In court
Involuntary Outpatient Commitment Cases
This is not an exhaustive list and is not a substitute for legal
research.
I. Standards used
In re J.P., 574 N.W.2d 340 (Iowa 1998)
Evidence insufficient to support that depressed woman who stopped taking medication
and who took her children to a battered women's shelter was "seriously mentally
impaired" and in need of treatment. Order requiring involuntary outpatient
commitment reversed.
Hermann v. Arkansas, 1998 WL 118116 (Ark. Ct. App.)
Commitment order (for a combination of inpatient and outpatient) on "danger
to self/others" grounds. State failed to prove danger, although appellant had
refused his medication and was acting erratically.
In re William S., 570 N.W.2d 253 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997)
(unpublished disposition)
Appeals court refuses to reverse outpatient commitment order because trial
court's finding of dangerousness wasn't "clearly erroneous." (Two doctors,
who disagreed about degree of dangerousness but agreed with treatment order,
testified.)
In re Johnson, 691 A.2d 628 (D.C. Ct. App. 1997)
Voluntary outpatient can be committed involuntarily for outpatient treatment
if individual meets the statutory requirements.
In re Maricopa County, 840 P.2d 1042, (Ariz. Ct. App.
1992)
Committing person to inpatient treatment and subsequent supervised outpatient
treatment on grounds of mental illness. (1) Statute establishing persistently
or acutely disabled as category for involuntary commitment of mentally ill
is not unconstitutionally overbroad and vague, and (2) evidence supported conclusion
that patient was persistently or acutely disabled.
In re LaBelle, 107 Wash.2d 196 (Wash. 1986)
(Commitment for mix of inpatient and outpatient.) Grave disability standard
not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad.
II. Revocation of Outpatient Status
In re P.S., 702 A.2d 98 (Vt. 1997)
Order of non-hospitalization can be revoked without a showing of dangerousness.
(Need to show plaintiff is a "person in need of further treatment," rather
than a "person in need of treatment.")
In re K.B., 562 N.W.2d 208 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997)
No DP violation when outpatient-committed patient had outpatient status revoked
for noncompliance without notice/hearing. (Spent 30 days in hospital and
then was outpatient committed.)
State v. Bryant, 871 P.2d 129 (Or. Ct. App. 1993)
Due process did not require state to prove person was mentally ill at the time
outpatient commitment status was revoked.
G.T. v. Stone, 622 A.2d 941 (Vt. 1992)
Due process requires pre-revocation hearing except in case of emergency.
In re Plummer, 608 A.2d 741 (D.C. Ct. App. 1992)
Patient placed on indefinite convalescent leave status has same due process
rights as someone initially committed as an outpatient.
In re Stokes, 546 A.2d 356, (D.C. Ct. App. 1988)
Revocation of outpatient commitment for noncompliance (medication) — absent
a finding of dangerousness — violates DC's commitment law.
In re James, 507 A.2d 155 (D.C. Ct. App. 1986)
Before revoking outpatient status, trial court must make explicit finding that
inpatient treatment is least restrictive alternative.
In re G.K., 514 A.2d 1031 (Vt. 1986)
Review of constitutionality of involuntary treatment orders of indeterminate
duration. (1) People subject to orders of nonhospitalization were entitled
to same due process protection as people subject to commitment orders insofar
as right to periodic review of mental health status was concerned, and (2)
statute providing for periodic review by way of patient-initiated applications
for discharge did not satisfy due process.
In re Commitment of B.H., 514 A.2d 85 (N.J. Super.
1986)
Summary revocation of conditional release by recommitment, although done under
emergent conditions, violated patient's DP rights, since it was not done by
a court of review. See also: Birl v. Wallis, 619 F. Supp.
481 (M.D. Ala., Northern Div. 1985) (can't revoke conditional release without
prior notice or opportunity for a hearing); and Lewis v. Donahue,
437 F.Supp 112 (W.D. Okla. 1977) (same).
Richardson v. Ellerbee, 481 A.2d 473 (D.C. Ct. App.
1984)
Trial court may authorize outpatient's summary rehospitalization in certain
circumstances, provided patient is detained only temporarily and hospital complies
with certain affidavit and notice requirements. The procedures used for summary
rehospitalization don't violate due process.
C.N. v. Florida, 433 So.2d 661, (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.,
3d District 1983)
Can't revoke outpatient status unless the standards for inpatient criteria
are met.
Diamond v. Cross, 662 P.2d 828, (Sup. Ct. Wash. 1983)
Absent a finding that a gravely disabled person had not adhered to conditions
of her less restrictive treatment, or initiation of a second original commitment,
court had no authority to order her return to inpatient status.
In re Mills, 467 A.2d 971 (D.C. Ct. App. 1983)
Court not required to apply "clear and convincing" standard of evidence in
proceeding redetermining that committed outpatient was mentally ill and dangerous,
resulting in his indefinite hospitalization.
True v. Idaho, 645 P.2d 891 (Sup. Ct. Idaho 1982)
Minimum requirements for revocation of outpatient status: prompt written notice
and "a revocation hearing before a neutral hearing body held as soon as reasonably
possible following the patient's rehospitalization."
III. Other
Randolph v. Cervantes, 950 F.Supp. 771 (S.D. Miss.
1996)
State has no due process duty to protect an involuntary outpatient committee
from her own actions, since state had not confined her to an institution. Actions
of the state in ordering outpatient treatment insufficient to give rise to
a special relationship that would impose an affirmative duty to provide for
her safety.
In re T.J., 482 N.W.2d 580 (S.D. 1992)
Indefinite order of outpatient commitment is subject to periodic review.
In re Utley, 565 N.E.2d 1152 (Ind. Ct. App., 4th Dist.
1991)
Appeal of contempt conviction for failure to comply with outpatient order.
Trail court erred in holding patient in contempt without determining whether
his conduct was willful or a manifestation of his illness.
|
