Mandate Treatment for Mentally Ill

Last May, Steven Allen Abrams intentionally ran his 4,000-pound Cadillac into a Costa Mesa preschool, killing two children and injuring five others. Three-year-old Brandon Wiener was trapped underneath the vehicle. His mother, Pam, screamed as he was freed and rushed to the hospital. About an hour later, he died in his mother’s arms.

Her small body broken and her skull crushed, 4-year-old Sierra Beth had no need of a hospital. She was killed instantly.

Sierra was my daughter. As I drove onto the scene, disbelief surrounded me even before I was told my daughter was dead. After, I went into shock. My life was over. My beautiful, sweet, loving child was gone, forever.

Abrams was mentally ill. Although he exacerbated his illness by years of drug abuse, he was nonetheless sick and in need of treatment.

As the insanity phase of his trial unfolded, I was shocked and appalled to hear of the countless times Abrams had been in and out of treatment and in and out of a doctor’s care, only to be released back into the community unmonitored. His refusal to comply with voluntary treatment and to take medication except when he was made to shows that he was not capable of making rational treatment decisions. He also had a history of violence and instability, which suggested that he was capable of future violence.

Abrams was a time bomb waiting to explode. He did.

In California, individuals are not eligible for involuntary treatment unless they present an imminent danger to themselves or others. Such treatment, when it occurs, is usually short-term and in an inpatient setting. This leaves a gaping hole in California’s treatment of the mentally ill. There are voluntary community programs and much-needed steps being taken to strengthen those programs.

But, these voluntary programs fail to address individuals such as Abrams, who had access to care, but could not or would not comply with treatment. In order to help someone like Abrams, California needs a form of involuntary treatment that includes evaluating the history of an individual and, where appropriate, legally mandating that the noncompliant person stay in treatment once out of the hospital.

This care would allow the individual to continue to recover as well as to safely live and work in the community.

There are those, like the ACLU, who believe that mandated treatment infringes the civil rights of the individual. While I understand their concern, I pose to them this question: Should the rights of an individual who refuses to comply with treatment, who has a severely deteriorating condition, and who has a history of becoming violent when in such a condition, supersede the rights of my 4-year-old daughter to live safely in her community? I’d answer, “No.”

Many times mentally ill individuals harm themselves when their illness renders them incapable of making sound decisions with regard to their own care. It is not in their best interest to end up repeatedly hospitalized or jailed. Civil rights become a hollow exercise under these conditions. If people overwhelmed by severe mental illness, like Abrams, were instead placed in mandated community treatment, they could get well enough to knowingly exercise and enjoy their civil rights. Meanwhile, our right to live in a safe and secure society would be protected.

Abrams was unable or unwilling to comply with treatment. For that, my daughter Sierra and Brandon paid the price. Mandatory treatment legislation is important because the right to life is the most important right of all.