Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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.
The legislation significantly expanded upon its landmark predecessor, the Lanterman Mental Retardation Services Act (AB 225), initially proposed in 1969. The original act extended the state's existing regional center network of services for developmentally disabled people, while mandating provision of services and supports that meet both the needs and the choices of each individual.
[1] In 1969, the Lanterman Petris Short Act became effective, which eliminated the previous indefinite commitments of persons found by a court to be mentally disabled. The new law required an automatic judicial review of every decision to hospitalize a person involuntarily beyond a very limited time.
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.
We'll cover exactly how to play Strands, hints for today's spangram and all of the answers for Strands #321 on Saturday, January 18. Related: 16 Games Like Wordle To Give You Your Word Game Fix ...
Frank D. Lanterman (November 4, 1901 – April 29, 1981) was an American politician who served in the California State Assembly for the 48th, 47th and 42nd districts from 1951 to 1978. He authored the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Act .
The television term “pilot” is likely inspired by the aviation industry, given it's the first time a show lifts off or "airs." Like an airline pilot operating a plane, these episodes steer ...
“I have some problems with your process,” Blanton wrote. “They are as follows: 1) allegations are made and taken as truth; 2) as a DJJ employee, I was never given the opportunity to meet with my accuser; 3) you did no investigation or verification of the validity of the complaint. How does one manage/supervise people in such a manner?”