The California Assembly Judiciary Committee meeting on July 1, 2025, spotlighted significant concerns surrounding the proposed expansion of the Care Court program, particularly regarding the inclusion of mood disorders with psychotic features. Critics voiced strong opposition, arguing that this expansion could lead to a dramatic increase in the number of individuals eligible for Care Court, which they believe is already struggling to serve its current population effectively.

Advocates for the expansion, including Michelle Cabrera, Executive Director of the County Behavioral Health Directors Association, expressed pride in the progress made under Care Court but cautioned that the proposed changes could overwhelm the system. Cabrera highlighted that while the current eligible population for Care Court is around 0.33% to 0.75% for schizophrenia, the proposed inclusion of mood disorders could expand eligibility to nearly 10% of the population, raising concerns about the lack of resources and housing to support this influx.

Opponents of the expansion, including community advocates, emphasized that Care Court has not yet proven effective, with only about 100 individuals having successfully navigated the process since its inception, despite approximately $70 million spent. They warned that the expansion could disproportionately affect marginalized communities, particularly Black individuals, who are already overrepresented in the system.

The committee members acknowledged the need for mental health resources and housing, with some expressing support for the Care Court's intent but urging caution regarding the expansion's implications. Assemblymember Zuber raised concerns about the vagueness of the mood disorder criteria, suggesting that it could inadvertently include individuals capable of making their own decisions.

As the discussion unfolded, it became clear that while there is a shared commitment to improving mental health services in California, the path forward remains contentious. The committee ultimately voted to advance the bill to the health committee for further examination, indicating that the conversation around Care Court and its future will continue to evolve.