427.290
Determination by court of need for commitment; discharge; conditional release;
commitment; appointment of guardian or conservator. After hearing all of the evidence,
and reviewing the findings of the investigation and other examiners, the court
shall determine whether the person has an intellectual disability and is in
need of commitment for residential care, treatment and training. If in the
opinion of the court the person is not in need of commitment for residential
care, treatment and training, the person shall be discharged. If in the opinion
of the court the person has, by clear and convincing evidence, an intellectual
disability and is in need of commitment for residential care, treatment and
training, the court may order as follows:
(1) If the person
can give informed consent and is willing and able to participate in treatment
and training on a voluntary basis, and the court finds that the person will do
so, the court shall order release of the person and dismiss the case.
(2) If a
relative, a friend or legal guardian of the person requests that the relative,
friend or legal guardian be allowed to care for the person for a period of one
year in a place satisfactory to the court and shows that the relative, friend
or legal guardian is able to care for the person and that there are adequate
financial resources available for the care of the person, the court may commit
the person and order that the person be conditionally released and placed in
the care and custody of the relative, friend or legal guardian. The order may
be revoked and the person committed to the Department of Human Services for the
balance of the year whenever, in the opinion of the court, it is in the best
interest of the person.
(3) If in the
opinion of the court voluntary treatment and training or conditional release is
not in the best interest of the person, the court may order the commitment of
the person to the department for care, treatment or training. The commitment
shall be for a period not to exceed one year with provisions for continuing
commitment pursuant to ORS 427.235 to 427.292. A new diagnostic evaluation
under ORS 427.270 is not required for proceedings to determine continued
commitment.
(4) If in the
opinion of the court the person may be incapacitated, the court may appoint a
legal guardian or conservator pursuant to ORS chapter 125. The appointment of a
guardian or conservator shall be a separate order from the order of commitment.
[1979 c.683 §24; 1995 c.664 §97; 2011 c.658 §21; 2013 c.36 §9; 2023 c.339 §9]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
24
cases (
9 in the last 5 years), 1981–2025 · leading case:
State v. R. L. W., 341 P.3d 845 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
State v. R. L. W., 341 P.3d 845 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 4× “Pursuant to ORS 427.290, set out below, the circuit court committed appellant to the custody of the Oregon Department of Human Services for a period not to exceed one year.”
State v. A. B. K., 522 P.3d 894 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 2× “In particular, we pointed to ORS 427.290, which outlines commitment procedures for a person with an intel- lectual disability.”
State v. C. P., 486 P.3d 845 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 6× “” One of the questions presented by this case is when that seven-day requirement starts: Does it start when a person is held by a warrant of detention or after the trial court issues the citation? Finally, after a hearing to consider the investiga- tive findings and evidence,…”
State v. S. R.-N., 506 P.3d 492 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“215; ORS 427.290. His chal- lenge to the civil commitment is not a challenge to the mer- its, i.”
Matter of Grandy, 623 P.2d 666 (Or. Ct. App. 1981).
· cites it 5× “Appellant assigns two errors in the issuance of this order: first, that the court erred in committing appellant to a "voluntary” 8 commitment, and second, that there was insufficient evidence to satisfy the requirements of ORS 427.”
State v. H. L. C., 507 P.3d 346 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“702 (2019), however, provide for commitment of an extremely dangerous person with a men- tal disorder that is resistant to treatment, resulting in com- mitment to the jurisdiction of the PSRB for up to two years.”
State v. J. B., 569 P.3d 226 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
“426 and 427” as signaling the legislature’s intention to treat people with intellectual disabilities differently from people with mental illness, both generally and with respect to com- mitment, in that “ ‘ORS chapter 426 applies to persons with mental illness and nowhere uses…”
State v. D. K., 336 Or. App. 793 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
“Appellant challenges a judgment of involuntary civil commitment to the custody of the Department of Human Services for a period not to exceed one year based on the trial court’s determination that appellant has an intel- lectual disability and because of that intellectual…”
State v. J. B., 339 Or. App. 354 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
“, we viewed “the organization of ORS chapters 426 and 427” as signaling the legislature’s intention to treat people with intellectual disabilities differently from people with mental illness, both generally and with respect to com- mitment, in that “ ‘ORS chapter 426 applies to…”
State v. J. W., 458 P.3d 1137 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 7× “Appellant appeals the judgment of commitment, argu- ing that the evidence presented at his commitment hearing was insufficient to establish that he has an intellectual disability as defined in ORS 427.”
State v. R. E. G., 364 P.3d 733 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 7× “ORS 427.290. As noted, the commitment determinations *244 involve (1) a medical determination of intellectual disability (both intellectual functioning and adaptive behavior) “as measured by a qualified professional,” ORS 427.”
State v. M. L. L. (In re M. L. L.), 414 P.3d 923 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“See ORS 427.290. She contends that the trial court plainly erred by failing to advise her of all of the possible results of the proceedings, in violation of ORS 427.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 427.290(3) — 4 cases
State v. D. K., 336 Or. App. 793 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
“Appellant challenges a judgment of involuntary civil commitment to the custody of the Department of Human Services for a period not to exceed one year based on the trial court’s determination that appellant has an intel- lectual disability and because of that intellectual…”
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.