Belcher No Title
| Publication year | 2002 |
| Citation | Vol. 2002 No. 06 |
June 2002. Belcher No Title
Hon. George K. Belcher
On Friday, John was going to court. He had been in the Vermont State Hospital for the past year after burning down his apartment. He was delusional then, but less so now due to medication. As he entered the court-room, he felt the judge would see that he was now able to return home. His lawyer advised that it was unlikely that he would get out, but John direct-ed the lawyer to try anyhow. At the hearing, John's psychiatrist testified that John was still mentally ill and would become dangerous quickly upon discharge because he would likely not take his medication in the community. John glared at him. John's attorney got the psychiatrist to admit that psychiatrists were usually no better in predicting dangerousness than the ordinary public. This made John think that his psychiatrist was stupid. John's psychiatric social worker then testified concerning the lack of supervised beds in the commu-nity and John's ineligibility for the ones which existed. John glared at her. Finally, when the judge said, "Does the respondent have evidence to present?" John's lawyer whis-pered, "I strongly suggest that you not testify." John did not testify. John's lawyer argued that the State had not met its burden of proof. The judge seemed upset that there was so little defense or issue to be decided. The judge made findings on the record that John was still "mentally ill and dangerous." His commitment at the State Hospital was continued. As John was reshackled and returned to the State Hospital, he felt ashamed, angry, embarrassed, and frustrated. He had not been able to tell his story and the judge seemed to be deciding his case without any real sense of him as a person. He was labeled as "dan-gerous" and "mentally ill." The whole treatment team had lined up against him. It was not a good day for John . . . it was not a good day for the mental health system.
The Vermont State Hospital is located in Waterbury, Vermont. The Family Court in Barre hears many of the cases of mental health commitments. In my experience as an acting judge in these cases, the above scenario happens often. In my view, this process is often "anti-therapeutic" to the patient.
Under Vermont Law a person is usually brought to the State Hospital on an appli-cation for emergency examination.1 If it is documented that the person is mentally ill and dangerous to self or others, and no less-restrictive alternatives exist, then the person is held at the State Hospital while an application for involuntary treatment is filed.2 The case is set for a hearing. A lawyer is assigned to represent the patient (often the lawyer is from the Mental Health Law Project). The Commissioner of Developmental and Mental Health (the "State") is represented. The law requires that the State prove by clear and convinc-ing evidence that the patient was, and is, a person in need of treatment (i.e., mentally ill, dangerous, no less-restrictive alterna-tive available).3
Because the issue involves mental ill-ness, the primary witness at these hearings is the treating psychiatrist. Thus, the doc-tor (with whom the patient should have a close and trusting relationship) is pitted against the patient in a public forum. Often the evidence is graphic concerning the patient's incapacities and propensity to dangerous behavior. During the hearing, the patient usually listens keenly, some-times openly in disgust or disbelief at what is being said. One wonders if this is "ther-apeutic."
Sometimes the hearing is requested because the patient simply wants to get out of the State Hospital and feels that the judge will let him or her out. When it comes time for the patient to testify, he or
Hon. George K. Belcher
she is often counseled not to do so. Usually, when the attorney advises his or her client not to testify, it is sound advice from a litigation point of view. Often...
To continue reading
Request your trial