California 20252026 Regular Session Status: Introduced 1 D cosponsors

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

Last action — August 13 hearing: Held in committee and under submission.

  1. 1
    Introduced
  2. 2
    In Committee
  3. 3
    Passed Senate
  4. 4
    Passed Assembly
  5. 5
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill has been introduced in the Senate. Introduced February 10, 2026. It must pass committee before a floor vote.

Next likely step: a committee referral and hearing.

Odds of enactment

Low chance

Based on the sponsor, cosponsors, and committee posture, this bill has a low chance of becoming law.

Upgrade to see the exact probability and what's driving it.

A statistical estimate from our own model of past outcomes — an insight, not a guarantee. Policymaking is volatile.

Prognosis

Stalled 28% · moderate confidence

  • Introduced

    Current position in the legislative process.

  • 1 sponsor

    1 primary, 0 co-sponsors signed on.

  • Single-party support

    Sponsorship is currently within one party (1 D).

  • Cleared a recorded vote

    Passed 6 recorded votes so far.

Based on stage, sponsorship breadth, committee status, recorded votes, and cross-state momentum — a description of the observable signals, not a prediction.

In plain language

The bill modifies the CARE Act for evaluations and remote hearings related to mental health services.

This bill updates the CARE Act to require courts to assess whether individuals need higher levels of care and allows remote hearings. It ensures that petitions for mental health services can remain open for further screening if necessary.

What this means for you
  • Families: Families can expect a more streamlined process for securing mental health services for their loved ones.

Summary

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. 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 with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. August 13 hearing: Held in committee and under submission.

  2. August 5 set for first hearing. Placed on suspense file.

  3. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  4. From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 15. Noes 0.) (June 30).

  5. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on HEALTH. (Ayes 9. Noes 1.) (June 16). Re-referred to Com. on HEALTH.

  6. Coauthors revised.

  7. Referred to Coms. on JUD. and HEALTH.

  8. In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.

  9. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 27. Noes 0. Page 4415.) Ordered to the Assembly.

  10. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  11. From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 7. Noes 0. Page 4261.) (May 14).

  12. Read second time and amended. Ordered to second reading.

  13. Set for hearing May 14.

  14. May 11 hearing: Placed on APPR. suspense file.

  15. Set for hearing May 11.

  16. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  17. From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 12. Noes 0. Page 3977.) (April 21).

  18. Set for hearing April 21.

  19. Re-referred to Com. on JUD.

  20. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on RLS.

  21. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on RLS.

  22. Referred to Com. on RLS.

  23. From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 13.

  24. Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.

Sponsors

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on · 1 voted No

Sponsors (1)

Co-sponsors (0)

None.

Not signed on (121)

121 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 121 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Votes

Do pass as amended and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations]

Passed 15 Yea · 0 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 12000
Republican 3001
Total 15001
% of votes cast 94%0%0%6%
How each member voted (16)
Member Party Vote
Addis, Dawn Democratic Yea
Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia M. Democratic Yea
Ahrens, Patrick Democratic Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Caloza, Jessica Democratic Yea
Carrillo, Juan Democratic Yea
González, Mark Democratic Yea
Patel, Darshana R. Democratic Yea
Rodriguez, Celeste Democratic Yea
Schiavo, Pilar Democratic Yea
Sharp-Collins, LaShae Democratic Yea
Stefani, Catherine Democratic Yea
Gonzalez, Jeff Republican Yea
Johnson, Natasha Republican Not Voting
Patterson, Joe Republican Yea
Sanchez, Kate Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Health]

Passed 9 Yea · 1 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Republican 3000
Democratic 6102
Total 9102
% of votes cast 75%8%0%17%
How each member voted (12)
Member Party Vote
Bauer-Kahan, Rebecca Democratic Yea
Bryan, Isaac G. Democratic Not Voting
Connolly, Damon Democratic Not Voting
Harabedian, John Democratic Yea
Kalra, Ash Democratic Nay
Pacheco, Blanca Democratic Yea
Papan, Diane Democratic Yea
Stefani, Catherine Democratic Yea
Zbur, Rick Chavez Democratic Yea
Dixon, Diane Republican Yea
Macedo, Alexandra Republican Yea
Sanchez, Kate Republican Yea

Official roll call →

3rd Reading SB1016 Blakespear et al.

Passed 27 Yea · 0 Nay · 13 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 21009
Republican 6004
Total 270013
% of votes cast 68%0%0%33%
How each member voted (40)
Member Party Vote
Allen, Benjamin Democratic Not Voting
Archuleta, Bob Democratic Yea
Arreguín, Jesse Democratic Yea
Ashby, Angelique V. Democratic Yea
Becker, Josh Democratic Not Voting
Blakespear, Catherine S. Democratic Yea
Cabaldon, Christopher Democratic Yea
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Cervantes, Sabrina Democratic Yea
Cortese, Dave Democratic Yea
Durazo, Maria Elena Democratic Yea
Gonzalez, Lena A. Democratic Yea
Grayson, Timothy S. Democratic Yea
Hurtado, Melissa Democratic Not Voting
Laird, John Democratic Yea
Limón, Monique Democratic Yea
McGuire, Mike Democratic Yea
McNerney, Jerry Democratic Yea
Menjivar, Caroline Democratic Not Voting
Padilla, Stephen C. Democratic Not Voting
Pérez, Sasha Renée Democratic Not Voting
Reyes, Eloise Gómez Democratic Yea
Richardson, Laura Democratic Yea
Rubio, Susan Democratic Yea
Smallwood-Cuevas, Lola Democratic Not Voting
Stern, Henry I. Democratic Not Voting
Umberg, Thomas J. Democratic Yea
Wahab, Aisha Democratic Yea
Weber Pierson, M.D., Akilah Democratic Not Voting
Wiener, Scott D. Democratic Yea
Alvarado-Gil, Marie Republican Not Voting
Choi, Steven S. Republican Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Yea
Grove, Shannon Republican Not Voting
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea
Niello, Roger W. Republican Not Voting
Ochoa Bogh, Rosilicie Republican Not Voting
Seyarto, Kelly Republican Yea
Strickland, Tony Republican Yea
Valladares, Suzette Martinez Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass as amended, but first amend, and re-refer to the Committee on [Appropriations]

Passed 12 Yea · 0 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 10001
Republican 2000
Total 12001
% of votes cast 92%0%0%8%
How each member voted (13)
Member Party Vote
Allen, Benjamin Democratic Yea
Ashby, Angelique V. Democratic Yea
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Durazo, Maria Elena Democratic Yea
Laird, John Democratic Yea
Reyes, Eloise Gómez Democratic Yea
Stern, Henry I. Democratic Yea
Umberg, Thomas J. Democratic Yea
Wahab, Aisha Democratic Yea
Weber Pierson, M.D., Akilah Democratic Not Voting
Wiener, Scott D. Democratic Yea
Niello, Roger W. Republican Yea
Valladares, Suzette Martinez Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Subjects

public-safety housing healthcare labor
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does SB 1016 do?
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. 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 with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Who sponsors SB 1016?
SB 1016 is sponsored by Blakespear, Catherine S. (Democratic).
What is the current status of SB 1016?
This bill has been introduced in the Senate. Introduced February 10, 2026. It must pass committee before a floor vote.
Where can I track SB 1016?
Track SB 1016 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on SB 1016

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of SB 1016

Last checked for changes about 2 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →