Now that we have established the history of the CARE Act in part 1, it is time to look at critics’ responses to the act. Overall, analysis brings up the debate over preventative care and believes that even though society purports emphasis on autonomy, stigma still rules who affords these rights.
Critics say that the CARE Act is problematic because it allows first responders to essentially pick unhoused people up off the street and sweep them into state-sponsored involuntary treatment. This does not mean they exhibited dangerous behavior, whether to themselves or others, but because they have the potential to exhibit dangerousness in the future.
As aforementioned, society supposedly believes that privacy, autonomy and liberty are so fundamental to the human experience they shall not go unburdened. This can be tracked through individual attitudes, Congressional legislation choices, Supreme Court decisions and of course, the Constitution. Though privacy is a topic of debate, as proved by Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022) overruling Roe v. Wade (1973), it still remains a hallmark for much of California’s legislation. It is safe to say that it makes many people very uncomfortable to consider burdening these rights, especially since every American is afforded with the right to Due Process as enshrined in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
For some reason, this concern over privacy is not always present when it comes to California’s schizophrenic or mentally ill population. Critics say that this legislation allows for anyone to essentially affect a state-sponsored involuntary commitment of unhoused people, as they can call in reports or wellness checks to first responders. Then, when these first responders respond multiple times to the same person they can institutionalize them under this act.
Whether petitioners are connected to this individual and know their patterns of mental health history or not, they can file a report to have them involuntarily admitted with little to no evidence of their danger. Let alone, their future danger. In this country it is innocent until proven guilty, but this model flips the script to guilty until proven innocent.
This is particularly harmful considering this legislation can trigger lengthy trials and court hearings that could last years. All the while these individuals must last in the care facilities, which could potentially elicit mental health disorders that were not previously present due to the stress of being there. Beyond this oversight, Disability Rights California reports that this legislation causes a conflation of homelessness and mental health, lacks proper civil rights protections and disproportionately affects people of color.
Widely accepted theories of treatment for schizophrenia or mood disorders of this nature are person-centered. Person-centeredness is not compatible with forced treatment, whatsoever. Person-centeredness emphasises empathy, authenticity, unconditional positive regard and shared decision making. As this treatment is forced, it inherently undermines a model that includes shared-decision making.
Other widely accepted theories recognize that some individuals are inherently more “dangerous” than others based on their likelihood to commit certain actions. For example, insurance rates are higher for young males because they are statistically the most likely to get into a car accident. Does this mean that legislation is passed blocking them from driving? No. We are not considering whether these people, who are proven to be dangerous, should be able to exist in spheres with other people. So why do we do this for the homeless and individuals experiencing mental health disorders or symptoms?
Works Cited
“CARE Act – California Health & Human Services.” California Health & Human Services, https://www.chhs.ca.gov/care-act/.
Department of Health Care Services. The Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment (CARE) Act Annual Report July 2025. chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.dhcs.ca.gov/Documents/CARE-Act-Annual-Report-2025.pdf.
Judicial Branch of California. “Adult Civil Mental Health.” California Courts Judicial Branch of California, http://courts.ca.gov/programs-initiatives/families-and-children/behavioral-health/adult-civil-mental-health#:~:text=When%20Did%20the%20CARE%20Act,implemented%20by%20December%201%2C%202024.
Pleasants, Gregory. “Conditions of Confinement in the Mental Health System.” LAW 403: Mental Health Law, Feb. 6, 2024, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Lecture.