Court rules man doesn't have to have treatment -Bennington (VT) Banner

MIKE GLEASON, Staff Writer
10/13/2007

BENNINGTON — The Vermont Supreme Court ruled Friday that a man involuntarily committed by the Bennington Family Court does not have to continue with his treatment.

According to the court, the 45-year-old man, who was not identified, was committed to the Vermont State Hospital in spring 2006 after several of his family petitioned the Family Court.

The court consolidated two cases in the decision: The man's appeal of an order for involuntary administration of medication, and the state's appeal of an order releasing him from the state hospital.

According to the decision, the Family Court had previously determined that the man needed care. "The family court found (the man) was mentally ill and that his mental illness had manifested itself several years ago with strange behaviors," the decision reads.

The decision states that the commissioner of health filed an application for continued treatment in July 2006, and that this application was denied by the Washington County Family Court.

"The court first noted that the state had not successfully demonstrated that (the man) suffered from schizophrenia," the decision reads. "The court further found that the state had failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that, as a result of a mental illness, (he) presented a continuing danger of harm to himself or to others."

In its appeal, the state argued that the Washington County court did not take into account the facts found in the man's prior commitment orders. The decision said that the court acted appropriately.

"The state's attempt to rely on prior orders to satisfy its evidentiary burden for continued treatment fails," the decision reads. "The purpose of an application for continued treatment is to examine whether the state can meet its burden of proving ... that a patient who is involuntarily hospitalized continues to require treatment," the decision reads.

The decision also agreed with the lower court's ruling that the state did not prove the man was still a danger to himself or others. "A patient's mental status is not frozen in time," the decision reads. "The two prior orders shed light on (the man's) history; however, they did not decide the central question in the application for continued treatment: whether, at the time of the hearing, (the man) was a patient in need of further treatment."

The decision ends by stating that the involuntarily hospitalization of a person is such a "massive curtailment of liberty," it requires the state to meet a high burden of proof to hospitalize the person. The court found that the state did not meet that burden.

The man was represented by attorney Laura Gans of Vermont Legal Aid.