O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 37-3-61 (2019)

Initiation of proceedings for court ordered evaluation

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Proceedings for a court ordered evaluation may be initiated in the following manner:

(1) Any person may file an application executed under oath with the community mental health center for a court ordered evaluation of a person located within that county who is alleged by such application to be a mentally ill person requiring involuntary treatment. Upon the filing of such application, the community mental health center shall make a preliminary investigation and, if the investigation shows that there is probable cause to believe that such allegation is true, it shall file a petition with the court in the county where the patient is located seeking an involuntary admission for evaluation; and

(2) Any person may file with the court a petition executed under oath alleging that a person within the county is a mentally ill person requiring involuntary treatment. The petition must be accompanied by the certificate of a physician or psychologist stating that he has examined the patient within the preceding five days and has found that the patient may be a mentally ill person requiring involuntary treatment and that a full evaluation of the patient is necessary.

History

Code 1933, § 88-505.2, enacted by Ga. L. 1969, p. 505, § 1; Ga. L. 1978, p. 1789, § 1; Ga. L. 1982, p. 3, § 37; Ga. L. 1991, p. 1059, § 12; Ga. L. 1993, p. 1445, § 17.2.

Annotations

Editor’s notes. - Ga. L. 1993, p. 1445, § 18.1, not codified by the General Assembly, provides: ‘‘Nothing in this Act shall be construed to repeal any provision of Chapter 5 of Title 37 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, the ‘Community Services Act for the Mentally Retarded.’ ’’ Ga. L. 1993, p. 1445, § 19, not codified by the General Assembly, provides: ‘‘This Act shall become effective on July 1, 1994; provided, however, that provisions relating to the establishment of regional and community service board boundaries and the appointments of regional boards and

community service boards shall become effective on July 1, 1993, or upon whatever date is stipulated in the Act and provided, further, that the provisions authorizing a county board of health to agree to serve as the lead county board of health for only that county shall become effective upon the approval of this Act by the Governor or upon its becoming law without such approval.’’ The Act was approved by the Governor on April 27, 1993. Ga. L. 1993, p. 1445, which amends this Code section, provides, in § 19.1, not codified by the General Assembly, that the amendment is repealed on June 30, 1999; however, Ga. L. 1998, p. 870, § 1, struck § 19.1 of Ga. L. 1993, p. 1445, which would have repealed the 1993 amendment to this Code section.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Acts admitted by insanity plea sufficient to sustain criteria for civil commitment. - Acts admitted by a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity establish that the defendant meets the criteria for civil commitment. Once that condition

had been established it is presumed to continue at the time of an application for release. Moses v. State, 167 Ga. App. 556, 307 S.E.2d 35 (1983), overruled on other grounds, Nagel v. State, 262 Ga. 888, 427 S.E.2d 490 (1993).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Statute specifies two methods in which any person may apply for a court-ordered evaluation of an alleged mentally ill person: one may (1) file an application, executed under oath, with the county health department alleging that a patient is mentally ill and is either a danger to oneself or others or is incapable of caring for the patient’s physical health and safety; or (2) file a petition with the probate court, executed under oath, alleg-

ing that a patient within the county is mentally ill and is either a danger to oneself or others or is incapable of caring for the patient’s physical health and safety; the General Assembly intended that neither method has preference over the other. 1971 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 71-131. Medical admissions county was a county in which the procedure was governed by Ga. L. 1969, p. 505. 1972 Op. Att’y Gen. No. U72-29.

RESEARCH REFERENCES ALR. - Validity and construction of statutes providing for psychiatric examination of accused to determine mental condition, 32 A.L.R.2d 434.

Modern status of rules as to standard of proof required in civil commitment proceedings, 97 A.L.R.3d 780. Necessity and sufficiency of statements

informing one under investigation for involuntary commitment of right to remain silent, 23 A.L.R.4th 563. Validity, construction, and application

of overt act requirement of state statutes providing for commitment of sexually dangerous persons, 56 A.L.R.6th 647.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1990–2009 · leading case: Krachman v. Ridgeview Inst., Inc., 687 S.E.2d 627 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009).
Krachman v. Ridgeview Inst., Inc., 687 S.E.2d 627 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “, excluding Sundays and legal holidays, of the delivery of a written request for release to the chief medical officer, the patient must be discharged from the facility, unless the chief medical officer finds that the discharge would be unsafe for the patient or others, in which…”
Harvey v. Harvey, 749 F. Supp. 1118 (M.D. Ga. 1990). “The facility must give the patient notice of her right to petition for a writ of habeas corpus and her right to legal counsel.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.