http://www.clintonherald.com/local/local_story_194011857.html

Why are they putting him in jail and not in a mental hospital?

quote:

Originally posted by Vivianna:
http://www.clintonherald.com/local/local_story_194011857.html

Why are they putting him in jail and not in a mental hospital?

When I read the article (both of them) and read about what he's done and threatens to do I asked myself the same exact question.

Maybe he has been in the mental hospital before and it didn't work. So how many times do we put him in the revolving door mental hospital? Do we trust someone like this to go home and "take his meds"?
Or do we wait until he has a hallucination and kills someones little kid? I understand "Civil Rights", but do we need to trample several other peoples civil rights to protect a non-productive member of society?
He has had his chances, and he blew it.

I know at one point in time last year he had a "civil commitment" - whatever that means.

quote:

Originally posted by King Kong:
I know at one point in time last year he had a "civil commitment" - whatever that means.

In all likelihood, the term "civil commitment" was used to describe an involuntary mental hold, probably one in which two or three adults knowledgeable of and concerned about the persons condition, have sought a hearing with a judge who then ordered the commitment. These are generally for an initial period of 48 hours, in order to allow physchiatric staff time to assess the condition of the patient and determine any potential treatments. After that 48 hour evaluation, another hearing is then held to determine if "the elevator doesn't reach the top floor", and if so what can be done to fix it. In some cases a patient is then ordered into a longer term treatment.

As with many mental committments, and especially with almost every substance abuse commitment, if a patient does not want to succeed in treatment, the chances of failure are tremendous. When the patient realizes they need help and cooperates with treatment is when one can you look forward to a reasonable expectation of success.

I'm going to clarify this issue further and apologize for being long winded before I begin as the commitment process is complicated.

The 48 hour emergency hold can be obtained if a person ends up in the emergency room for a mental health evaluation because they have done something leading to an intervention by law enforcement or ambulance personal. The emergency room physician would evaluate the person and contact a psychiatrist. After that evaluation, the psychiatrist would determine if the person is a danger to themselves or others and request the person be admitted to the hospital for further evaluation and care. IF the person refuses to be admitted, a judge can be contacted and he would issue the hold if he is convinced that it is necessary for the person's safety and wellbeing. After that hold is up. The psychiatrist can make the determination if the person is safe to be discharged from the hospital or request that the person voluntarily sign in to the hospital for treatment.

Here's where the civil committment can come into play. If the person refuses and the mental health professionals, family members etc believe the person remains a danger to themselves and others, 2 adults can go to the clerk of courts and file commitment papers. The judge would review these statements and determine if further evaluation is necessary. If so, the person would receive a copy of the judges order and would have to remain in the hospital for up to 5 additional days. (Also called the 5 day hold).

After that evaluation time, a formal court hearing would be held to determine further care, ie additional hospitalization, outpatient care, a trip to an institution, possibly stay in a group home etc.

Some commitments can be long term when the person is chronically mentally ill and has a history of noncompliance with treatment, not taking care of themselves, putting themselves at risk, being a threat to to others etc.

Others can be short term. The commitment can be dropped by a judge when everyone agrees that the person can be responible for their own care and treatment and follow through independently with the recommendations of their treatment team.

WHEW....everyone got that???

Well, at least I know (I think).
This was something that was introduced as evidence during his trial for harassing/threatening a bartender last year. The statement was made that "he was under a civil commitment at the time" with absolutely no explanation of what it meant. Apparently it was outpatient, since the events could not have happened if he was in a hospital or other insitution.

Dont be to sure about that I am aware of some institutions which have been knowen have a few inpatients leave their permises

quote:

Originally posted by psycrn:
I'm going to clarify this issue further...

<snipped to save space>

WHEW....everyone got that???

I second everything psychrn posted. That was a more complete description of the process.

quote:

Originally posted by Vivianna:
Why are they putting him in jail and not in a mental hospital?

My daughter is a jailer and you would not believe some of the prisoners they have to deal with. They should not be in the jail, that is for sure!

quote:

Originally posted by psycrn:
If the person refuses and the mental health professionals, family members etc believe the person remains a danger to themselves and others, 2 adults can go to the clerk of courts and file commitment papers. The judge would review these statements and determine if further evaluation is necessary. If so, the person would receive a copy of the judges order and would have to remain in the hospital for up to 5 additional days. (Also called the 5 day hold).

After that evaluation time, a formal court hearing would be held to determine further care, ie additional hospitalization, outpatient care, a trip to an institution, possibly stay in a group home etc.

Some commitments can be long term when the person is chronically mentally ill and has a history of noncompliance with treatment, not taking care of themselves, putting themselves at risk, being a threat to to others etc.

