CARE Court: Can California counties make it work?

Jocelyn Wiener and Manuela Tobias, MindSite News

21 de julio de 2022

California Gov. Gavin Newsom tours a patient’s room at Project 180 in Los Angeles on March 10, 2022, the week after proposing a plan to force homeless people with severe mental health and addiction disorders into treatment. (AP Photo/Jae C. Hong)

In early March, Gov. Gavin Newsom unveiled a controversial proposal to compel people with serious mental health issues into care and housing. 

Mental health advocates, mayors and family members who stood alongside him at the press conference at a San Jose behavioral health treatment program heralded the plan, known as CARE Court, as a visionary move.

But some county officials say they were stunned.

“They really sprung it on everybody,” said Farah McDaid Ting, public affairs director at the California State Association of Counties, who said lawmakers didn’t consult or even give her organization a heads-up.

Four months later, the bill to establish CARE Court has sailed through all of its policy committees in the Legislature, secured unanimous approval from the Senate in May and is widely expected to become law later this summer. CARE Court — short for Community Assistance, Recovery and Empowerment Court — has garnered enthusiastic support from leaders of more than 45 cities, many of whom face fiery criticism over their handling of homelessness. Many family members, who for decades have felt stymied by strict eligibility rules for conservatorship, are also celebrating the new plan. 

But county representatives continue to ring alarm bells about their ability to implement the proposal, especially as an aggressive timeline comes into focus. A handful of counties have registered support for the proposal, including Marin, Contra Costa and San Diego.

Many of the counties’ concerns come in the form of questions: Will the necessary housing be available? Where can they find the outreach workers and therapists needed to serve the population, given massive statewide shortages of both? What happens to all the struggling people who want housing and treatment, and already can’t get it?

Disability rights advocates are raising fundamental questions about the very premise of CARE Court: Is it effective to compel people into care? Is involuntary treatment a violation of their civil rights?  

But many of those who support the concept say the practical questions feel especially pressing right now, as the Legislature continues its deliberations. While many details are still in flux, the gist of the proposal remains the same as initially outlined. Anyone from family members to first responders could petition a civil court to create a court-ordered care plan for people who meet specific criteria. These include a diagnosis of schizophrenia or other psychotic disorders, along with being at risk of harming themselves or others or being unlikely to survive on their own. Participants would receive legal counsel and a range of mental health services, medication and supportive housing. Following a series of check-ins during a yearlong period, the participant could either graduate or be referred to an additional year of treatment. If a person refuses to comply, or “fails out”, they could be considered by the court for conservatorship.  

Conversations about CARE Court have been peppered with frequent references to people living on California’s sidewalks and under freeway overpasses. But the administration hasn’t been clear about how much of a dent the proposal would make in the state’s massive homelessness crisis. Prior to the pandemic, more than 161,000 people in the state were estimated to be homeless on any given night; that number has likely grown since. The administration says the program will serve 7,000 to 12,000 people with the most acute mental health needs. Homelessness isn’t a prerequisite to participate. 

The administration says the proposal represents a crucial step toward addressing one of the state’s great moral and policy failings: the vast ranks of unhoused people languishing with serious mental illness and without care. 

“What CARE Court is saying is we must create a pathway wherein these individuals that live in the shadows and often die in the shadows, become a priority group,” said Dr. Mark Ghaly, secretary of the California Health and Human Services Agency, who has been championing the program on behalf of the Newsom administration.

CARE Court’s supporters say no more time can be wasted. Judge Stephen Manley, who started the state’s first mental health court in Santa Clara County nearly 25 years ago, notes the growing percentage of people in local jails and prisons with serious mental illnesses. Only by mandating that counties prioritize this population, he said, will anything change. 

“People are always telling me it can’t be done,” he said. “To me it is a tragedy that we repeatedly, year after year after year after year, talk about this issue, do nothing, and all these individuals end up in the criminal justice system.”

Is there enough housing or will there be?

Perhaps the most prominent question that has emerged among legislators and advocates is whether there is enough housing available to get the CARE Court program started. 

Short answer: No. 

But the state believes that bringing CARE Court participants to the front of the line, along with making unprecedented investments in housing this year, will allow counties to meet the needs of this population. Opponents fear others awaiting voluntary services will be bumped to the back of the line, leaving their needs to intensify.

“I worry if it houses some but leaves others out, are we just reshuffling things?” said Margot Kushel, director of the Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center.

