Who gets a say in CARE court?

A bill moving through the California Senate has reopened a core debate over CARE Court: Who should have more say-- respondents, families, or judges?

SB 1242 would give judges more discretion to allow family members to stay involved in mental health court proceedings, even if the respondent objects.

Under current law, family members who file CARE Court petitions can be shut out of later proceedings unless the respondent consents. SB 1242 would change that balance by allowing judges to decide whether families can remain involved in the process.

Supporters say that it is critical.

"Family members are often the most familiar with the respondent's medical history," said bill author Sen. Steven Choi, R-Irvine. "Unfortunately, current law limits family member petitioners' ability to participate beyond the initial hearing."

The case for more family involvement

CARE Court was created in 2022 to help people with severe mental illness avoid the repeating cycle of homelessness, jail, and hospitalization.

Families are already central to how the system works. About two-thirds of cases begin with someone who has a personal relationship with the respondents, most often a family member.

However, once cases begin, respondents can exclude family members from participating. Dr. Suzanne Fiddler, speaking for the bill's sponsor, the Conference of California Bar Associations, said respondents may reject family involvement because of their illness.

"What may appear as refusal is often driven by the illness itself," she said. "Family petitioners are the original source of information."

Families told lawmakers they have watched loved ones improve, gain independence--and then relapse. Elizabeth Hopper's daughter did exactly that, she said, and even spoke in favor of CARE Court when she was healthy. Then the court dismissed her petition.

"Within weeks, she was unhoused, deteriorating, and cycling through acute psych hospitals, which continues seven months later," Hopper told the committee.

A debate that never ended

SB 1242 would add language to the law stating that the "court may limit or exclude participation by the original petitioner." Opponents say the measure would strip respondents of a key right: choosing who participates in their care.

"CARE Court already allows family members to participate in CARE Court proceedings, either as a voluntary supporter or as a petitioner with the respondent's consent," said Samuel K. Jain, an attorney with Disability Rights California. "The only thing that this bill does is remove the consent requirement."

Jain told the senators the bill forgets a key point: Family is often part of the problem.

It is not just a matter of being "supportive." Some respondents suffered horrible physical or sexual abuse. Now judges--not respondents, nor mental health providers--will be tasked with figuring out if a particular family member is a help or a hindrance.

"This operates under the assumption that the court can accurately determine if a family member's involvement is detrimental," Jain said.

The hearing glossed over one fact: Disability Rights California never wanted this law. They fought it in the Legislature, and they filed an unsuccessful petition with the California Supreme Court, arguing the law was coercive and diverted money better spent on housing and services.

Reluctant logic

They lost that debate--and several more since. Jain said that SB 1242 would follow a series of other recent bills that "have steadily increased family member involvement in CARE Court."

In retrospect, there may be something almost inevitable about this trend. Lawmakers were long under severe pressure from voters to do something about homelessness and mental illness. Now that pressure is on courts and counties, with Gov. Gavin Newsom threatening to yank money from those whose numbers lag. Many counties have tried to get mental health staff and first responders to refer more cases, with mixed success.

Several lawmakers expressed worries about SB 1242, then voted 12-0 for it anyway.

Sen. Akilah Weber Pierson said she was "concerned" about unwanted family involvement. Sen. María Elena Durazo said she was "barely convinced" to support the bill.

But Durazo admitted she faced a similar vote four years ago with the original CARE Act.

"We knew we had to do something dramatically different," she said. "We said, 'Okay, we're willing to try it.'"