A teacher and I signed a mental health commitment for my son 7-1/2 years ago because he was suicidal. He was later diagnosed as bi-polar, and now he's on the right medication and is very stable and no longer a threat to himself or others, but because he is also mildly retarded, we are having an extremely difficult time getting him off that commitment.

He's been in several group homes (all at the county's expense) for all this time, and even though I was one of the two original signatories on the commitment papers, I am unable to get him released. His attorney tried to have the case have dismissed before 3 witnesses were called to the stand.

We have now waited a week while Judge Watson has taken the case under advisement, even though my son's lawyer showed a Supreme Court case which concluded that just because someone suffers from mental retardation or even mental illness, they cannot be held in a restrictive environment if they pose no threat to themselves or to others.

What's wrong with this picture?

quote:

Originally posted by Mississippi King:

quote:

Originally posted by psycrn:
If the person refuses and the mental health professionals, family members etc believe the person remains a danger to themselves and others, 2 adults can go to the clerk of courts and file commitment papers. The judge would review these statements and determine if further evaluation is necessary. If so, the person would receive a copy of the judges order and would have to remain in the hospital for up to 5 additional days. (Also called the 5 day hold).

After that evaluation time, a formal court hearing would be held to determine further care, ie additional hospitalization, outpatient care, a trip to an institution, possibly stay in a group home etc.

Some commitments can be long term when the person is chronically mentally ill and has a history of noncompliance with treatment, not taking care of themselves, putting themselves at risk, being a threat to to others etc.

A teacher and I signed a mental health commitment for my son 7-1/2 years ago because he was suicidal. He was later diagnosed as bi-polar, and now he's on the right medication and is very stable and no longer a threat to himself or others, but because he is also mildly retarded, we are having an extremely difficult time getting him off that commitment.

He's been in several group homes (all at the county's expense) for all this time, and even though I was one of the two original signatories on the commitment papers, I am unable to get him released. His attorney tried to have the case have dismissed before 3 witnesses were called to the stand.

We have now waited a week while Judge Watson has taken the case under advisement, even though my son's lawyer showed a Supreme Court case which concluded that just because someone suffers from mental retardation or even mental illness, they cannot be held in a restrictive environment if they pose no threat to themselves or to others.

What's wrong with this picture?

Without knowing everything about this case it's hard to say. There are tons of underlying factors that can keep someone on a commitment. Obviously there is a lot of information to consider if the judge is taking a week to look at everything.

Does your son have a Case Manager to advocate for him? Does he have contact with the County Patient Advocate (Marilyn Peters)? Even though he is stable, are there concerns about him living independently outside of a 24 hour supervised setting?

A threat to themselves or others doesn't necessarily mean that they are violent or suicidal. It could also be the possibility of neglecting their own needs, not taking their prescribed medication or being able to function in society without constant supervision.

Have you considered becoming his guardian so you can be a part of the decision making for him? (FYI Those individuals with guardians that look out for their best interests are less likely to remain commited because someone has taken responsibility for them.)

Not all cases are the same. It's very individualized because everyone and their needs are different. I wish you the best of luck. Judge Watson is a very fair, kind man and will work to make the best decision for your son.

Thanks psycrn. No, my son does not have a case manager as far as I know, but Marilyn Peters has been doing a fantastic job for him, and she was one of the people who testified for him. The problem seems to be that the care facility where he is located says one thing at his IPP meetings, and writes a completely different report to the court. As far as me becoming his guardian, I've been told that because he's in Iowa and I'm in Wisconsin, that won't work.

I do agree with you that "Judge Watson is a very fair, kind man," and I just hope and pray that his decision will reflect the work that Marilyn Peters, his attorney, and I have done, so that he can move to Wisconsin with me.

I'm not sure who told you that you couldn't be the guardian for your son, but we have guardians that we deal with that live all over the country. We just call them if we need something. If things don't go the way you had hoped, you may want to consider looking into this further.

Also, call and find out if your son has a Case Manager and have your son sign a release so you can talk to them. They may be able to help you through the process of getting your son up to Wisconsin(ie referrals to health care provider etc in your area if his commitment is dropped) so he doesn't go without needed services.

Thanks again, psycrn. I found out that my son does NOT have a case manager. (He used to, but apparently funding for the program was cut way back). And it was Iowa Legal Aid which told me I had to be an Iowa resident.

As far as finding services in Wisconsin, I've already done all the leg work on that, including an agency which will provide in-home services. Trouble is, they need to meet with him in person to set everything up, and as long his commitment remains in place, he can't travel here for interviews. But maybe if I'm able to obtain guardianship, that would change.