State statutes governing involuntary outpatient civil commitment.

摘要: Involuntary outpatient civil commitment (IOC) is the legal nd psychosocial process whereby an allegedly mentally disordered and dangerous person forced to undergo mental health treatment or care in setting. IOC has been viewed as a viable means pro vide social services patients who do not require continuous inpatient hospitalization, but who, nevertheless, resist needed voluntary settings less restrictive than hospital. Perceived failures of deinstitutionalization, plight homeless ill persons, dissatisfaction with flexible laws have spawned considerable interest alternative compulsory treatment.1 Until now there no surveys state governing this form treatment. Indeed, appears be disagreement whether even permitted various states.2 This brief commentary table survey summarize those that make explicit provision for IOC; general laws, which may applicable IOC, are included.3 For purposes survey, narrowly defined dispositional options (tying between hospitaliza tion outright release) available court after "adjudication" involuntary commitment. distinguished from conditional release follows period court-ordered hospitalization by (1) decision-making authority (i.e., versus facility) (2) stage at it applied hearing following initial institutionalization). also guardianship protective procedures achieve results similar IOC. Final ly, definition does encompass involun tary persons found permanently incompetent stand trial guilty reason insanity. Although virtually all states permit few ? North Carolina, Hawaii, Arizona touted "trailblazers" willing experiment laws.4 Only New York prohibit equating hospitalization.5 Twenty-six District Col umbia The remaining 23 (not including York) explicitly prohibiting committing men tally disturbed individual community based care. Virtually provide least partial guarantee environment.6 It unclear, however, 24 provisions view necessary corollary guarantee; authori ty order fact implicit these states; if legislatures intended preclude altogether, seems case York. Even among reveals little unanimity their approaches. Alaska, Delaware, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Hampshire, Mexico, Virginia statutory silent on myriad issues attendant authority.7 Arizona, Illinois, Michigan, Oklahoma, more elaborate ad dressing such set ting; standard prerequisites disposition; role courts formulating ordering requirements; duration early procedures; monitoring supervi sion review compliance conditions; revocation status. Most authorizing determina involved meets commit ment criteria illness dangerousness. Four Carolina and, arguably, Arkansas impose different standards impairment dangerousness apply hospitalization.8 law, example, expressly designed widen net abridged version forthcoming journal article describes legislative development commitment, reviews relevant discusses im pediments widespread implementation govern ing research Civil Commitment Proj ect, conducted Institute Mental Disability Law National Center State Courts, supported John D., Catherine T. Mac Arthur Foundation. authors researchers institute.