AAPL Landmark - Civil Commitment Flashcards
Can a civilly committed patient be involuntarily held in a hospital if there are safe, less restrictive treatment alternatives available?
No.
Lake v. Cameron (1966)
“Deprivations of liberty solely because of dangers to the ill persons themselves should not go beyond what is necessary for their protection.”
Can an individual being released from prison be civilly committed without being afforded the right to a jury determination of such commitment?
No.
Baxtrom v. Herold (1966). The USSC found that the 14th Amendment required the right to jury review to decide involuntary commitment if mentally ill following incarceration, similar to others facing civil commitment.
Should individuals facing civil commitment proceedings be entitled to due process rights similar to those in criminal proceedings?
Yes.
Lessard v. Schmidt (1972)
Milwauke, WI; involuntary hospitalization was a significant deprivation of liberty in civil commitment hearings, the state was required to prove mental illness and dangerousness beyond a reasonable doubt and to ensure that less restrictive alternatives are not available. Also, it ruled that due process required that patients be given timely notice of their rights and have the right to legal counsel.
Can a mentally ill patient be involuntarily committed to a hospital if he or she is not dangerous?
No.
O’Connor V. Donaldson (1975)
Donaldson was held in a Florida State Hospital without treatment for 15 years. The USSC found the confinement unconstitutional because “a State cannot constitutionally confine a non-dangerous individual who is capable of surviving safely in freedom by himself or with the help of family and friends.
Is “clear and convincing evidence” the burden of proof for civil commitment?
Yes.
In Addington v. Texas (1979
The USSC found that an intermediate burden of proof of “clear and convincing evidence” was the most appropriate balance of individual rights and state’s interests.
Is an adversarial hearing required for the hospitalization of a minor whose parents or guardian has requested such action?
No.
Parham v. J.R. (1979)
(1) Georgia’s procedures for committing a child to a state mental hospital are not constitutionally deficient because the Constitution requires that parents are presumed to act in the best interest of their children. This presumption may only be rebutted, and the state may only intervene in a parental decision if it is proven that a parent has neglected or abused their child.
(2) The Due Process Clause requires that a “neutral factfinder” must periodically review a child’s continued commitment to a state mental hospital upon parental request. However, the factfinder is not required to be trained in law, nor is the proceeding required to be an adversary hearing.
