Bill to Force Mental Treatment Gains

Landmark legislation that would commit mentally ill people to involuntary treatment programs if a court found that they were likely to become dangerous without special intervention was approved Wednesday by the Senate.

The bill cleared the upper house as the Legislature plowed toward scheduled adjournment Saturday with hundreds of bills in play and no sign of an end to the state budget stalemate that has plagued lawmakers and Gov. Gray Davis all summer.

In the Assembly, a heavily disputed bill that would give American Indian tribes more power to protect their sacred sites from land developers was approved over the objection of opponents who claimed it would give them too much power.

The mental-health bill, the third attempt at such reform after years of failure, seeks to fill a gap in the pioneering state law that allows the forced detention of mentally ill people who are considered to be a danger to themselves or others.

Under the current Lanterman-Petris-Short law, forced detention can stretch from 72 hours to six months, depending on a patient’s recovery progress.

But some advocates for the mentally ill cite a “core” group of people who do not meet the detention requirements of the 30-year-old law. Many live on the streets and need the special attention offered in local voluntary outpatient programs but refuse it, the advocates say. Consequently, they become regular occupants of jails and hospitals, often because they quit taking their medications.

Their behavior can be abusive to others, including threats of violence, but does not rise to the level of being classified as a danger to themselves or others or of being so “gravely disabled” that they must be involuntarily locked up for treatment.

The bill, AB 1421 by Assemblywoman Helen Thomson (D-Davis), would seek to plug the gap by creating a new hearing process in court, where the patient would be represented by a public defender or private attorney in an adversarial proceeding.

Among other issues, a judge would have to decide whether the patient had a history of lack of compliance with treatment and within the last four years had threatened or committed actual acts of “serious violent” behavior against himself or others.

In counties that agreed to participate, the patient would be assigned to recently expanded outpatient treatment programs con- sidered the “least restrictive” necessary to achieve recovery.

On a bipartisan 27-8 vote, the Senate returned the bill to the Assembly for approval of Senate changes. If the Assembly concurs, it would go to Gov. Gray Davis, who has no position on the measure, a spokesman said.

The bill to protect sacred sites of Native Americans--SB 1828 by Senate President Pro Tem John Burton (D-San Francisco)--would establish a process under the state’s primary environmental law to restrict construction projects with potential adverse effects on hallowed grounds of American Indians. Tribes would have to be notified of any development proposal within a 20-mile radius of their current lands in case the project might infringe on sacred sites, defined as locations recognized for their ceremonial or religious significance. The effects on those sites would have to be carefully addressed and avoided as much as possible.

Opponents argued that though many important Native American sites have been destroyed, giving tribes such power over current sites would have dramatic results on future land-use decisions. The definition of a sacred site is loose at best, they said, noting that for many tribes, entire mountains are considered special.

But supporters argued that although the measure would pose serious consequences for development, it is the least the Legislature could do to protect a people who were almost exterminated and driven from their finest land with help from militias hired by the Legislature.

Responding to claims by lobbyists that Native Americans are winning protections now only because of their newfound gambling casino wealth, Assemblyman Bill Leonard (R-San Bernardino) said, “You are right.” But that is because the money has allowed them to raise children who have become lawyers and scientists who have fought to preserve sacred land and reconnect with their culture, he said.

“It’s real hard to maintain your religion if you’re being persecuted to extermination,” Leonard said.