While the new budget deal includes $65 million this year and $49 million in ongoing annual funding to cover training, court costs and legal representation, counties say the proposal doesn’t include any new funding for housing or services.

Terry Fiscus, a counselor at Turning Point Community Programs, sits in his Sacramento office in on June 23, 2022. Photo: Nina Riggio for CalMatters

“There’s a new door being built onto a small house,” Ting said. “There’s no square footage, there’s no nothing, just a new door. That’s what’s kind of frustrating about the premise.”

The administration points skeptics to a $14 billion multi-year homelessness budget put together before the proposal’s announcement — which includes about $5 billion to build thousands of mental health treatment beds and homeless housing. This year’s budget includes $1.5 billion for interim treatment beds to hold patients over while permanent units come online. In response to counties’ concerns that even the bridge beds won’t be ready in time, the bill’s authors recently said counties would be phased into the program over two years, starting in July 2023. 

Sen. Susan Talamantes Eggman, the bill’s co-author and a Stockton Democrat, says she believes counties are unhappy with the proposal because it finally holds them to account. It requires that they provide the care and housing a participant needs and if they don’t, face court fines of $1,000 per day. The money, collected by the state treasury, would eventually fund local services for the people CARE Court targets.

“We’re not just saying the person has the obligation to accept, we’re saying the system has the obligation to treat,” Eggman said during a recent hearing.

“I worry if it houses some but leaves others out, are we just reshuffling things?”


Counties counter that these penalties will only take away from their already limited resources to treat people.

While the bill says a county has to provide services during the program, courts can’t enforce a participant’s post-graduation plans. Advocates worry that without guaranteed housing people will wind up back on the streets, in emergency rooms and county jails.

“We’re going to release them back into the streets but we expect them to continue to adhere to the care plan and continue to be taking medication,” said Shonique Williams, a statewide organizer for Dignity and Power Now, who opposes the proposal. “But they’re going back into survival mode.”

The state doesn’t keep any sort of waitlist or even a count of treatment beds and housing that’s available to people exiting homelessness. As a result, it’s impossible to gauge the exact shortage in each county.

But a state-commissioned report released in January found that more than 80% of counties need more mental health treatment beds and homeless housing. A 2021 study from the RAND Corporation, a nonprofit think tank,  showed the state lacks 5,000 psychiatric hospital beds and another 3,000 beds at residential treatment facilities and board-and-care homes. The shortage is most pronounced in the San Joaquin Valley and for patients with additional medical needs.

“There’s a new door being built onto a small house. There’s no square footage, there’s no nothing, just a new door. That’s what’s kind of frustrating about the premise.”


Michelle Doty Cabrera, executive director of the California Behavioral Health Directors Association, said one recent survey showed counties had 14,000 unhoused individuals with serious mental illnesses voluntarily participating in full service partnership programs. But they couldn’t find housing for more than half of these individuals, in part because many were screened out for reasons related to their mental health conditions, she said.

In Sacramento County, beds are increasingly rare at board-and-care facilities, where residents receive housing, 24-hour care and three daily meals. 

“It is a needle in a haystack right now,” said Terry Fiscus, a behavioral health worker at Turning Point, which contracts with the county.

The less calm and rule-abiding the patient, the less chance they have of getting or keeping a spot, he said. On top of that, facilities have been closing at a rapid clip as housing prices soar and government-set reimbursement rates remain stagnant. 

“There are a lot of people that want to come in all the time. We cannot take them,” said Jeanny Leung, who runs a board-and-care home in Sacramento.

Jeanny Leung, photographed outside of Praise Care Home in Sacramento on Thursday, June 23, 2022. Photo: Nina Riggio for CalMatters

“Squeezing blood from a turnip”

Housing isn’t the only big concern counties are raising. To run, CARE Court requires staff and resources. 

Some counties say they fear that, without new funding, the program will end up draining resources from other populations, potentially including children and youth. 

Cabrera, of the California Behavioral Health Directors Association, uses phrases like “squeezing blood from a turnip” and “robbing Peter to pay Paul.”

“​​We’re at our limit in terms of what we can do,” she said. “We need more resources to do more.”

The proposal’s proponents argue that there’s plenty of money to get things up and running. They say county mental health systems have had a huge influx of taxpayer dollars in the past two years, thanks to the Mental Health Services Act, a 1% tax on incomes over a million dollars that was enacted in 2004.

