I have a relative by marriage who claims to have been kidnapped by a residential psychiatric treatment facility.
Given that I’m not seeking legal advice, I have no interest in discussing the circumstances of his situation. Nor in discussing an ongoing legal matter.
He called local medical malpractice firms and they said “We don’t do that kind of law”.
The Cleveland Bar association never called back with a referral when he called.
Where do you look for a lawyer that does do “that kind of law” ?
That’s a claim for false imprisonment, if anything. http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/civil/charges/314b.htm. This one is more complicated because it will involve whatever civil commitment rules might apply in your state. I would start by Googling something like “mental health law.” That area of law is normally handled by lawyers who do probate work, so you may not have much luck with that angle either. Probate lawyers are not known for their willingness to take on civil lawsuits (there are exceptions, of course). You will probably wind up with a more general personal injury-type lawyer.
Try NARPA
We don’t have any solid wins racked up against involuntary incarceration per se — usually they have the legally required number of signatures of examing psychiatrists on file somewhere and/or are otherwise technically in compliance with the applicable statutes, which vary from place to place.
In physical real life the psychiatrist(s) who has certified that you are “mentally ill and a danger to self and/or others” or “mentally ill and in grave need of treatment” or whatever the local standard is may never have seen you face to face, one on one, and introduced self as such and explained that a mental status assessment is taking place. If the shrink(s) feels comfy staring at you briefly through a transparent partition after reading intake notes from the staff, there are damn few legal restrictions keeping that from sufficing as an assessment.
And all they need is their opinion. It’s not an exacting and highly formal environment, like, say, the Great Debates forum on SDMB, where you’d be expected to back up your opinion with something akin to evidence.
But that doesn’t mean NARPA and the attorneys that work with them aren’t always looking for the case that will establish some fucking limits on when then can incarcerate you.
This is a little bit late, but thanks for your responses.
Thanks for the advice.
My relative actually found an attorney in the probate field.
Discussed the case.
Lawyer thought it looked good, but by the time proper counsel was found… the case was out of state of limitations.
Oh well.
I suppose this could apply in some sense to your scenario… see Taylor v. Gilmartin
686 F.2d 1346 (1982)
I’ll refer to the brief I wrote on it with rationale. perhaps it could be of help?:
“Taylor, the appellant, resided in the monastery of a local religious organization in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Taylor’s parents had fears that he may have been brainwashed. Out of these fears, they employed an organization named the Freedom of Thought Foundation. This was a corporation that dealt with deprogramming. Through the Freedom of Thought foundation, the appellant’s father applied to the District Court requesting to be appointed as the temporary guardian of the appellant. Judge Benson of the Oklahoma state district court was contacted by the lawyers of the appellant’s father. Benson obtained permission to hear the matter and ordered temporary guardianship of the plaintiff to determine if he was “under the influence over religious cult”. The plaintiff complied with the request to leave the monastery for evaluation. Taylor was kept in a motel for one week where he was “deprogrammed” by the Freedom of Thought Foundation. The deprogrammers threatened the plaintiff if he did not denounce his religion. Based on an agreement prior to the trial, the Taylor family was dismissed from the suit. However, the Freedom of Thought foundation may still be liable.
Judge Benson’s hearing was not to consider Taylor’s mental state, but to obtain his commitment. Commitment was not mentioned during the temporary hearing. A commission is mandated when evaluating the mental state of a person. The commission is composed of two doctors and a lawyer. There is no statutory jurisdiction which warrants a temporary guardianship order. Finally, there was no proper notice given to Taylor. Ultimately, there is a lack of jurisdiction and avoidance in Judge Benson’s order.”
Won’t be of help now, I’m afraid, but I sincerely thank you for wanting to offer assistance.
SOL and all. Attorney indicated to my family member that this case stopped being viable after the one year mark, and it is in fact past that.
If only “spent a whole year trying to get an attorney who practices in that field of law” could trump SOL, the case might go somewhere.
