Conducting Mental Health Diversion Assessments
Date & Time
March 9, 2026
9:00am - 12:15pm
Location
Virtual
March 9, 2026
9:00am - 12:15pm
Location
Virtual
Summary
After establishing the statutory framework for mental health diversion, Lisa Charukul will lead a focused discussion of the governing legal standards and California case law that shape how diversion decisions are made in practice. This portion of the presentation reviews Penal Code section 1001.36 and then walks through a series of relevant appellate cases that have clarified and constrained trial court discretion. The slides address how courts have interpreted qualifying mental disorders, the statutory presumption regarding causal contribution, treatability, and the narrow definition of public safety as the likelihood of committing a super strike offense. Lisa will highlight common legal errors identified in the case law, including reliance on generalized dangerousness, improper consideration of treatment compliance history, and substitution of judicial preference for statutory criteria. This section clarifies how these cases define the proper role of the forensic evaluator by distinguishing between psychological opinions that assist the court and ultimate legal determinations reserved for the judge.
Following this legal foundation, the presentation moves to applied case examples that illustrate how these principles are implemented in practice.
Ben Brunetto will present the first case example, which illustrates application of the mental health diversion criteria in a case where substance use and mental health symptoms were closely intertwined. The slides show how police reports describing intoxication at the time of the incidents were evaluated alongside a documented history of serious mental illness, prior psychiatric hospitalizations, medication nonadherence, and symptom presentation. The case walks through how diagnosis, contribution of mental disorder to the charged behavior, and treatability were addressed by organizing the analysis around the four statutory questions. The presentation highlights how evidence supporting diversion was identified, how the absence of disconfirming data was explicitly addressed, and how substance use was analyzed as a contributing factor in interaction with mental health symptoms rather than in isolation.
Abe Loebenstein will present the second case example, which focuses on the selective use of psychological assessment tools within a mental health diversion evaluation. This case illustrates how testing was incorporated to clarify diagnostic questions, symptom presentation, and treatment responsiveness when interview and record review alone were not sufficient. The slides show how self-report and performance-based measures were used to provide structured, standardized information that complemented clinical interview data and behavioral observations. The case also demonstrates how a violence risk assessment informed by the HCR-20 V3 framework was initially used to address dangerousness and was later corrected to align with the statutory definition of unreasonable risk of committing a super strike offense. This portion of the presentation highlights how psychological testing can inform, but not replace, statutory analysis, and how assessment tools must be used carefully, transparently, and within the legal limits of mental health diversion.
Following this legal foundation, the presentation moves to applied case examples that illustrate how these principles are implemented in practice.
Ben Brunetto will present the first case example, which illustrates application of the mental health diversion criteria in a case where substance use and mental health symptoms were closely intertwined. The slides show how police reports describing intoxication at the time of the incidents were evaluated alongside a documented history of serious mental illness, prior psychiatric hospitalizations, medication nonadherence, and symptom presentation. The case walks through how diagnosis, contribution of mental disorder to the charged behavior, and treatability were addressed by organizing the analysis around the four statutory questions. The presentation highlights how evidence supporting diversion was identified, how the absence of disconfirming data was explicitly addressed, and how substance use was analyzed as a contributing factor in interaction with mental health symptoms rather than in isolation.
Abe Loebenstein will present the second case example, which focuses on the selective use of psychological assessment tools within a mental health diversion evaluation. This case illustrates how testing was incorporated to clarify diagnostic questions, symptom presentation, and treatment responsiveness when interview and record review alone were not sufficient. The slides show how self-report and performance-based measures were used to provide structured, standardized information that complemented clinical interview data and behavioral observations. The case also demonstrates how a violence risk assessment informed by the HCR-20 V3 framework was initially used to address dangerousness and was later corrected to align with the statutory definition of unreasonable risk of committing a super strike offense. This portion of the presentation highlights how psychological testing can inform, but not replace, statutory analysis, and how assessment tools must be used carefully, transparently, and within the legal limits of mental health diversion.
Presented By
Benedetto Brunetto, PsyD
Lisa Charukul, JD
Abraham Loebenstein, PhD
Abe Loebenstein, PhD, is a clinical and forensic psychologist based in San Diego. He has experience conducting forensic evaluations of adults and adolescents involved in the justice system. His professional background includes working with trauma survivors and providing child and adolescent psychotherapy. He previously worked for 16 years as a psychologist with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. For the past 13 years, Dr. Loebenstein has focused on forensic psychology and has more recently been involved in developing a forensic assessment training site. His assessment work includes evaluations of competency to proceed, general mitigation, violence recidivism risk, sexual misconduct recidivism, fire-setting risk, suitability for mental health diversion, and diminished actuality.
Abe Loebenstein, PhD, is a clinical and forensic psychologist based in San Diego. He has experience conducting forensic evaluations of adults and adolescents involved in the justice system. His professional background includes working with trauma survivors and providing child and adolescent psychotherapy. He previously worked for 16 years as a psychologist with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. For the past 13 years, Dr. Loebenstein has focused on forensic psychology and has more recently been involved in developing a forensic assessment training site. His assessment work includes evaluations of competency to proceed, general mitigation, violence recidivism risk, sexual misconduct recidivism, fire-setting risk, suitability for mental health diversion, and diminished actuality.
Learning Objectives
- Identify two specific statutory elements of California Penal Code section 1001.36 that are relevant to mental health diversion evaluations and distinguish these statutory questions from general clinical or treatment-focused assessment questions
- Describe three respective roles of the forensic evaluator and the court in mental health diversion cases and explain how California appellate case law shapes the scope of appropriate forensic opinions without requiring evaluators to make ultimate legal determinations
- Describe when psychological testing may be indicated in a mental health diversion evaluation and explain how interview data, record review and selectively chosen assessment measures are integrated to address diversion-specific psycholegal questions
CE Credit |
Intended Audience |
Experience Level |
|
4 CE Available for CPA, BBS, MCLE
Additional Continuing Education Information |
This training is intended for mental health clinicians.
|
This training is appropriate for all level clinicians.
|