“Our millionaires in California seem to be doing very well for themselves,” said Karen Larsen, CEO of The Steinberg Institute, a nonprofit focusing on mental health policy, which supports the proposal. She notes that revenues from the tax have hit historic highs — they were at more than $4 billion this past year.

For two decades prior to assuming her current role, Larsen served as director of Yolo County’s Health and Human Services Agency. She believes counties can afford the costs of the new program.

“If they can prove they don’t have enough resources, I’d love to see it,” she said.

“Many of our people are only stable because we have someone coming twice a day to deliver their meds and check in with them and make sure their furniture is upright.”


Phebe Bell, Nevada County’s behavioral health director, said she was, indeed, able to tap the influx of Mental Health Services Act funding to purchase a new house, providing beds for six people who were unhoused. But strict rules often limit what that pot of money can be used for, she said. 

If the county has to pivot to focus on CARE Court mandates, she worries about who won’t be served.

“Many of our people are only stable because we have someone coming twice a day to deliver their meds and check in with them and make sure their furniture is upright,” she said.

When her county examined their full service partnership program, they found more than a third of the 78 people in their program at any given moment were inadequately housed, with many sleeping on the streets. 

“I don’t have a single empty bed in our system of care,” she said. “Who exactly are we incorrectly prioritizing in our work right now?”

Both sides agree on one specific challenge: a massive shortage of mental health providers. 

At the beginning of the pandemic, many counties worried they’d face significant shortfalls and preemptively laid off mental health workers. 

Now, as need surges, staffing has simply not kept pace. Counties are finding themselves losing bidding wars for therapists being courted by everyone from school districts to telehealth start-ups to major providers like Kaiser. Burnout is driving others from the field entirely.

Some counties now face vacancy rates of 30% to 40% in their behavioral health workforce, and many of the nonprofits they contract with are in the same situation, Larsen said.

“I think it’s the biggest issue we face in mental health and substance use right now,” she said.

This year’s budget includes $1.5 billion to build out the state’s entire healthcare workforce, including hundreds of millions that target behavioral health.

The state’s public guardians and conservators have also eyed the CARE Court proposal warily. While they are not officially affected by the proposal, they say they expect the program could lead to a surge in new referrals. 

The programs are already severely underfunded and understaffed, said Scarlet Hughes, executive director of the California State Association of Public Administrators, Public Guardians, and Public Conservators. Right now, caseloads hover at 65 to 85 individuals per caseworker, though in some counties they’re as high as 135. That translates into visiting a client every three or four months, she said.

“Any impact to our members is going to be significant because they’re underwater already,” she said.

What’s next?

Questions over implementation, in addition to the ongoing debate over civil liberties, have been woven through CARE Court’s journey from the start. That hasn’t stopped the Legislature from voting overwhelmingly in the bill’s favor. It is expected to easily clear its final hurdles: an appropriations vote later this summer, a floor-wide vote in the Assembly and a signature from the author, the governor himself.

But despite their ongoing questions, counties have conceded that CARE Court is coming whether they like it or not. They know they’re not likely getting any more money for housing and staffing. For now, they’re using the appropriations process to petition for more time and tools to implement the program. 

The administration acknowledges that counties around the state face severe shortages. But it remains committed to the idea of a better way to serve the people who are struggling the most.

“California has done this before,” Ghaly said. “We’ve stepped up for the most vulnerable, the most overlooked many, many times. And we can do it again.”

This story was produced by MindSite News, an independent, nonprofit journalism site focused on mental health.

Wiener, J. & Tobias, M. (2022). CARE Court: Can California counties make it work? Mind Site News. Recuperado el 30 de agosto de 2022, de

Bill to legalize ‘safe injection’ sites in California heads to Newsom’s desk

Public health advocates helped drive a bill that would create sites for drug users to use in a supervised and safe setting.

Natalie Hanson, Courthouse News Service

08 de agosto de 2022

OAKLAND, Calif. (CN) — A bill to legalize safe injection sites to address public health crises like the spread of HIV and drug overdoses has passed through both houses of the California Legislature. 

Written by state Senator Scott Wiener, a Democrat from San Francisco, Senate Bill 57 calls for supervised injection sites modeled after facilities active in some American cities for decades. Multiple studies indicate the sites can reduce overdoses from addictive substances.

Supervised injection facilities would allow people to inject or smoke drugs while under medical supervision in sterile conditions. The sites would not allow the exchange of illegal narcotics and are hoped to bring down overdoses caused by substances like fentanyl, heroin and methamphetamine and prevent the spread of diseases like hepatitis and HIV.

