Newsom Signs Narrow CARE Court Changes as Bigger Bills Die

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed two bills on Sunday that make incremental changes to California's CARE Court, the court-ordered treatment program he launched in 2023 to move people with untreated psychotic disorders off the streets. Two more ambitious proposals that would have connected the civil program to involuntary conservatorships never reached his desk, dying in an Assembly committee in August.

The two new laws target a problem that has dogged CARE Court since its rollout: the program serves far fewer people than the state projected, and the bottlenecks sit at both ends — getting a case into court at all, and keeping a treatment team informed once it is there.

What the two new laws do

Senate Bill 989, by Sen. Catherine Blakespear, D-Encinitas, authorizes first responders to ask their county to review and file a CARE Court petition on their behalf, instead of requiring firefighters and paramedics to file directly with the court themselves. That filing process is time-consuming and procedurally complicated, and first responders frequently lack the hours to complete it even when they encounter someone who plainly needs help. Under the new law, the county has 30 days to decide whether to file. The bill was sponsored by California Professional Firefighters and supported by the National Alliance on Mental Illness.

Senate Bill 1242, by Sen. Steven Choi, R-Irvine, allows a family member who initiated a CARE Court proceeding to share information about their loved one's condition, treatment history, housing situation, safety, and care needs with the respondent's care team without that person's consent. CARE teams are required to review and document relevant information they receive. The measure preserves existing confidentiality protections: family members cannot direct treatment, and they cannot access confidential medical records. It was sponsored by the Conference of California Bar Associations and supported by NAMI California, the Treatment Advocacy Center, and the California State Association of Psychiatrists.

Choi's bill was narrowed before reaching the governor's desk at the request of advocates, who objected to language that would have opened a two-way exchange of information. The law now permits one-way communication only — families can submit information about a participant's location, condition, and status, but cannot receive information back without that person's consent. That distinction matters for a population that may not be able to articulate, in a given moment, whether they want relatives involved in their care.

The bills that did not survive

The more sweeping changes stalled in the Assembly Appropriations Committee in August. SB 1016, also by Blakespear, would have created a pathway for people too ill for CARE Court — a voluntary program that depends on a participant's agreement — to be referred for a conservatorship, which is involuntary. SB 28, by Sen. Tom Umberg, D-Santa Ana, and Blakespear, would have strengthened the link between the two systems.

The premise behind both was that people who cannot consent to voluntary care would otherwise fall out of treatment entirely. Disability Rights California and a long list of other organizations opposed them on the grounds that they would make CARE Court more coercive.

Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, D-Oakland, who chairs the Appropriations Committee, blamed cost and timing. "Those bills were very expensive and I think a little bit premature, because we don't know exactly what the challenge or issue is," she told reporters in August, adding that the Legislature still lacks enough detail on what is and is not working in the program. Blakespear said she intends to try again next year to strengthen the connection between CARE Court and conservatorships.

Why participation has lagged

CARE Court began in eight pilot counties in 2023 and was implemented statewide by December 2024. It was designed to handle 7,000 to 12,000 petitions a year. Roughly 3,817 had been filed statewide through the end of January 2026, according to CalMatters reporting on state figures. The most recent data, which runs through June 2025, counted 2,216 petitions, of which 517 produced CARE agreements or court-ordered plans and 984 were dismissed.

"I don't want to make it seem like these things are accomplishing more than they are," Blakespear said of the two signed bills. "But they are doing something. We are improving the system for people who need help the most."

The coercion argument that shaped the outcome

The debate over how far the state may go in compelling treatment runs through every CARE Court bill, and it shaped both what passed and what failed. Opponents of the conservatorship bills argued that the program's voluntary architecture is the source of its credibility with participants.

"Our experience has taught us that CARE works best when people have buy-in and choose to participate," said Stephanie Regular, assistant public defender for Alameda County and chair of the California Public Defenders Association's mental health and civil commitment committee. "That voluntary engagement is not a weakness; it is part of why CARE works. Efforts like SB 28 that impose harsh consequences for inadequate participation risk undermining that success."

Families of people with severe mental illness have pressed the opposite case, arguing that a program that cannot compel care leaves their relatives on the street. California has already invested heavily in the infrastructure around CARE Court — $291 million in services and housing funding announced in March, distributed across 28 regions, along with a county-level performance dashboard that recognizes high performers and places lagging counties in an intensive support program.

What the changes mean for treatment access

Both new laws take effect January 1, 2027, and both are designed to shorten the distance between a crisis encounter and a treatment plan. For families and first responders, the practical change is procedural: a referral route that no longer depends on one person completing a petition correctly under pressure.

CARE plans can include medication, housing, and substance use treatment, and participants frequently carry more than one diagnosis. People navigating both a psychotic disorder and a substance use condition can find information on dual diagnosis treatment and intensive outpatient programs through the treatment directory.

Blakespear, for her part, described the state's incremental approach as a function of how Sacramento works. "Just because of the way Sacramento works," she said, "these philosophical shifts can be hard to accomplish."