Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (1979), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court that set the standard for involuntary commitment for treatment by raising the burden of proof required to commit persons for psychiatric treatment from the usual civil burden of proof of "preponderance of the evidence" to "clear and convincing evidence".
Since then, there have been alternating trends towards the abolition or substantial reduction of involuntary commitment, [34] a trend known as deinstitutionalisation. In many currents, individuals can voluntarily admit themselves to a mental health hospital and may have more rights than those who are involuntarily committed.
Texas set the bar for involuntary commitment for treatment by raising the burden of proof required to commit persons from the usual civil burden of proof of "preponderance of the evidence" to the higher standard of "clear and convincing evidence". [27] An example of involuntary commitment procedures is the Baker Act used in Florida. Under this ...
Also, permitted the courts to defer judgment regarding a person's need for commitment, to the doctor(s) 14th 1979 Parham v. J.R. The Court ruled that minors may be civilly committed to mental health facilities without an adversary hearing; in essence, parents do have the right to commit their children. 14th 1982 Youngberg v. Romeo
O'Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563 (1975), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court in mental health law ruling that a state cannot constitutionally confine a non-dangerous individual who is capable of surviving safely in freedom by themselves or with the help of willing and responsible family members or friends.
Another adult must file a petition detailing the signs and symptoms of a mental illness and any threats or patterns of behavior supporting the claim that immediate hospitalization is necessary.
1967 – The Lanterman–Petris–Short (LPS) Act (Chapter 1667 of the 1967 California Statutes, codified as Cal. Welf & Inst. Code, sec. 5000 et seq.) regulates involuntary civil commitment to a mental health institution in the state of California. The Act set the precedent for modern mental health commitment procedures in the United States.
He also presides over cases in which involuntary commitment of an individual is sought because of mental illness whereunder he is alleged to pose a risk of substantial harm to himself or others.