SB 1016: Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment (CARE) Court Program and court-ordered evaluations.

Official summary

Legislative Counsel’s Digest (official, as of the latest version). Written by nonpartisan legislative staff; reproduced verbatim.

Existing law, the Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment (CARE) Act (CARE 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, or bipolar I disorder with psychotic features, and who meet other specified criteria. Existing law 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, to be signed under the penalty of perjury, and requires the form to contain certain information, including either a specified affidavit of a licensed behavioral health professional or evidence the respondent was detained for a minimum of two intensive treatments pursuant to specified provisions of law.

Existing law, the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPS Act), generally provides for the evaluation, treatment, and civil commitment of persons with mental health disorders and other specified persons. Existing law authorizes, under a superior court order, an evaluation of a person alleged, as a result of mental disorder, to be a danger to themselves or others or to be gravely disabled, and provides the forms to use for these evaluations. The CARE Act authorizes a court to terminate a respondent’s 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, and authorizes the court to order the court-ordered evaluation under the LPS Act.

If the court finds the petitioner has made a prima facie showing that the respondent is, or may be, a person eligible for the CARE program, the court is required to order the county behavioral health agency, or their designee, as specified, to submit a written report to the court with specified information, including, but not limited to, a determination whether the respondent meets, or is likely to meet, the criteria for the CARE process and conclusions and recommendations about the respondent’s ability to voluntarily engage in services. Existing law requires the court to, within 5 days of receiving the report, take one of several actions, including dismissing the petition if the court determines that voluntary engagement with the respondent is effective and the individual has enrolled, or is likely to enroll, in behavioral health treatment.

This bill would require the written report to include conclusions about whether the respondent is likely to need a higher level of care than is available under the CARE Act and, if so, recommendations about the appropriate level of care and the necessary steps to obtain that level of care for the respondent and remove the authorization for a court to dismiss the petition if the respondent is only likely to enroll in behavioral health treatment. If the court intends to dismiss a petition because the respondent needs a higher level of services, the bill would authorize the court to order the county to conduct a prepetition screening and hold the CARE petition open until the screening is complete. The bill would also make other technical and conforming changes. By requiring a higher level of service on the county, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

Existing law requires all hearings regarding these provisions to occur in person unless the court, in its discretion, allows a party or witness to appear remotely.

This bill would require the court to allow the hearings to be held remotely, unless otherwise ordered by the court or demanded by the respondent.

Sponsors

Sponsors by party (alphabetical): Democratic 3 · Republican 2

“Support” is shown only as formal sponsorship recorded by the legislature. Roll-call votes are available on the official bill page.

Recent official actions

1. August 13, 2026August 13 hearing: Held in committee and under submission.
2. August 5, 2026August 5 set for first hearing. Placed on suspense file.
3. July 2, 2026Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
4. July 1, 2026From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 15. Noes 0.) (June 30).
5. June 16, 2026From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on HEALTH. (Ayes 9. Noes 1.) (June 16). Re-referred to Com. on HEALTH.
6. June 16, 2026Coauthors revised.
7. June 1, 2026Referred to Coms. on JUD. and HEALTH.
8. May 22, 2026In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.
9. May 22, 2026Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 27. Noes 0. Page 4415.) Ordered to the Assembly.
10. May 18, 2026Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
11. May 14, 2026Read second time and amended. Ordered to second reading.
12. May 14, 2026From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 7. Noes 0. Page 4261.) (May 14).