The bar association was actually useless in this case. They offerred no referal at all, which is odd given that they supposedly give this lawyer referals all the time.
Why would an attorney pursue a case with no or little benefit?
Residential psychiatric treatment facilities do not randomly lock people up.
If they illegally did so, see the local prosecutor.
If they incompetantly did so, sue.
But if no one will take the case, it may not be winnable and thus unprofitable. I presume another psychologist/psychiatrist would have to be hired to testify contrariwise. Difficult, since they can only testify to one’s present mental health.
Besides which, it is in no way illegal to have someone locked up involuntarily for alleged psychiatric disorders that 99.999999999% of all other professional psychiatrists do not perceive them to have.
You only have to have (in most US jurisdictions) the concurring opinion of one other shrink, and neither of you have to justify it, nor does the concurring shrink have to prove that the evaluation wasn’t pro forma. If Shrink#2 is of the professional opinion that the fact that Shrink#1 thinks you need the locked ward= sufficient reasonable cause to make the same conclusion, you get to sleep in a place with locks on the doors and bars in the windows, babes. Actually, neither Shrink#1 nor Shrink#2 ever need to justify or corroborate their findings of your mental-illnesshood or your dangerousness or treatment-neediness. A simple “I found it to be so” will suffice.
The first point at which the shrinks even theoretically have to back up their opinions with some rationale for how they reached them is the involuntary commitment hearing. In most jurisdictions, this will be within 72 hours of being admitted if the patient contests the incarceration and refuses to sign in and therefore be converted to “voluntary” status. In actual practice, many judges at such hearings exhibit the attitude that “If the doctor thinks you need to be kept locked up, that’s good enough for me; if the doctor thinks you need such-and-such a med, then your tendency to disagree obviously means you aren’t competent to make that decision, so I’ll issue the order to medicate you involuntarily”.
I think you misread the posts above or missed one of the points.
My relative wasn’t unable to find a lawyer willing to take the case.
My relative was unable to find a lawyer competent in the field of practice associated with the case until after the SOL was expired.
The first probate lawyer my relative DID consult with was quite excited about taking the case, on contingency, until it was determined that the incident was outside of SOL.
I would love to discuss case specifics but due to concern for the privacy of the relative in question, I can’t really go into detail.
I will remark that the individual’s alleged kidnapping occurred AFTER their discharge from the facility.
Is it too late to file a civil suit as well?
I’m sorry to hear that. I realize that this doesn’t help at all, because you didn’t know that the statue of limitation was one year, but attorneys have ethical obligations to help. If you had gotten to an attorney, any attorney at all, and told him or her that the statute was about to run, that attorney could have gotten a complaint on file for you. It would have been a piece of crap complaint, but it would have held your right to sue while the attorney drafted a better complaint. (MannyL, I believe we are talking about a civil complaint, not a criminal complaint.)
Where I work, I rarely get calls out of the blue from random strangers with legal problems, but I have gotten a few. My ethical obligations require me to determine whether by turning down the offered work I am putting the potential client’s rights at risk. I am always disappointed when I hear that the legal system has let someone down.
PROBATE?
Yes, I meant to say probate.
If you have a question on that, feel free to ask.
The statute of limitations for all of the various types of damages that my dear family member might have a claim for are all expired.
When I spoke of SOL throughout this thread, I referred specifically to the SOL for CIVIL charges.
I will say, I UNDERSTAND why the SOL is there. It serves to make sure that what trials do occur have more solid evidence behind them than what would otherwise happen. The real problem here lies with the dozen attorneys my relative called and the local bar assocation.
Campion, wish we’d called your firm, but you don’t have offices in Cleveland, so…
As an amusing side note, I discussed this situation with the psychologist who runs my employer’s mental health benefits referral service.
He asked a couple of questions, then remarked, “Wow, they [the facility] really f*cked themselves.”
This guy spent several years helping administer inpatient facilities.