What’s a Mental Disorder Detention Evidentiary Hearing

Welfare and Institutions Code (“WIC”) § 5000, et seq. (the Lanterman-Petris Short Act), provides a procedure for temporarily detaining a person who poses a danger because of a mental health disorder.  The Act is intended to protect public safety while preventing indefinite involuntary commitment of people afflicted with a mental disorder, safeguarding the rights of the mentally ill through judicial review.

To achieve its aims, the law provides for gradually increasing periods of temporary confinement with an opportunity at each step to determine whether further confinement is necessary.  If a mentally ill person presents a danger to self or others, a law enforcement officer can take the person into custody for placement at a state-approved facility for evaluation and treatment up to 72 hours (WIC § 5150(a)).

If the evaluation conducted during that time determines the detainee remains a danger but is not willing to accept treatment, the person may be involuntarily confined for an additional 14 calendar days of intensive treatment and the detainee has a right to seek judicial review by petition to the superior court for release through a writ of habeas corpus (WIC §§ 5250(a) and 5275).

Given that the maximum confinement period at that point is limited to 14 calendar days, the superior court must “order an evidentiary hearing to be held within two judicial days after the petition is filed.”  WIC § 5276.

If the judge finds the detainee does not meet the statutory criteria for involuntary detention, he or she must be ordered released (WIC § 5276). 

On recommendation of a treating professional, a person certified for intensive treatment can then be subject to temporary or permanent conservatorship proceedings (WIC §§ 5352.1, 5361).

How these provisions are applied is often confusing.  In August of 2022, M.G., who is hearing impaired, was detained in a locked behavioral health facility in Santa Clara County under WIC 5250.  The fourteen-day confinement period was set to expire on September 4, 2022. 

On August 26, 2022, a Friday, M.G. petitioned the superior court for a writ of habeas corpus ordering her release on the ground that she was not mentally disordered, gravely disabled , or a danger to anyone. 

An evidentiary hearing was set for the following Tuesday, August 30, 2022.  Since M.G. is hearing impaired, she requested two sign language interpreters for the hearing, an American Sign Language Interpreter and a certified deaf interpreter, as “relay interpreting” using both interpreters was necessary for M.G. to understand the proceedings and communicate with her attorney.

When the hearing was convened on M.G.’s habeas petition, the judge informed the parties that neither interpreter was available that day and so the hearing was continued for two days to Thursday, September 1.

The judge reasoned that due process requires M.G. to be assisted by an interpreter and the unavailability of an interpreter constituted good cause to continue the hearing beyond the statutory two-day timeframe.

The next day, Wednesday, August 30, 2022, M.G. petitioned the Sixth Appellate District for a writ of habeas corpus granting her release.  In response, the Sixth Appellate District issued an order to show cause to the facility detaining M.G. to show cause why the relief sought should not be granted.

After the Sixth Appellate District issued the order, the facility notified the appellate court that M.G. had already been released.

The Sixth Appellate District, however, decided to nonetheless address M.G.’s petition although it was technically moot, noting that because of the very short detention periods, most habeas petitions on this issue will be rendered moot anyways.

The Sixth Appellate District then considered whether the trial court violated WIC § 5276 by not releasing M.G. once the interpreters failed to appear in court.  The Sixth Appellate District surprisingly found that the judge did, as the code imposes a mandatory duty to release if a hearing is not held in two days.  There is no “good cause” allowed for a continuance of the hearing, surprisingly.

For more information about mental disorder detentions, please click on the following articles: