Involuntary temporary detention order; hearing after execution. (HB307)
Introduced By
Del. John O'Bannon (R-Richmond)
Progress
✓ |
Introduced |
✗ |
Passed Committee |
☐ |
Passed House |
☐ |
Passed Senate |
☐ |
Signed by Governor |
☐ |
Became Law |
Description
Involuntary temporary detention order; hearing to be held no less than 24 and no more than 72 hours after execution. Provides that a hearing for involuntary commitment shall be held no less than 24 hours but no more than 72 hours after execution of a temporary detention order. Read the Bill »
Outcome
Bill Has Failed
History
| Date | Action |
|---|---|
| 01/11/2010 | Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/13/10 10101417D |
| 01/11/2010 | Referred to Committee for Courts of Justice |
| 01/15/2010 | Assigned Courts sub: Civil |
| 01/15/2010 | Assigned Courts sub: Mental Health |
| 02/04/2010 | Impact statement from DPB (HB307) |
| 02/08/2010 | Subcommittee recommends continuing to 2011 |
| 02/10/2010 | Continued to 2011 in Courts of Justice |
Comments
Preventing hearings being held before 24 hours is an evidence-based and excellent proposal. Almost everyone who has a hearing before 24 hours is involuntarily committed, while people who have hearings after 24 hours have a lower percentage of commitment. 24 hours gives a person time to contact family, a private lawyer and to understand what is going on. It also prevents the dispicable practice of holding hearings within hours of a person's temporary detention after injecting them with drugs so they can not assist in their defense and have no opportunity to contact and present witnesses in their defense, nor to call a lawyer.
The 72 hour extension has the potential to be abused and isn't necessary to the bill. Hospitals are paid for TDO time by the state, so they could use the extra time to keep someone and then release them when the TDO is over thus using TDO's as a form of state subsidy.
House sub-committee recommended continuance until 2011, unless the Senate bill passes, the bill will fail. Same day hearings should never be allowed, they do not allow for due process in a situation with important civil rights at stake. And yet again the General Assembly and the Mental Health Law Commission are not addressing the fundamental problem of differential justice and policies across the state. A person should not be given less civil rights in one part of Virginia than another and that is what the 7% figure means is happening just as the figures on commitment percentages have shown. A variation between judicial districts from 99% to @60% is huge and needs to be addressed by the Supreme Court by better or even ANY oversight of special justice and independent evaaluator's and hospital's performance and policy adherence.