In 1981 a San Jose psychiatric team asked a judge to keep holding a young man they thought could not survive alone; he said he would sleep under a freeway bridge, and the judge freed him. That exchange opens a tour of California's Lanterman-Petris-Short Act and the unresolved argument, reopened by SB 43 and CARE Court, over whether it protects or abandons people.
The core disagreement is liberty versus care, and whether coerced treatment improves long-term outcomes is genuinely mixed. Critics say SB 43 expands who can be held without adding beds, and CARE Court uptake has run far below projections with a high dismissal rate.



