Sonoma County Grand Jury
• 2003-2004
Mental Health Services Division Release Procedures
⚠️ Aviso de traducción: Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings 6 findings
F1
The Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPS) protects adult individuals from unwarranted involuntary confinement and tends to favor freedom rather than detention. As a result, if the specific involuntary detention criteria in LPS are not met, an individual may be released even against the advice of MHS social workers and clinical physicians.
F2
Under LPS, adult detainees have the right to exclude family members from the Certification Review Hearings even though a family member may have petitioned to be there. Family members have no legal standing in the hearings and therefore no right to appeal.
F3
Detainees have the right to judicial appeal of the Certification Review Hearing decision.
F4
There was no evidence that the Certification Review Hearing procedures were not followed in the case investigated.
F5
Outpatient mental health programs for mandatory oversight of borderline treatment or release cases have been authorized by State Law AB 1421 (Laura’s Law). This law also allows participation of relatives in the hearing process. Additional costs would be incurred to implement Laura’s Law, but advocates maintain that long-term benefits to patients and to society would far outweigh implementation costs.
F6
Sonoma County has not implemented a program under Laura’s Law even though it has been implemented elsewhere in California and in a similar fashion under a similar law elsewhere in the nation. 2/3 July 1, 2004 Conclusion The established Certification Review Hearing procedures attempt to balance individual rights to freedom against the desires of mental health professionals, social workers and family members who desire to detain them for further treatment and/or social/self protection. In this balance, it is inevitable that the procedures will allow some individuals to secure their freedom and continue unhealthy behavior, so long as they do not meet a detention criterion or otherwise violate the law. The case reviewed illustrates the risks inherent in any process that involves judgment, but the process followed current Sonoma County law.
Recommendations 2
-
R1The Department of Health Services (HS) and MHS should review and report on the benefits and concerns regarding the adoption and implementation of Laura’s Law in Sonoma County. This report and its conclusions should be sent to the Board of Supervisors.
-
R2This report and its conclusions on Laura’s Law should be sent to the 2004-2005 grand jury. Required Responses to Findings Director, Department of Health Services – F5 Director, Mental Health Services Division – F5 Required Responses to Recommendations Board of Supervisors – R1 Director, Department of Health Services – R1 Director, Mental Health Services Division – R1, R2 Reference List 1 “A Guide to Laura’s Law: California's New Law for Assisted Outpatient Treatment”, Second Edition, 2003. Prepared by The California Treatment Advocacy Coalition and The Treatment Advocacy Center. Retrieved May 1, 2004, from http://www.psychlaws.org/StateActivity/California/Guide-Lauras-Law- AB1421.htm