California's CARE Court Failure: When Political Promises Collide With Harsh Reality

The Promise of Hope

In March 2022, Governor Gavin Newsom stood before a San Jose treatment center and announced what he called “a completely new paradigm” for addressing California’s mental health crisis. CARE Court (Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment) was envisioned as a revolutionary approach to help individuals with severe mental illnesses access housing and services through a specialized court system. For families like Ronda Deplazes of Concord, who had spent years watching loved ones spiral into psychosis and addiction, this announcement represented the first glimmer of hope in a seemingly endless struggle.

Newsom’s emotional appeal resonated deeply with these families. “I’ve got four kids,” he said that day. “I can’t imagine how hard this is… It breaks your heart. I mean, your life just torn asunder because you’re desperately trying to reach someone you love and you watch them suffer and you watch a system that consistently lets you down and lets them down.” With strong support from desperate families, Newsom shepherded the program through the Legislature, signing it into law in October 2022.

The Harsh Reality

More than three years after its introduction, CARE Court has dramatically failed to meet expectations. State data reveals a staggering gap between projected impact and actual results: while Newsom initially projected 12,000 eligible participants, courts have received only 3,092 petitions as of October, with almost half dismissed. These petitions have translated into just 706 CARE plans and agreements statewide.

The human cost of this failure is devastating. Ronda Deplazes’ experience exemplifies the program’s shortcomings. Her 38-year-old son, who lives with schizoaffective disorder and addiction, continues to cycle between homelessness and incarceration despite his CARE Court enrollment. The program’s voluntary nature means that individuals who don’t recognize their illness—a condition known as anosognosia—simply don’t participate, leaving families watching their loved ones deteriorate.

Systemic Challenges and Bureaucratic Barriers

The implementation challenges reveal deeper systemic issues. County officials acknowledge significant resource constraints and the difficulty of locating hard-to-reach individuals. Contra Costa County mental health program chief Marie Scannell and manager Elyse Perata describe staff spending countless hours searching for individuals and making multiple visits to build trust gradually.

Judge Melissa O’Connell, who oversees Contra Costa’s CARE Court, acknowledges the disconnect between family expectations and legal reality. She edited the county’s CARE Court webpage to better emphasize the program’s voluntary nature, stating, “I would never want to give someone false hope. The only way you can try to avoid that is by being good at communicating and managing expectations.”

The Historical Context of Civil Liberties

The current crisis must be understood within the context of California’s landmark Lanterman-Petris-Short Act of 1967. This legislation established strict criteria for involuntary treatment, protecting individuals from the civil rights violations that were rampant in state hospitals. While these protections are essential for preserving liberty, they have created what families describe as a “Catch-22” situation: their loved ones are too ill to recognize they need help, but cannot be compelled to receive treatment unless they pose immediate danger to themselves or others.

California Health and Human Services Undersecretary Corrin Buchanan emphasizes that CARE Court was never intended as another form of conservatorship. She highlights the program’s unique aspects: families can directly petition courts, county behavioral health departments face increased accountability, and the state supports developing the “three-legged stool” of treatment, medication, and housing.

The Human Tragedy

The personal stories emerging from this failure are heartbreaking. Sam Figueroa, a former police officer specially trained in mental health response, found his magna cum laude graduate son emaciated and lying in a urine-soaked sleeping bag. Despite his professional experience, Figueroa couldn’t convince anyone to place his son on an involuntary hold, even after dangerous incidents.

Gigi Crowder, CEO of Contra Costa’s National Alliance on Mental Illness chapter, summarizes the collective disappointment: “We have failed this community of individuals. We just have. We continue to do it when we offer false hope.”

A Fundamental Betrayal of Democratic Principles

This failure represents more than just another bureaucratic shortcoming—it constitutes a fundamental betrayal of our social contract. In a functioning democracy, the government has a responsibility to protect its most vulnerable citizens while balancing individual liberties. CARE Court’s implementation failure demonstrates how well-intentioned policies can become empty promises when not properly resourced or implemented.

The voluntary nature of CARE Court, while respecting individual autonomy, effectively abandons those suffering from conditions that prevent them from recognizing their own need for treatment. This creates a perverse situation where the very people who most need intervention are least likely to receive it.

The Constitutional Imperative

Our commitment to liberty and democracy must include ensuring that all citizens can participate meaningfully in society. When individuals with severe mental illnesses are left cycling through homelessness and incarceration without adequate treatment, we fail not only them but our constitutional principles. The government’s responsibility to provide for the general welfare includes creating effective mental health systems that actually help those in crisis.

The frustration expressed by families isn’t merely about disappointment—it’s about watching loved ones suffer needlessly while political solutions prove inadequate. Ronda Deplazes’ assessment cuts to the core: “I think the frustration and disappointment is more than a person can bear. That’s the truth of it. That is the bottom line.”

Toward Meaningful Solutions

Moving forward requires acknowledging that voluntary programs alone cannot address the full spectrum of severe mental illness. We need a balanced approach that respects civil liberties while providing meaningful intervention for those too ill to seek help voluntarily. The upcoming expansion of the grave disability standard under Lanterman-Petris-Short may offer another pathway, but implementation will be crucial.

Ultimately, this crisis demands that we move beyond political rhetoric and develop practical, compassionate solutions that actually help vulnerable individuals and their families. We must create mental health systems that recognize the complex reality of severe mental illness rather than offering empty promises that only deepen the despair of those already suffering.

As a society committed to liberty and justice for all, we cannot accept systems that effectively abandon our most vulnerable citizens. The failure of CARE Court should serve as a wake-up call to develop more effective, compassionate approaches that truly serve those in desperate need of help.