If approved, San Francisco, Oakland and Los Angeles could operate the sites, which would also allow people to access addiction treatment and health resources.

It’s an initiative which harm reduction advocates have been requesting for years. Nonprofits in the state such as the HIV Education and Prevention Project of Alameda County have already been working to create mobile sites to provide clean syringes and safe disposal of used syringes, offer free HIV and hepatitis C testing and address growing overdose crises like that seen in San Francisco. 

The California Society of Addictive Medicine (CSAM), which represents physicians who care for people with substance use disorders, also sponsored the legislation to call attention to what they say is a need for safe service centers to help prevent overdoses and provide medical information to people struggling with addiction. 

Opoid-related deaths recorded in Alameda County through 2020, as recorded by the state’s opioid overdose monitoring dashboard. (HIV Education and Prevention Project of Alameda County / Courthouse News)

More than 10,000 people in California and more than 100,000 people nationwide died of an overdose on the streets, at parties or at home, according to NPR. There were 191 fatal overdoses from opioid drugs in Alameda County in 2021, according to the state Department of Public Health’s overdose dashboard. This number does not include non-fatal overdoses requiring the use of the medication Narcan, used in emergency situations to treat opioid overdoses.

“If Governor Newsom signs this bill into law, he will not only save uncounted lives from unnecessary death but will also create a pathway into treatment for thousands of Californians for whom there is currently little hope of recovery,” said David Kan, past president of CSAM, in a statement.

Women Organized to Respond to Life-Threatening Diseases (WORLD), a nonprofit prevention organization based in Oakland, posted on Twitter that the law is needed because “safe consumption sites will save so many lives in California. As an organization conducting outreach daily in Oakland, we see firsthand how many people will benefit from these proven treatment and prevention programs.” The group did not respond to a request for comment by press time.

Wiener took to Twitter to note New York City opened its safe consumption sites last year. “They’’ve been a success,” he wrote. “So much so that Mayor Adams wants them open 24 hours so public drug use doesn’t increase when they close. These sites work.”

According to Politico, Newsom pronounced himself “very, very open” to the policy while campaigning in 2018, unlike his predecessor Governor Jerry Brown who vetoed a similar bill. San Francisco has a proponent in Mayor London Breed — although her recently picked replacement of ousted District Attorney Chesa Boudin, Brooke Jenkins, has called for harsher penalties for drug users and dealers on the streets of the city’s Tenderloin district. 

Senate Republicans, who all voted no on SB 57, want Newsom to veto the bill. 

Senate Republican Leader Scott Wilk of Santa Clarita called the bill “one of the most dangerous pieces of legislation that I’ve seen sent to the governor,” adding, “Leaving people on the streets in squalor, rather than getting them help, shows zero compassion.”

If the bill takes effect, piloted sites would operate through Jan. 1, 2027.

“El presente artículo es propiedad de Courthouse News Service

Hanson, N. (2022). Bill to legalize ‘safe injection’ sites in California heads to Newsom’s desk. Courthouse News Service Recuperado el 10 de agosto de 2022, de

Riverside bans camping in Santa Ana River bed, other fire-prone areas

Riverside bans camping in Santa Ana River bed, other fire-prone areas

David Downey (, The Press-Enterprise

03 de agosto de 2022

Riverside police officers, from left, Javier Cabrera, JC Cuevas and Justin Mann, survey a homeless encampment in the Santa Ana River bed in Riverside on Friday, May 6, 2022. (File photo by Watchara Phomicinda, The Press-Enterprise/SCNG)

Confronted with a crushing homelessness crisis that consistently ranks at the top of residents’ concerns, Riverside officials moved Tuesday night, Aug. 2, to ban camping and storing property in areas prone to fires and floods.

The Riverside City Council voted 6-1 to approve an ordinance that makes it illegal “for any person to sit, lie, sleep, or store, use, maintain, or place any bulky item or personal property” in so-called wildland urban interface areas where neighborhoods rub up against natural areas. These include the Santa Ana River bed, Hole Lake and Sycamore Canyon Wilderness Park.

City Council Member Clarissa Cervantes voted no.

“I personally am concerned that there will be unintended consequences with enforcing the ordinance,” Cervantes said Wednesday, Aug. 3, adding that there aren’t enough places in town to house people living in river-bed encampments.

“Where are they supposed to go?” she asked.

City Council Member Jim Perry is one of those who backed the measure. People who reside in homes near or own businesses along the Santa Ana River live in fear that wildfires will wipe out their “lifelong investment,” Perry said, and the ordinance is a “good step” toward addressing that.

“But we also need some coordination with the jurisdictions who surround us, because otherwise we are going to move them from one side of the river to the other and the problem isn’t going to go away,” he said.

The measure has been in the works for months and is intended to aid a team anchored by 16 police officers, two police sergeants, eight outreach workers and two fire captains that is being assembled as part of a $5.8 million program to move people out of river-bed encampments and into shelters or housing. About one month ago, the council adopted a five-year plan for addressing homelessness.

The plan’s rollout also follows a county decision in spring to ban outdoor burning because of the drought and high fire danger.

Against the backdrop of soaring home prices and increasing conflict between residents and people living on the street, encampments have spread in the wildland areas along the city’s edges. Residents and officials have said that trend is of particular concern in the fire-prone river area where blazes routinely break out and threaten nearby houses. Some wildfires were started by cooking and warming fires that got away from people camped there.

According to a city report, the Riverside Fire Department has battled 163 brush fires in the river bottom in the past five years, two-thirds of them caused by people. Between 2017 and this year, city firefighters also fought 12 wildfires in Sycamore Canyon, four in the Hawarden Hills and one in the La Sierra Hills, the report states. Most of those blazes were started by people as well.

Riverside County point-in-time counts found 587 homeless people in the city of Riverside in winter 2020 and 514 last winter. Much of the city’s unhoused population is concentrated in wildland areas.

In summer and fall 2021, outreach teams recorded 52 homeless encampments in the wildland urban interface areas, 39 of them within the city’s boundaries and 13 just outside, the report states.

“There have been 63 fires just in Ward 1, just in the river bottom, since January of 2022,” Council Member Erin Edwards said.

“We need to address both the fires and the humanitarian crisis that is decades in the making in the river bottom,” Edwards said.

City officials said they intend to comply with a key federal appeals court ruling involving Boise, Idaho, that bars cities from uprooting people camped on public property if there aren’t shelters and other places for them to go, while permitting municipalities to limit the places and times in which people may sleep on public land.

Cervantes, however, said more needs to be done about the needs of homeless people before adopting the ordinance, which takes effect in September.

Wildfires are a serious threat to public safety and the river bottom is “not a healthy environment for people,” she said. But not everyone will agree to move to a shelter or housing, she said. With that in mind, Cervantes said she would like to explore providing a place in the city where homeless people could safely, and legally, camp.

“El presente artículo es propiedad de The Press-Enterprise

Downey, D. (2022). Riverside bans camping in Santa Ana River bed, other fire-prone areas. The Press-Enterprise. Recuperado el 07 de agosto de 2022, de

Instalan Unidades del MP para atender delitos contra población LGBTTTIQA+

* Investigarán delitos que involucren la orientación sexual, identidad de género o expresión de género 

* Estas oficinales ministeriales especializadas se ubicarán en municipios de Benito Juárez, Solidaridad y Othón P. Blanco

Ángeles Gómez | Sem México

Benito Juárez, Quintana Roo | Viernes 2 de Julio del 2021 | — : —

La Fiscalía General del Estado de Quintana Roo suscribió un Acuerdo por el que se instalan la Unidades Especializadas del Ministerio Público para la investigación de delitos que involucren la orientación sexual, identidad de género o expresión de género en los municipios de Benito Juárez, Solidaridad y Othón P. Blanco.

En el marco del mes del orgullo LGBTTTIQA+ el fiscal general Óscar Montes de Oca sostuvo que esta acción es resultado de los esfuerzos coordinados con otras instituciones tales como el poder judicial y el congreso local a iniciativa del diputado del Edgar Gasca Arceo, quien el pasado mes de marzo promovió una reforma de ley para incluir al código penal la agravante de odio en los delitos de lesiones y homicidio. 

La competencia territorial de las Unidades Especializadas del Ministerio Público para la Investigación de Delitos que involucren la Orientación Sexual, Identidad de Género o Expresión de Género, será la siguiente:

a)        La Unidad Especializada con sede en Benito Juárez conocerá de hechos posiblemente constitutivos de delitos suscitados en los Municipios de Lázaro Cárdenas, Isla Mujeres y Benito Juárez.

b)        La Unidad Especializada con sede en Solidaridad conocerá de hechos posiblemente constitutivos de delitos suscitados en los Municipios de Puerto Morelos, Solidaridad, Cozumel y Tulum.

c)        La Unidad Especializada con sede en Othón P. Blanco conocerá de hechos posiblemente constitutivos de delitos suscitados en los Municipios de Felipe Carrillo Puerto, José María Morelos, Bacalar y Othón P. Blanco.

