WOODLAND, CA – During a review hearing in Yolo County Superior Court late last week, Judge Daniel M. Wolk denied a woman a referral to CARE court, stating bipolar disorder “does not qualify” as a reason to be referred to CARE, despite the accused not having a mental health assessment and remaining in jail without being evaluated.
The accused was facing charges of resisting/obstructing a public officer, possession of drug paraphernalia, and violation of probation.
Judge Wolk explained that, during the hearing, the court would be discussing the possibility of referring the accused to CARE court, which can compel people—many of them homeless—with some mental illnesses into treatment.
According to CARE Court County of Yolo website, “Under the Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment (CARE) Act, qualifying individuals or entities can petition the Superior Court of Yolo County to help connect eligible individuals to a broad array of services, which may include mental health and housing services.
Judge Wolk explained the court “has a number of options including mental health diversion” or “referring the (accused) to assisted-outpatient treatment and then refer the (accused) to a county conservatorship investigator for a possible LPS conservatorship” or another “one of the options is referring to CARE court.”
Judge Wolk continued, “Should the court do that, then a hearing to determine eligibility for CARE shall be held within 14 court days and the petition is filed by…the county. Here, we have the situation…where (the accused) is not interested in CARE. Also, there’s a question as to whether she has a serious mental disorder diagnosis that’s required by CARE court because…it appears that she is bipolar.”
The question during the hearing was deciding if the court should still refer the accused to CARE court based on the two issues that Judge Wolk pointed out—the fact that the accused is not interested in CARE and the question of whether she has a “serious mental disorder diagnosis required by CARE court.”
Deputy Public Defender Erin Dacayanan argued to dismiss the accused’s violation of probation, stating, “We’re not agreeing to do CARE court—she may or may not qualify for CARE court. She certainly doesn’t want to do diversion either.”
DPD Dacayanan continued, “We can wait the 30 days but I feel like that is just kind of a practicing punishment towards (the accused) for being so mentally ill that there’s really no other option for her. I would ask the court to dismiss today…there doesn’t seem to be another option…given her legal incompetency.”
Deputy District Attorney Chris Bulkeley stated the accused’s bipolar diagnosis is not eligible for CARE court because it does not meet the criteria for the program, but also opposed the client staying in custody.
At this point DPD Dacayanan noted that there have been a lot of “systemic breakdowns” that have affected the length at which the accused has been in custody.
“We needed to get other doctors’ reports because the initial reports weren’t great,” DPD Dacayanan explained. “And this whole time she has been in custody…since at least all the way back to July with what are all misdemeanor matters now.”
DPD Dacayanan reiterated that the only option left would be to dismiss the accused.
Judge Wolk further added that “at least from what the court sees” bipolar disorder is not a “serious mental disorder” under CARE court.
Judge Wolk then addressed the prosecution, “The court does have the authority to include appropriate mental health treatment conditions.”
To this, DDA Bulkeley recommended the accused seek a mental health evaluation which is required in order to receive or deny mental health treatment.
“Unless they’re gonna go meet her at the jail today, which sounds extremely unlikely, it’s gonna be difficult for her to report anywhere,” DPD Dacayanan explained regarding the court’s condition to seek a mental health evaluation. “If you’re gonna add that as a term it should be ‘If you are able’ because she doesn’t have a car, she doesn’t have any money.”
Ultimately, the court left the conditions as having the accused receive a mental health assessment, the motion to dismiss violation of probation was granted, and the accused was placed on probation.
