Temporary detention order; time for hearing. (SB341)

Introduced By

Sen. Ken Cuccinelli (R-Fairfax)

Progress

Introduced
Passed Committee
Passed House
Passed Senate
Signed by Governor
Became Law

Description

Temporary detention order; hearing. Provides that a hearing on an involuntary temporary detention order shall be held no sooner than 24 hours and no later than 72 hours from the time of the issuance of the order. Currently, such hearings are to be conducted within 48 hours from the time of the issuance of the order. Read the Bill »

Status

01/28/2008: Merged into SB246

History

DateAction
01/08/2008Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/09/08 080234216
01/08/2008Referred to Committee for Courts of Justice
01/21/2008Assigned Courts sub: Special on Proposed Mental Health Legislation
01/28/2008Incorporated by Courts of Justice (SB246-Howell) (13-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)

Comments

Alison Hymes writes:

Waiting 24 hours to hold a hearing is a very reasonable response to the problem of regions that hold hearings to suit the schedule of lawyers rather than the needs of patients and gives both subjects to commitment and providers/hospitals time to gather enough information or contact witnesses to have a more fair hearing.

R P McMurphy writes:

It is unconscionable that these hearings are held to suit the schedule of lawyers rather than the needs of patients. Guess these agencies don't want to be inconvenienced. So may I ask “Where is the concern for the "inconvenience" of a detained person?”

May I add the detained person is typically imprisoned in an overbearing and depersonalizing institutional setting with all of its "turning one's life upside down" aspects during this period. For example, in my case, I was forcibly separated from my wife, not allowed to see her again, not allowed to contact her, and not even allowed to say goodbye to her, much less guarantee she was adequately settled in a room. I was literally thrown out of the hospital. AND THIS WAS BEFORE A COMMITMENT HEARING.

May I add the criterion for a TDO is barn door wide and exceedingly ambiguous. Indeed, it seems daring to disagree with a prescreener is in and of itself a cause for a TDO under the "incapable or unwilling to volunteer for treatment" criterion.

As such, these hearings must at the earliest practical time with the emphasis on the needs of the person, not the convenience of the lawyers and the CSB's. A set time limit, especially a minimum time period, is unconscionable.