollar mental health infrastructure can deliver on its promises.