(a) If the court finds that the proposed patient was not a person in need of treatment
at the time of admission or application or is not a patient in need of further treatment
at the time of the hearing, the court shall enter a finding to that effect and shall
dismiss the application.
(b) If the proposed patient is found to have been a person in need of treatment at the
time of admission or application and a patient in need of further treatment at the
time of the hearing, the court may order the person:
(1) hospitalized in a designated hospital;
(2) hospitalized in any other public or private hospital if he or she and the hospital
agree; or
(3) to undergo a program of treatment other than hospitalization.
(c) Prior to ordering any course of treatment, the court shall determine whether there
exists an available program of treatment for the person that is an appropriate alternative
to hospitalization. The court shall not order hospitalization without a thorough
consideration of available alternatives.
(d) Before making its decision, the court shall order testimony by an appropriate representative
of a hospital, a community mental health agency, public or private entity or agency,
or a suitable person, who shall assess the availability and appropriateness for the
individual of treatment programs other than hospitalization.
(e) Prior to ordering the hospitalization of a person, the court shall inquire into the
adequacy of treatment to be provided to the person by the hospital. Hospitalization
shall not be ordered unless the hospital in which the person is to be hospitalized
can provide him or her with treatment that is adequate and appropriate to his or her
condition.
(f) Preference between available hospitals shall be given to the hospital that is located
nearest to the person’s residence, except when the person requests otherwise or there
are other compelling reasons for not following the preference. (Added 1977, No. 252 (Adj. Sess.), § 24.)
State v. J.S., 817 A.2d 53 (Vt. 2002). · cites it 2ד§ 4822; and (3) that the court’s findings were deficient as a matter of law for failing to consider the availability of an appropriate alternative to hospitalization and the least restrictive conditions consistent with adequate treatment as required by 18 V.”
In re R.L., 657 A.2d 180 (Vt. 1995). · cites it 2ד) The family court may enter an involuntary treatment order if it finds that, at the time of the petition and the hearing, the proposed patient suffers from a mental illness and, as a result of that illness, poses a danger of harm to himself or others.”
People v. Stevens, 761 P.2d 768 (Colo. 1988). · cites it 2דA "person in need of treatment" is defined as a person who is suffering from mental illness and, as a result of that mental illness, his capacity to exercise self-control, judgment, or discretion in the conduct of his affairs and social relations is so lessened that he poses a…”
In re V. C., 505 A.2d 1214 (Vt. 1985). · cites it 4דAlthough the statute imposes a duty to provide adequate treatment to hospitalized patients in Vermont, 18 V.”
In re G.G., 2017 VT 10 (Vt. 2017). “was a patient in need of further treatment, either as a "person in need of treatment" pursuant to § 7101(16)(A), or as a patient who, if treatment is discontinued, poses a substantial probability of becoming a "person in need of treatment" pursuant to § 7101(16)(B).”
In re N.H., 724 A.2d 467 (Vt. 1998). “See 18 V.S.A. § 7617(b). The new order included conditions that N.”
In re W. H., 481 A.2d 22 (Vt. 1984). “Although a consideration of less restrictive alternatives is legislatively required only at the time a full commitment hearing is held, we hold that it is also required before an individual may be involuntarily transported to a hospital for a psychiatric examination.”
In re R. A., 501 A.2d 743 (Vt. 1985). · cites it 2דwas eligible for placement in programs funded pursuant to the Act, it would have broadened its consideration of alternatives to hospitalization, pursuant to 18 V.S.A. § 7617(c). Failure to have done so is fatal to the court’s hospitalization order.”
State v. Koch, 730 A.2d 577 (Vt. 1999). “See 18 V.S.A. § 7617. The court subsequently issued a written order of nonhospitalization.”
In re M.D., 655 A.2d 723 (Vt. 1994). “We hold that the Commissioner may, in his discretion, transfer any patient in state custody under the Compact, whether the patient’s status is voluntary or involuntary. Because the family court erroneously interpreted the Compact, it failed to consider adequately whether M.”
State v. Zorn, 2013 VT 65 (Vt. 2013). “See 18 V.S.A. § 7617(b); see also 13 V.S.A. § 4821 (stating that procedures in hearings under chapter 181 of Title 18 apply in criminal commitment hearings for defendants who are mentally ill).”
Goodemote v. Scripture, 440 A.2d 150 (Vt. 1981). “18 V.S.A. § 7617(c). The parties disagree over which set of procedures should govern the appellant’s transfer.”
In re R.L., 657 A.2d 180 (Vt. 1995). “) The family court may enter an involuntary treatment order if it finds that, at the time of the petition and the hearing, the proposed patient suffers from a mental illness and, as a result of that illness, poses a danger of harm to himself or others.”
In re N.H., 724 A.2d 467 (Vt. 1998). “See 18 V.S.A. § 7617(b). The new order included conditions that N.”
People v. Stevens, 761 P.2d 768 (Colo. 1988). “A "person in need of treatment" is defined as a person who is suffering from mental illness and, as a result of that mental illness, his capacity to exercise self-control, judgment, or discretion in the conduct of his affairs and social relations is so lessened that he poses a…”
State v. Zorn, 2013 VT 65 (Vt. 2013). “See 18 V.S.A. § 7617(b); see also 13 V.S.A. § 4821 (stating that procedures in hearings under chapter 181 of Title 18 apply in criminal commitment hearings for defendants who are mentally ill).”
State v. J.S., 817 A.2d 53 (Vt. 2002). “§ 4822; and (3) that the court’s findings were deficient as a matter of law for failing to consider the availability of an appropriate alternative to hospitalization and the least restrictive conditions consistent with adequate treatment as required by 18 V.”
In re G.G., 2017 VT 10 (Vt. 2017). “was a patient in need of further treatment, either as a "person in need of treatment" pursuant to § 7101(16)(A), or as a patient who, if treatment is discontinued, poses a substantial probability of becoming a "person in need of treatment" pursuant to § 7101(16)(B).”
People v. Stevens, 761 P.2d 768 (Colo. 1988). “A "person in need of treatment" is defined as a person who is suffering from mental illness and, as a result of that mental illness, his capacity to exercise self-control, judgment, or discretion in the conduct of his affairs and social relations is so lessened that he poses a…”
In re R. A., 501 A.2d 743 (Vt. 1985). “was eligible for placement in programs funded pursuant to the Act, it would have broadened its consideration of alternatives to hospitalization, pursuant to 18 V.S.A. § 7617(c). Failure to have done so is fatal to the court’s hospitalization order.”
In re M.D., 655 A.2d 723 (Vt. 1994). “We hold that the Commissioner may, in his discretion, transfer any patient in state custody under the Compact, whether the patient’s status is voluntary or involuntary. Because the family court erroneously interpreted the Compact, it failed to consider adequately whether M.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 18, § 7617(e) — 5 cases
State v. J.S., 817 A.2d 53 (Vt. 2002). “§ 4822; and (3) that the court’s findings were deficient as a matter of law for failing to consider the availability of an appropriate alternative to hospitalization and the least restrictive conditions consistent with adequate treatment as required by 18 V.”
In re V. C., 505 A.2d 1214 (Vt. 1985). “Although the statute imposes a duty to provide adequate treatment to hospitalized patients in Vermont, 18 V.”
In re R. A., 501 A.2d 743 (Vt. 1985). “was eligible for placement in programs funded pursuant to the Act, it would have broadened its consideration of alternatives to hospitalization, pursuant to 18 V.S.A. § 7617(c). Failure to have done so is fatal to the court’s hospitalization order.”
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.