(a) If the court finds that a treatment program other than hospitalization is adequate
to meet the person’s treatment needs, the court shall order the person to receive
whatever treatment other than hospitalization is appropriate for a period of 90 days.
If the treatment plan proposed by the Commissioner is for a secure residential recovery
facility or a psychiatric residential treatment facility for youth, the court may
at any time, on its own motion or on a motion of an interested party, review the need
for treatment at the secure residential recovery facility or the psychiatric residential
treatment facility for youth, respectively.
(b) If at any time during the specified period it comes to the attention of the court
either that the patient is not complying with the order or that the alternative treatment
has not been adequate to meet the patient’s treatment needs, the court may, after
proper hearing:
(1) consider other alternatives, modify its original order, and direct the patient to
undergo another program of alternative treatment for the remainder of the 90-day period;
or
(2) enter a new order directing that the patient be hospitalized for the remainder of
the 90-day period. (Added 1977, No. 252 (Adj. Sess.), § 25; amended 2023, No. 137 (Adj. Sess.), § 11, eff. July 1, 2024.)
In re L. R., 497 A.2d 753 (Vt. 1985). “This case is an appeal from an order of involuntary medication pursuant to 18 V.S.A. § 7618. The appellant contends that the State failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that she is a “person in need of treatment,” as defined at 18 V.”
In re C.C., 549 A.2d 1058 (Vt. 1988). “contends (1) that there was insufficient evidence to support the court’s finding that she is a person in need of treatment, and (2) that the court’s order is defective because of its lack of a 90-day time limit, as required by 18 V.S.A. § 7618. At oral argument, the deputy…”
In re M.L., 702 A.2d 92 (Vt. 1997). · cites it 5דWe agree that the provision violates the statutes governing orders of nonhospitalization, see 18 V.S.A. §§ 7618,7621, and accordingly reverse.”
In Re Lr, 497 A.2d 753 (Vt. 1985). “This case is an appeal from an order of involuntary medication pursuant to 18 V.S.A. § 7618. The appellant contends that the State failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that she is a "person in need of treatment," as defined at 18 V.”
In Re Cc, 549 A.2d 1058 (Vt. 1988). “contends (1) that there was insufficient evidence to support the court's finding that she is a person in need of treatment, and (2) that the court's order is defective because of its lack of a 90-day time limit, as required by 18 V.S.A. § 7618. At oral argument, the deputy…”
In Re D.P. (Vt. 2024). “Rather, if he does not comply with the order by taking the medications prescribed by his providers, the court may modify its original order to provide for alternative treatment or enter a new hospitalization order.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 18, § 7618(a) — 1 case
In re M.L., 702 A.2d 92 (Vt. 1997). “We agree that the provision violates the statutes governing orders of nonhospitalization, see 18 V.S.A. §§ 7618,7621, and accordingly reverse.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 18, § 7618(b) — 1 case
In re M.L., 702 A.2d 92 (Vt. 1997). “We agree that the provision violates the statutes governing orders of nonhospitalization, see 18 V.S.A. §§ 7618,7621, and accordingly reverse.”
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.