Mass. Gen. Laws » Part I Title XVII Chapter 123
Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 123, § 8 (2026)

Proceedings to commit dangerous persons; notice; hearing; orders; jurisdiction

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 8. (a) After a hearing, unless such hearing is waived in writing, the district court or the division of the juvenile court department shall not order the commitment of a person at a facility or shall not renew such order unless it finds after a hearing that (1) such person is mentally ill, and (2) the discharge of such person from a facility would create a likelihood of serious harm.

(b) After hearing, unless such hearing is waived in writing, the district court or the division of the juvenile court department shall not order the commitment of a person at the Bridgewater state hospital or shall not renew such order unless it finds that (1) such person is mentally ill; (2) such person is not a proper subject for commitment to any facility of the department; and (3) the failure to retain such person in strict custody would create a likelihood of serious harm. If the court is unable to make the findings required by this paragraph, but makes the findings required by paragraph (a), the court shall order the commitment of the person to a facility designated by the department.

(c) The court shall render its decision on the petition within ten days of the completion of the hearing, provided, that for reasons stated in writing by the court, the administrative justice for the district court department may extend said ten day period.

(d) The first order of commitment of a person under this section shall be valid for a period of six months and all subsequent commitments shall be valid for a period of one year; provided that if such commitments occur at the expiration of a commitment under any other section of this chapter, other than a commitment for observation, the first order of commitment shall be valid for a period of one year; and provided further, that the first order of commitment to the Bridgewater state hospital of a person under commitment to a facility shall be valid for a period of six months. If no hearing is held before the expiration of the six months commitment, the court may not recommit the person without a hearing.

(e) In the event that the hearing is waived and on the basis of a petition filed under the authority of this chapter showing that a person is mentally ill and that the discharge of the person from a facility would create a likelihood of serious harm, the district court or the division of the juvenile court department which has jurisdiction over the commitment of the person may order the commitment of the person to such facility.

(f) In the event that the hearing is waived and on the basis of a petition filed under the authority of this chapter showing that a person is mentally ill, that the person is not a proper subject for commitment to any facility of the department and that the failure to retain said person in strict security would create a likelihood of serious harm, the district court or the division of the juvenile court department which has jurisdiction over a facility, or the Brockton district court if a person is retained in the Bridgewater state hospital, may order the commitment of the person to said hospital.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 63 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1973–2026 · leading case: In re E.C.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re E.C., 92 N.E.3d 724 (Mass. 2018). · cites it 3× “The petition will be granted if the judge finds that the standard for involuntary civil commitment under G. L. c. 123, § 8 ( b ), has been met: "(1) such person is mentally ill; (2) such person is not a proper subject for *729 commitment to any facility of the department; and…”
In re Chapman, 122 N.E.3d 507 (Mass. 2019). · cites it 4× “, G. L. c. 123, § 8 ( a ) (civil commitment of mentally ill person impermissible unless release "would create a likelihood of serious harm"); G.”
Pembroke Hosp. v. D.L., 122 N.E.3d 1058 (Mass. 2019). · cites it 3× “The court shall order the commitment of an individual only if it finds that the individual is mentally ill, that his or her discharge would create an imminent likelihood of serious harm, and there is no less restrictive alternative to continued involuntary hospitalization.”
Sharris v. Commonwealth, 106 N.E.3d 661 (Mass. 2018). · cites it 2× “On the same day, the Commonwealth's petition for a renewal *665 of the defendant's commitment, under G. L. c. 123, § 8, and request that all subsequent hearings be conducted in accordance with G.”
ABBOTT A., a Juv. v. Commonwealth, 933 N.E.2d 936 (Mass. 2010). · cites it 3× “G. L. c. 123, § 8 (d). In Mendonza v. Commonwealth, supra, we concluded that, because of this difference in anticipated duration, art.”
In re M.C., 115 N.E.3d 546 (Mass. 2019). · cites it 2× “be involuntarily committed to Solomon Carter for a period of two months, pursuant to G. L. c. 123, § 8. The judge noted that M.”
Andrews, 870 N.E.2d 610 (Mass. 2007). · cites it 4× “Our answer rested heavily on the finite periods of commitment allowed for under G. L. c. 123, §§ 8 and 15 (e) — initially a patient may be confined for a six-month period and subsequently for a one-year period before judicial review is required, at which time the Commonwealth…”
Williams v. Steward Health Care Sys., LLC, 103 N.E.3d 1192 (Mass. 2018). · cites it 2× “123, §§ 7 and 8 ; these statutes allow the superintendent of a psychiatric facility to seek an initial commitment of up to six months, and thereafter an extension of a commitment for up to one year, see G. L. c. 123, § 8 ( d ), when the superintendent "determines that the…”
Commonwealth v. Bradway, 816 N.E.2d 152 (Mass. App. Ct. 2004). · cites it 2× “123, § 8(a), requires the Commonwealth to introduce “evidence that such person’s judgment is so affected that he is unable to protect himself in the community and that reasonable provision for his protection is not available in the community” (emphasis supplied).”
In re G.P., 473 Mass. 112 (Mass. 2015). · cites it 2× “R asserts that there is no support for “suspending” the rules of evidence; that the rules of evidence apply in other civil commitment proceedings such as those held under G. L. c. 123, § 8; and that where the Legislature has intended the rules of evidence not to apply, it has…”
Guardianship of Weedon, 565 N.E.2d 432 (Mass. 1991). · cites it 3× “G. L. c. 123, § 8 (d) (1988 ed.). There is no doubt that the substituted judgment treatment order in question did not survive the Probate Court’s determination in April, 1990, that Weedon was competent.”
Commonwealth v. DelVerde, 517 N.E.2d 159 (Mass. 1988). · cites it 5× “See G. L. c. 123, §§ 8 (a), (b), & 16 (b). See also Commonwealth v.”
Show all 63 citing cases →
— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 123, § 8(6) — 1 case
Doe Ex Rel. Roe v. Gaughan, 617 F. Supp. 1477 (D. Mass. 1985).
— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 123, § 8(a) — 5 cases
Commonwealth v. Bradway, 816 N.E.2d 152 (Mass. App. Ct. 2004). “123, § 8(a), requires the Commonwealth to introduce “evidence that such person’s judgment is so affected that he is unable to protect himself in the community and that reasonable provision for his protection is not available in the community” (emphasis supplied).”
Greene v. State of Massachusetts (D. Mass. 2020).
Commonwealth v. Reese, 13 Mass. L. Rptr. 195 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2001).
Commonwealth v. Baker, 16 Mass. L. Rptr. 101 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2003).
Acting Superintendent of Bournewood Hosp. v. Baker, 1999 Mass. App. Div. 140 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1999).
— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 123, § 8(b) — 2 cases
In re of C.B., 2013 Mass. App. Div. 42 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 2013).
Doe Ex Rel. Roe v. Gaughan, 617 F. Supp. 1477 (D. Mass. 1985).
— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 123, § 8(d) — 3 cases
Greene v. State of Massachusetts (D. Mass. 2020).
Commonwealth v. Kevin Santiago (Mass. Super. Ct. 2021).
Walden Behavioral Care v. K. I., 2014 Mass. App. Div. 1 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 2014).
— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 123, § 8(e) — 1 case
In re J.B., 2014 Mass. App. Div. 233 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 2014).
— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 123, § 8(f) — 2 cases
In re J.B., 2014 Mass. App. Div. 233 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 2014).
McLaughlin v. Herbert, 51 Mass. App. Dec. 12 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1973).
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.