Proposed Legislative Changes to Mental Health Diversion (AB 46)

by

Changes are afoot in California to California’s judicial diversion laws heading into 2026, especially around mental health diversion and how the courts administer collaborative treatment programs. These changes don’t completely rewrite diversion law, but they adjust eligibility and judicial discretion and introduce new administrative standards that will matter to defendants, attorneys, prosecutors, and judges in 2026. (A10 Assembly District Manager)

Here’s a summary of what is — and isn’t — changing:

1. Proposed Legislative Changes to Mental Health Diversion (AB 46)

A key bill moving through the California Legislature as of late 2025 is Assembly Bill 46 (AB 46). This bill would change how judicial discretion works in mental health diversion cases under Penal Code § 1001.36:

  • Current law generally requires the court to grant mental health diversion if the statutory requirements are met (absent very serious charges like murder or rape).
  • AB 46 would restore and clarify judicial discretion, allowing judges to weigh public safety concerns along with treatment needs when deciding whether to grant diversion.
  • It also ensures prosecutors are entitled to present relevant facts before the court makes that decision.
  • The bill passed a key legislative committee in 2025 and is part of the 2025–2026 legislative session, meaning it could take effect in 2026 if enacted. (A10 Assembly District Manager)

Because AB 46 hasn’t yet become law as of this writing, its exact text and final form could still change, but the trajectory is toward giving judges more discretion in mental health diversion decisions.

2. Refinements to Mental Health Diversion Standards (SB 483)

In addition to AB 46, Senate Bill 483 (SB 483) proposes clarifications to the mental health diversion statute:

  • It would explicitly require that defendants agree the recommended treatment plan meets their specialized needs as part of diversion suitability.
  • It also clarifies that courts may deny diversion if the defendant poses an unreasonable risk to the physical safety of another person, even apart from the statutory test for “unreasonable risk” tied to new violent felony commission.
  • These refinements offer greater structure to how courts evaluate diversion suitability, especially in borderline eligibility cases. (LegiScan)

Like AB 46, SB 483 is pending and subject to final legislative action before it takes effect.

3. Administrative Standards and Collaborative Courts Updates

Beyond specific statutes, the Judicial Council and court administrative bodies are implementing updates affecting diversion programs that will be first in place in 2026:

  • Court standards for drug diversion and other collaborative treatment courts (e.g., DUI, mental health, veterans, etc.) are being revised in light of Senate Bill 910 (from the 2024 session). Updated standards must be in place by January 1, 2026, aligning with best practices for treatment courts. (California Courts)
  • The Standards of Judicial Administration (Standard 4.10) are being updated to provide clearer guidance on incentives and sanctions within diversion programs (e.g., graduated sanctions for non-compliance and incentives like treatment advancement). These administrative changes don’t alter the statute per se, but they will shape how diversion programs operate on the ground in 2026. (California Courts)

4. Other Notable Broader Changes in 2025 Affecting Diversion & Treatment Courts

Although not direct revisions to diversion eligibility itself, several laws that took effect in 2025 will still be effective in 2026 and influence diversion pathways:

  • Veterans treatment courts are expanding to include certain felony offenses in pretrial diversion programs under SB 1025. (California Courts)
  • Courts must order available drug treatment or education programs for some drug offenses (AB 2106), bolstering diversion-like handling. (California Courts)
  • Competency and diversion referrals have new protocols allowing written evaluations by psychologists or psychiatrists and mandatory consideration of diversion for incompetent defendants in some misdemeanor cases (SB 1323, SB 1400). (California Courts)

These changes don’t rewrite the core diversion statutes like PC 1001.36 or PC 1001.95, but they affect the broader treatment and diversion framework in which diversion decisions are made.

Summary: What’s Likely to Be Different in 2026

What’s changing (or proposed to change):

  • Judicial discretion in mental health diversion – potentially giving judges more latitude and public safety considerations under proposed AB 46. (A10 Assembly District Manager)
  • Criteria refinement in mental health diversion – clarified defendant consent to a treatment plan and risk standards under SB 483. (LegiScan)
  • Updated collaborative court standards – formalized incentives and sanctions for diversion participants by 2026. (California Courts)
  • Veterans court and treatment court changes remain effective and relevant. (California Courts)

What hasn’t dramatically changed yet:

  • The core eligibility categories for judicial diversion (e.g., misdemeanor judicial diversion under PC 1001.95, mental health diversion under PC 1001.36, drug diversion under PC 1000) still exist as before.
  • No sweeping overhaul abolishing diversion eligibility for broad categories of offenses has been enacted yet as of early 2026 — though proposals continue to move through the Legislature.

Bottom Line

California’s judicial diversion landscape is evolving as of 2026, especially in mental health diversion and collaborative treatment court administration. Proposed legislative reforms seek to fine-tune who is eligible, how judges exercise discretion, and what obligations participants must satisfy. Court administrative standards are also being updated to reflect best practices across diversion programs.

If you’re dealing with a case that may be eligible for diversion — now or later in 2026 — staying current with these changes and working with experienced counsel is essential because even small statutory or administrative shifts can significantly affect eligibility and outcome.

If you want detailed, tailored legal guidance on judicial diversion — including how these 2026 changes might apply to your case — contact William M. Weinberg, Attorney at Law:
📞 949.474.8008
📧 bill@williamweinberg.com
He can help you understand current law and upcoming changes so you make informed decisions about your legal options.