El Acuerdo signado por el Fiscal General del Estado de Quintana Roo responde a la obligación del estado para promover y proteger los derechos humanos y a la no discriminación demandada por la comunidad LGBTTTIQA+, para conducir las investigaciones de hechos probablemente constitutivos de delito con perspectiva de género, respeto a la dignidad, igualdad y no discriminación.

Las Unidades de Investigación empezarán sus funciones una vez que reciban la capacitación de la Comisión Nacional para Prevenir la Discriminación dependiente de la Secretaría de Gobernación, -entre otras instituciones-, las cuales serán permanentes y progresivas.

Con acciones como ésta, la FGE cumple con su encomienda constitucional de investigar, identificar, ubicar y capturar a quienes no respeten la ley y/o atenten contra la integridad física de los y las quintanarroenses y sus visitantes.

El presente articulo es propiedad de Sem México.

Ángeles Gómez (2021) Instalan Unidades del MP para atender delitos contra población LGBTTTIQA+. Sem México. Recuperado el 2 de Julio del 2021 en:

La CNDH va contra nueva Ley de la FGR

Afirma que las normas impugnadas condicionan y/o limitan la participación y coordinación de la FGR en el Sistema Nacional de Seguridad Pública

Varios artículos de la Ley de la FGR serán impugnados. NTX/ ARCHIVO
Varios artículos de la Ley de la FGR serán impugnados. NTX/ ARCHIVO

SUN| Informador MX

22 de junio de 2021 – 15:33 hs

La Comisión Nacional de los Derechos Humanos (CNDH) al considerar que vulnera los derechos a la seguridad jurídica, libertad de trabajo y el principio de presunción de inocencia, interpuso ante la Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación (SCJN) una acción de inconstitucionalidad contra diversas disposiciones de la nueva Ley de la Fiscalía General de la República (FGR), publicada en mayo.

Debido al trabajo conjunto con organizaciones de la sociedad civil y autoridades involucradas en el tema, el organismo encabezado por Rosario Piedra informó que se determinó impugnar artículos de la Ley de la FGR; Ley para la Protección de Personas Defensoras de Derechos Humanos y Periodistas; Ley General para Prevenir, Sancionar y Erradicar los Delitos en Materia de Trata de Personas y para la Protección y Asistencia a las Víctimas de estos Delitos; Ley General de Acceso de las Mujeres a una Vida Libre de Violencia y Ley General en Materia de Desaparición Forzada de Personas, Desaparición Cometida por Particulares y del Sistema Nacional de Búsqueda de Personas.

Se destacó que se realizó un estudio sobre la compatibilidad del decreto por el que se expidió la nueva Ley de la Fiscalía General de la República, abroga la Ley Orgánica de la FGR, publicado en el Diario Oficial de la Federación el pasado 20 de mayo, con el parámetro de regularidad constitucional.

La CNDH consideró que las normas impugnadas condicionan y/o limitan la participación y coordinación de la FGR en el Sistema Nacional de Seguridad Pública; la Junta de Gobierno del Mecanismo de Protección para Personas Defensoras de Derechos Humanos y Periodistas; la Comisión Intersecretarial para Prevenir, Sancionar y Erradicar los Delitos en Materia de Trata de Personas y para la Protección y Asistencia a las Víctimas; el Sistema Nacional de Prevención, Atención, Sanción y Erradicación de la Violencia contra las Mujeres; así como el Sistema Nacional de Búsqueda de Personas, en estricto apego a su autonomía constitucional, vulnerando el derecho a la seguridad jurídica y el principio de legalidad.

Consideró que “esta situación se debe a la forma en que se encuentra formulada la participación, actuación e integración de la Fiscalía General de la República en diversas instituciones, pues sujeta su colaboración a un estricto respeto de su autonomía constitucional, es decir, constriñe su intervención y cooperación al margen de dicha característica constitucional, mismo que interfiere con un pleno y óptimo desempeño de sus funciones en el marco de los respectivos ordenamientos que rigen cada sistema, mecanismo y/o comisión del que se trate”.

“El presente artículo es propiedad de Informador MX

SUN. (2021). La CNDH va contra nueva Ley de la FGR. Informador MX. Recuperado el 22 de junio del 2021 en: