SB 28 California Senate · 2025-2026 Regular Session

Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment (CARE) court program.

Summary
(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 person's 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 petitioner's 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 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. Existing law authorizes the court to order an evaluation under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, as specified, to ensure the respondent's safety. Existing law requires the court to consider the respondent's 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 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. (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 agency's 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 entity's 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 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.
Bill status passed 3 of 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Dec 2024
Committee Review
Aug 2026
Senate Passage
May 2025
Assembly Passage
Governor
Introduced Dec 2, 2024 Last action Aug 13, 2026
Maddy AI version diff · 6 comparisons

What changed between versions

06/25/26 - Amended Assembly 07/02/26 - Amended Assembly · 9 edits · Jul 2, 2026
MAJOR
The July 2 amended Assembly version of SB 28 significantly narrows the bill's scope by removing several major provisions from the June 25 version. The most notable removals include the 90-day clinical stabilization eligibility criterion, a petition review process for recommending alternative treatment levels, exit plan requirements, and a state-mandated local program requiring county behavioral health agencies to request status hearings and Lanterman-Petris-Short evaluations when CARE respondents deteriorate. The bill also shortens the examination lookback period from 270 days to 120 days and the involuntary hold lookback from 6 months to 120 days.
SCOPE

Sections 5972, 5974, and 5977.2 were removed from the list of sections being amended, meaning the bill no longer changes CARE eligibility criteria, who may file petitions, or the provisions in Section 5977.2.

ELIGIBILITY

The provision allowing a person to qualify for CARE if not clinically stabilized in voluntary treatment for more than 90 days prior to filing was removed entirely.

REQUIREMENT

The petition review process that authorized the county behavioral health agency, designee, or court to recommend alternative treatment (assisted outpatient treatment or grave disability evaluation) when a respondent needs a higher level of care was removed.

The requirement for the court to order the county to develop an exit plan when dismissing a CARE petition because the respondent needs higher-level services, and the requirement for the State Department of Health Care Services to develop a model exit plan by July 1, 2028, were removed.

The requirement for the court to order an evaluation upon terminating a respondent's CARE participation, the authorization for courts to order grave disability evaluations on their own motion or by county motion, and the deletion of the 6-month limitation on considering CARE plan failure in subsequent LPS hearings were all removed.

The provision requiring the agency to annually release a list of overperforming and underperforming counties was modified to also require the agency to annually provide written notice identifying areas of concern and opportunities for improvement to underperforming counties.

ENFORCEMENT

The state-mandated local program requiring county behavioral health agencies to request a status hearing and a Lanterman-Petris-Short evaluation when a CARE respondent's nonadherence results in psychiatric deterioration was removed.

TIMELINE

The lookback period for a licensed behavioral health professional's examination of the respondent was shortened from 270 days to 120 days.

The lookback period for evidence of two involuntary holds under Section 5150 was shortened from 6 months to 120 days.

Floor votes · Senate May 29, 2025

How they voted

380
Passed · 2 other
Total votes 40
May 29, 2025
D Democratic30
28 Yea 2
93% Yea
R Republican10
10 Yea
100% Yea
Vote distribution
All Yea All Nay Mixed No data
Full legislative history

Actions timeline

Total actions
26
Key actions
13
Committee
6
Amendments
9
Aug 13, 2026
Lower · Passed
August 13 hearing: Held in committee and under submission.
lower
Jul 2, 2026
Lower · Passed
Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
lower
Jul 1, 2026
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 11. Noes 0.) (June 30).
lower
Jun 25, 2026
Lower · Passed
Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on JUD.
lower
Jun 24, 2026
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on JUD. (Ayes 14. Noes 0.) (June 23).
lower
Jun 15, 2026
Committee
Re-referred to Coms. on HEALTH and JUD. pursuant to Assembly Rule 96.
lower
Jun 11, 2026
Lower · Passed
From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on PUB. S.
lower
Jul 15, 2025
Lower · Passed
July 15 hearing postponed by committee.
lower
Jun 5, 2025
Committee
Referred to Com. on PUB. S.
lower
May 29, 2025
Senate · Passed
Senate Vote: pass (38-0-2)
senate
May 29, 2025
Upper · Passed
Read third time. Urgency clause adopted. Passed. (Ayes 38. Noes 0. Page 1336.) Ordered to the Assembly.
upper
May 23, 2025
Upper · Passed
Read second time and amended. Ordered to second reading.
upper
May 23, 2025
Upper · Passed
From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 6. Noes 0. Page 1188.) (May 23).
upper
Mar 25, 2025
Upper · Passed
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.
upper
Mar 10, 2025
Upper · Passed
From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on PUB. S.
upper
Jan 29, 2025
Committee
Referred to Com. on PUB. S.
upper
Dec 2, 2024
Introduced
Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.
upper
1 primary · 1 co-sponsor

Sponsors