Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Behavioral Health topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mono County behavioral-health director briefs supervisors on Care Court readiness and limits of local authority
Summary
Behavioral Health Director Robin Roberts outlined Care Court eligibility, process and limits, telling the Board that the county expects few full Care Court petitions but hopes the pathway will connect people with services who otherwise avoid care.
Robin Roberts, director of Mono County Behavioral Health, told the Board of Supervisors on Feb. 11 that the state’s Community Assistance, Recovery and Empowerment (Care Court) program creates a new civil‑court pathway for people with schizophrenia‑spectrum or other psychotic disorders to enter services but does not allow counties to force routine medication on people outside existing conservatorship law. Roberts traced the policy background to the Lanterman‑Petris‑Short (LPS) Act of the 1960s and said the Care Court is meant to create entry points, not to erase patient rights.
Roberts said Care Court allows “many people” (family members, law enforcement, hospitals and others) to file petitions; the court will screen petitions and the county behavioral‑health department will investigate eligibility when the court refers a case. She noted that homelessness or a mental‑illness diagnosis alone do not meet eligibility; a qualifying diagnosis combined with an inability to care for oneself is central to the statute as implemented.
Roberts emphasized early treatment windows for psychotic disorders — typically ages 17–25 — and described the clinical challenge of anosognosia, the lack of awareness of illness that prevents many people from seeking treatment. She said improved early engagement and relationship building remain core parts of local practice and that Care Court provides an additional, court‑based route to services for a small number of people in Mono County.
On financing and operations, Roberts said Care Court will increase the county’s obligation to serve people regardless of insurance; counties will be required to furnish the treatment services the statute contemplates even when a person has private insurance. She warned that reimbursement and administrative rules leave gaps — especially for case management and some community supports — and that full state funding and clarity are needed to avoid an unfunded mandate in rural counties.
Supervisors asked whether the court can order people to participate; Roberts answered that a court can order participation in the Care Court process but cannot directly order a non‑conservatee to take medication. She explained the difference between Care Court and a conservatorship: a conservatorship can compel hospitalization and medication in narrow, statutorily defined circumstances.
Roberts said she expects relatively few Care Court petitions in Mono County because the caseloads and illness severity the law targets are more common in urban areas. Still, she urged the board to regard Care Court as a new tool that could help families and hospitals engage people who otherwise avoid treatment.
