Steinberg's SB 364 requires the identity of families who call police alleging someone needs involuntary commitment to be provided to the person with mental illness along with their reasoning if that information was used to determine whether there was probable cause to take someone in for evaluation(1). This disclosure happens even if the police officer makes his/her own determination the person is danger to self or others. The disclosure applies to the families, but Steinberg--perhaps understanding the risk caused by his bill--exempted mental health professionals from having their names disclosed.
Steinberg's bill could cause retribution, when a seriously mentally ill person discovers it was the parents who asked doctors to evaluate the loved one for involuntary commitment. At minimum, it increases the potential for hostility and damages the familial relationship. If, for example a son knows his mom is the one who called police and said he is mentally ill and becoming dangerous, the son may attack the mom when released or could decide he doesn't want to live with mom, become homeless, deteriorate...and then who knows what could happen?
- Steinberg's bill makes it less likely that parents will call for help for their seriously ill kid. This is the exact opposite of what everyone is saying should be done for persons with mentall illness: get them help earlier. Again: this puts patients and public at risk.
- According to the Treatment Advocacy Center, releasing the name of a citizen informant to a patient who may be in need of involuntary care is in direct conflict with other provisions of code and violates professional ethical standards regarding not releasing records that could be harmful. They state this sort of disclosure is unprecedented in any other state’s mental health law and or other civil or criminal procedures.
- Steinberg's language significantly increases potential for further deterioration of an individual’s psychiatric condition by postponing or eliminating intervention.
This bill which harms people with mental illness was almost certainly drafted by Disability Rights California (DRC) (mis)using MHSA funds intended to help people with mental illness. Eduardo Vega, a board member of DRC was able to use his recently expired position as an MHSA Oversight Commission Director to funnel $3 million in MHSA funds to DRC, ostensibly to identify laws that 'cause stigma'. It is a barely disguised misuse of MHSA funds by DRC to ensure that certain seriously mentally ill individuals are not allowed to be treated until after they become 'danger to self or others'.
Other problematic provisions of the bill:
It changes the legislative intent of 5150 in order to provide a basis for future challenges
It removes the obligation to provide treatment for someone who is dangerous in a hospital
It allows counties to dumb down the qualifications of individuals providing care for persons with serious mental illness
It holds family members libel, but exempts mental health workers from liability if they provide false information
Send your letter to the Assembly Committee on Health expressing your opposition to SB 364. If you are affiliated with an organization be sure to include that information in your letter.
Letters can be addressed to Chair Pan and emailed to benjamin.russell@asm.ca.gov or mailed or faxed to:
Assembly Committee on Health
Assembly Member Richard Pan, Chair
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0009
Fax: (916) 319-2109 Assembly Member Richard Pan, Chair
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0009
For more information:
Serious mental illness and Laura's Law in California
Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) Waste and Fraud in California
Policy Information on Serious Mental Illness
Serious Mental Illness, NYS/OMH, and Kendra's Law in New York
Follow us on Facebook and Twitter @MentalIllPolicy
(1) An earlier version was not clear that the family members identity is disclosed of the officer or crisis intervention team used that information as part of their determination that the person needed evaaluation.
