426.275 Effect
of failure to adhere to condition of placement. The following are applicable to
placements of persons with mental illness that are made as conditional release
under ORS 426.125, outpatient commitments under ORS 426.127 or trial visits
under ORS 426.273 as described:
(1) If the
individual responsible under this subsection determines that a person with
mental illness is failing to adhere to the terms and conditions of the
placement, the responsible individual shall notify the court having
jurisdiction that the person with mental illness is not adhering to the terms
and conditions of the placement. If the placement is an outpatient commitment
under ORS 426.127 or a trial visit under ORS 426.273, the notifications shall
include a copy of the conditions for the placement. The individual responsible
for notifying the court under this subsection is as follows:
(a) For
conditional releases under ORS 426.125, the guardian, relative or friend in
whose care the person with mental illness is conditionally released.
(b) For
outpatient commitments under ORS 426.127, the community mental health program
director, or designee of the director, of the county in which the person on
outpatient commitment lives.
(c) For trial
visits under ORS 426.273, the community mental health program director, or
designee of the director, of the county in which the person on trial visit is
to receive outpatient treatment.
(2) On its own
motion, the court with jurisdiction of a person with mental illness on
placement may cause the person to be brought before it for a hearing to
determine whether the person is or is not adhering to the terms and conditions
of the placement. The person shall have the same rights with respect to notice,
detention stay, hearing and counsel as for a hearing held under ORS 426.095.
The court shall hold the hearing within five judicial days of the date the
person with mental illness receives notice under this section. The court may
allow postponement and detention during postponement as provided under ORS
426.095.
(3) Pursuant to
the determination of the court upon hearing under this section, a person on
placement shall either continue the placement on the same or modified
conditions or shall be returned to the Oregon Health Authority for involuntary
care and treatment on an inpatient basis subject to discharge at the end of the
commitment period or as otherwise provided under this chapter.
(4) If the person
on placement is living in a county other than the county of the court that
established the current period of commitment under ORS 426.130 during which the
trial visit, conditional release or outpatient commitment takes place, the
court establishing the current period of commitment shall transfer jurisdiction
to the appropriate court of the county in which the person is living while on
the placement and the court receiving the transfer shall accept jurisdiction.
(5) The court may
proceed as provided in ORS 426.307 or this section when the court:
(a) Receives
notice under ORS 426.070 or 426.228 to 426.235; and
(b) Determines
that the person is a person with mental illness on conditional release under
ORS 426.125, outpatient commitment under ORS 426.127 or trial visit under ORS
426.273. [1985 c.242 §3 (enacted in lieu of 426.290); 1987 c.903 §29; 1993
c.484 §22; 2009 c.595 §414; 2011 c.720 §163; 2013 c.360 §49]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
10
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1993–2024 · leading case:
State v. Hilliard, 98 P.3d 767 (Or. Ct. App. 2004).
State v. Hilliard, 98 P.3d 767 (Or. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 6× “ORS 426.275 provides a procedure by which persons on outpatient “trial visit” status pursuant to ORS 426.”
State v. Lott, 122 P.3d 97 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 2× “"(3) Any conditional release ordered under this section is subject to the provisions under ORS 426.275." [1] The applicable law in this case, ORS chapter 426, provides safeguards so that mentally ill persons will not be deprived of their liberty because of their disorder except…”
State v. Ritzman, 84 P.3d 1129 (Or. Ct. App. 2004).
“307 or a hearing to determine whether to revoke appellant’s trial visit pursuant to ORS 426.275. Although an “Order of Revocation of Trial Visit” is part of the record in this case, it bears a different case number.”
State v. Johansen, 866 P.2d 470 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 2× “273, ORS 426.275 and ORS 426.292 were enacted to replace of former ORS 426.”
State v. C. H. (In re C. H.), 426 P.3d 678 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 6× “On appeal, appellant contends that the court should have granted his motion to dismiss because Lane County Circuit Court had exclusive jurisdiction over the revocation of his trial visit and any transfer of that jurisdiction violated ORS 426.275 as well as procedural safeguards.”
State v. Vonahlefeld, 914 P.2d 1104 (Or. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 10× “1 Subsequently, the trial court revoked appellant’s trial visit under ORS 426.275, and he appeals. ORS 19.010(2)(c).”
Oregon State Hosp. v. A. J. G. (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 3× “The first involves the transfer of a committed person to a more restrictive class of facility, as set out in ORS 426.275. Under that statute, a court may, on its own motion, hold a hearing after receiving notice that the committed person has not adhered to the con- ditions of…”
State v. Bryant, 871 P.2d 129 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 3× “ORS 426.275 provides, in part: “The following are applicable to placements of mentally ill persons that are made as conditional release under ORS 426.”
State v. A. K. (In re A. K.), 427 P.3d 233 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“ORS 426.275 (providing for the return of a person to the Oregon Health Authority for involuntary care and treatment on an inpatient basis).”
State v. K. A. L., 396 P.3d 966 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
“Appellant’s trial visit in Lane County was governed by ORS 426.275. That statute provides a procedure for revoking a trial visit if a patient fails to adhere to the conditions of the trial visit, and also provides for the transfer of jurisdiction between counties if the person…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 426.275(1) — 1 case
State v. C. H. (In re C. H.), 426 P.3d 678 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“On appeal, appellant contends that the court should have granted his motion to dismiss because Lane County Circuit Court had exclusive jurisdiction over the revocation of his trial visit and any transfer of that jurisdiction violated ORS 426.275 as well as procedural safeguards.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 426.275(2) — 2 cases
State v. Vonahlefeld, 914 P.2d 1104 (Or. Ct. App. 1996).
“1 Subsequently, the trial court revoked appellant’s trial visit under ORS 426.275, and he appeals. ORS 19.010(2)(c).”
Oregon State Hosp. v. A. J. G. (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
“The first involves the transfer of a committed person to a more restrictive class of facility, as set out in ORS 426.275. Under that statute, a court may, on its own motion, hold a hearing after receiving notice that the committed person has not adhered to the con- ditions of…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 426.275(3) — 1 case
State v. Hilliard, 98 P.3d 767 (Or. Ct. App. 2004).
“ORS 426.275 provides a procedure by which persons on outpatient “trial visit” status pursuant to ORS 426.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 426.275(4) — 1 case
State v. C. H. (In re C. H.), 426 P.3d 678 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“On appeal, appellant contends that the court should have granted his motion to dismiss because Lane County Circuit Court had exclusive jurisdiction over the revocation of his trial visit and any transfer of that jurisdiction violated ORS 426.275 as well as procedural safeguards.”
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.