Dear judi2122-ga;
Since you are agreeable to my opinion about California law I am
posting it as an answer at your request:
In the state of California the determination of ?danger? is
specifically addressed in WELFARE AND INSTITUTIONS CODE 5150.05:
?5150.05. (a) When determining if probable cause exists to take a
person into custody, or cause a person to be taken into custody,
pursuant to Section 5150, any person who is authorized to take that
person, or cause that person to be taken, into custody pursuant to
that section shall consider available relevant information about the
historical course of the person's mental disorder if the authorized
person determines that the information has a reasonable bearing on the
determination as to whether the person is a danger to others, or
to himself or herself, or is gravely disabled as a result of the mental disorder.
(b) For purposes of this section, "information about the historical
course of the person's mental disorder" includes evidence presented by
the person who has provided or is providing mental health or related
support services to the person subject to a determination described in
subdivision (a), evidence presented by one or more members of the
family of that person, and evidence presented by the person subject to
a determination described in subdivision (a) or anyone designated by
that person.
CALIFORNIA WELFARE AND INSTITUTIONS CODE
WELFARE AND INSTITUTIONS CODE 5150.05(a) & (b)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/wic/5150-5157.html
Clearly then California law does in fact consider ?available relevant
information about the historical course of the person's mental
disorder? but it takes an ?authorized person? (physician,
psychologist, psychiatrist, etc) to ?determines that the information
has a reasonable bearing on the determination as to whether the person
is a danger to others, or
to himself??
What is danger? Well, for the purposes of the mentally ill, ?danger?
is defined by section 5300.5, subdivision (c):
?Demonstrated danger may be based on assessment of present mental
condition, which is based upon a consideration of past behavior of the
person within six years prior to the time the person attempted,
inflicted, or threatened physical harm upon another, and other
relevant evidence.?
CALIFORNIA WELFARE AND INSTITUTIONS CODE
WELFARE AND INSTITUTIONS CODE 5300.5
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/wic/5300-5309.html
In my opinion (and I?ve been in law enforcement a long, long time),
what you are referring to probably qualifies as ABUSE rather than
DANGER. There is a distinct difference. Perhaps some of the actions
you describe could fit more relevantly in categories such as DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE or, in the case of your mother-in-law, ELDER ABUSE.
Domestic violence statute 11495.12 specifically address ?abuse? and
defines it as "battering or subjecting a victim to extreme cruelty
by?.[ among other things ]?mental abuse??
CALIFORNIA WELFARE AND INSTITUTIONS CODE
WELFARE AND INSTITUTIONS CODE SECTION 11495-11495.40
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/wic/11495-11495.40.html
Elder abuse statutes specifically address the crime of causing
?unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering? on an elder in the
care of another.
Elder abuse
CALIFORNIA WELFARE AND INSTITUTIONS CODE
WELFARE AND INSTITUTIONS CODE SECTION 15656
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/wic/15656.html
To summarize my OPINION (which is what you ultimately asked for) is
that cursing, swearing, and so forth, in themselves, would not
necessarily be considered ?danger?, as in ?danger to one?s self or
others? in the statutory sense set out my Cal. 5150. It would however
potentially fall into other categories of the law, namely the two I
mentioned a moment ago. I am not a lawyer and we cannot provide legal
advice in this forum. However, in my OPINION of the intent of
published law, while there is clearly an abusive situation that exists
and the possibility that it might eventually escalate to a dangerous
situation is always there, at present, by definition, I believe the
situation is most accurately defined as by California statutes as
?abuse? and ?mental suffering? rather than imminent ?danger to one?s
self or others?.
As I said, I am not an attorney and since you are seeking an
unlicensed OPINION of the law, I believe that commitment for such
abuse (as you have described it) under California law is probably not
an option, but if you can get a physician or someone in that authority
to evaulate the abuser you might find that it qualifies. There's
really no way for a lay-person to predict that outcome accurately.
A protective order or a restraining however might very well be an
option in your situation even in the absence of a mental evaluation.
The state of California has published a very clear and detailed
self-help guide to protective and restraining orders for the public to
view in situations similar to yours. I believe you will find
everything you need to know about them, including how to obtain one
and under what circumstances one might seek one, here. The links on
the right also specifically address situations of domestic violence
and elder abuse.
CALIFORNIA COURTS
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp/protection/introresord.htm
As for the research price issue you asked about, I will leave that up
to you. If you feel that the usefulness of my research exceeds the
price you originally placed on the question there is an option at the
end (when you rate the question) to add an additional amount as a tip
if you choose to do so.
I hope you find that my research exceeds your expectations. If you
have any questions about my research please post a clarification
request prior to rating the answer. Otherwise, I welcome your rating
and your final comments and I look forward to working with you again
in the near future. Thank you for bringing your question to us.
Best regards;
Tutuzdad ? Google Answers Researcher
INFORMATION SOURCES
Defined above
SEARCH STRATEGY
SEARCH ENGINES USED:
Google ://www.google.com
SEARCH TERMS USED:
CALIFORNIA
STATUTES
CODES
LAW
5150
DANGER
ABUSE
MENTAL
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
ELDER ABUSE
PROTECTIVE ORDER
RESTRAINING ORDER |
Clarification of Answer by
tutuzdad-ga
on
05 Jan 2006 18:20 PST
>>>"As far as the laws in "California only" could "involuntary
incareration" occur to any one of these people for the damage or
danger they have posed? b. Or again according to the laws in
"California only"; could these 1 through 5 examples infact be, or
possibly be "circumstances" in which any one of these people could
infact be "committed" to a mental health instution against their will,
again for the damage or danger they have posed? Or as the California
law defines it, if these people keep posing this kind of damage could
a. or b. ever happen to them? Or could something other than in
connection with a criminal investigation take place? In other words
what legal standard or other could take place?"
As I mentioned initially your question has been answered according to
what the law in California (only) states. I cannot speak to what other
jurisdictions might do. As for committment, it is doubtful that one
would be committed for this type of behavior unless he or she is
deemed mentally ill by a professional. Even then they would not be
committed because of anything they said or did to anyone, per se,
rather because they were mentally ill. The acting out is merely a
symtom of mental illess and is, in itself, not universally prohibited
by law (it isn't illegal to be an annoying, unlikeable, jerk, for
example).
As for incarceration, it is possible that one might be jailed for
domestic violence (as I've already pointed out). An investigation by
the police would determine if probable cause exists for that criminal
charge. Otheriwse my information remains esentially the same as
posted.
About your question for Mathtalk-ga, he may or may not respond to your
follow up here as his imput was merely offered to yo as a free
comment. If you'd like to post a new question directly to him
personally (and exclusively) you may get his attention by putting
"Mathtalk-ga Only" in your subject line of a new question.
Regards;
tutuzdad-ga
|
