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".
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 ...
Criteria for involuntary commitment are generally set by the individual states, and often have both short- and long-term types of commitment. Short-term commitment tends to be a few days or less, requiring an examination by a medical professional, while longer-term commitment typically requires a court hearing, or sentencing as part of a ...
The bill the governor withdrew this week was intended to strengthen a 2016 law that allows district judges to order involuntary treatment for people with severe mental illness who have frequent ...
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
Addington v. Texas: Raised the burden of proof requirement, in order to civilly commit a person, from preponderance, to clear and convincing. Also, permitted the courts to defer judgment regarding a person's need for commitment, to the doctor(s) 14th 1979 Parham v. J.R.
Involuntary treatment or mandatory treatment refers to medical treatment undertaken without the consent of the person being treated. Involuntary treatment is permitted by law in some countries when overseen by the judiciary through court orders; other countries defer directly to the medical opinions of doctors.
Initials orders for involuntary commitment are nearly impossible to appeal; they often expire before an appeals court can rule. That could soon change.