SAN FRANCISCO — A San Francisco judge denied a mentally ill man’s request for diversion Tuesday after learning the victim of a prior out-of-state assault was the man’s elderly mother — a revelation that shifted the court’s tone and prompted concerns from advocates about how justice is administered in mental health court.
Despite positive reports from treatment providers, the judge sided with the district attorney and ordered the man to remain in custody while the court gathered more information about the out-of-state charges.
The defendant, the first to appear before the mental health court that morning, had petitioned for diversion — a rehabilitative track under California Penal Code §1001.36 intended for people whose criminal behavior is significantly tied to their mental illness. His public defender described his active participation in treatment and strong clinical progress.
But the district attorney raised concerns about public safety, citing an earlier battery charge in another state involving an elderly woman in a nursing home. When the court learned the victim was the defendant’s own mother, the judge declined diversion, describing the crime as too serious to overlook.
“Someone capable of committing a crime like that is not appropriate for this program,” the judge said from the bench.
The decision drew concern from observers who argue the court is undermining the very logic of mental health diversion — which is premised on treating, rather than punishing, mental illness.
“Diversion isn’t a reward,” one courtroom advocate noted. “It’s a public health intervention. And if we only grant it to people with clean records, then we’ve already missed the point.”
The rest of the calendar showed similar tensions between rehabilitation and punishment.
In the second case, the district attorney requested that a defendant relinquish any firearms in his possession and be placed under a formal firearm prohibition. The man, who required a Spanish interpreter, had a history of substance use and had served in the Cuban military. He had been in diversion for 18 months and had received favorable reports.
Nonetheless, the judge granted the DA’s request and ordered the man to report to adult probation by the end of the week to complete the necessary paperwork and surrender all firearms.
A third case involved a man with a severe and well-documented mental illness. The district attorney again sought a firearm restriction, citing the man’s failure to adhere to his treatment plan. The defendant had been living with 30 dogs in his apartment, which animal control officers found in appalling conditions: trash, urine, and feces several inches deep. Four dogs were euthanized, while the remaining 26 were removed and deemed severely undersocialized but potentially adoptable.
The man’s apartment later burned down, though there was no evidence of arson. In court, he admitted that he had forgotten to provide documentation of his therapy and psychiatry appointments, and had only been attending one session per week. The judge gave him time to rectify the issue but granted the DA’s request for a firearm restriction.
The final defendant of the morning came before the court for a restitution hearing. He proudly told the judge he had been sober for four years, and the court praised him for completing diversion, calling him “an unqualified success.” Despite the commendation, the judge ordered him to pay nearly $250,000 in restitution across five orders.
The defendant took the decision in stride, thanking the judge for recognizing his recovery and affirming that he was committed to staying sober
