Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: robertpaulsen; ClaireSolt

As I said in more detail on another thread, we need to make a clear distinction for both legal and medical purposes, between mental illnesses that involve disconnection from reality and/or sociopathic attitude and those that do not. There’s no need to be locking people up for depression, anxiety, attention deficit/hyperactivity, etc., as things like that pose no danger to anyone other than the sufferer (though severe depression is incompatible with having responsibility for a child), and these non-dangerous categories of mental illness account for the vast majority of “mentally ill” in our country. However, the psychotic/schizophrenic/paranoid/sociopathic categories of mental illness are a serious danger to others and warrant lock-up. It’s not really hard to distinguish between the two categories. Regardless of how many conditions from the non-dangerous categories someone may have, the presence of one of the dangerous categories should trigger an adjudication of mental incompetence.

Frankly this is not something that belongs in the area of state law. It involves removal of rights generally accorded to citizens by the Constitution of the United States, and has implications for many types of interstate transactions, including movement of the individual across state lines, whether money transferred to the benefit of the individual (government check, inheritance, or anything else) should go under the control of the individual or a legal guardian, and much more.

My family is going to have to deal with this in preparation for my elderly father’s death (doesn’t appear to be imminent, but he’s 85). I was trying to impress on my father a few days ago the importance of getting a mental incompetence adjudication for my half-sister, who has advanced schizophrenia and has always refused treatment. Although he managed a few years ago to get the state of Texas, where she has long resided in a makeshift tent, to subject her to an involuntary psych exam, there was 1) no follow-through to get a formal adjudication of her mental incompetence and appoint a legal guardian, and 2) the Texas court said that while the court-appointed psychiatrist had given a diagnosis of schizophrenia, privacy laws preventing it from passing this information on to the federal government (meaning no way to qualify her for SSD payments) or other state governments. No one else in the family lives in Texas. When my father dies, she’s entitled by her parents’ divorce decree to 25% of his estate, and that portion will be in 6 figures. Dad is a resident of Virginia, and legally, at this point, if some sleazebag lawyer manages to get her to tell a Virginia court that he (the sleazebag) represents her, and then the sleazebag tells the court she wants her funds transferred to X account in Texas or any other state, the Virginia court has no legal basis to deny that request, and banks and brokerages holding the actual funds in various states have no legal basis to decline to send the funds to wherever the Virginia court tells them to. We simply can’t have people being simultaneously classified as mentally competent in some states and incompetent in others.


90 posted on 04/21/2007 7:58:33 AM PDT by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies ]


To: GovernmentShrinker
Good luck with that. Six figures might last a long time for a gal in a tent. :) Listen to the "experts" and know the extent to which diagnosis is an art and not a science. In a risk benefit analysis how can you justify restricting people's liberty. Surely, a one in a million freak crime does not justify corraling all mentally ill.

Higher education might look at this from the perspective that there are too many people on campus that do not belong there. Because college capacity was overbuilt after WWII faculties and administrators are always looking for "warm bodies" to perpetuate their programs and save their jobs. Hardnosed reviews of the core mission of universities would eliminate both the Ward Churchills and the Chos, and that would be good for higher ed.

92 posted on 04/21/2007 8:11:01 AM PDT by ClaireSolt (Have you have gotten mixed up in a mish-masher?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies ]

To: GovernmentShrinker
We simply can’t have people being simultaneously classified as mentally competent in some states and incompetent in others.

It's far worse than that. The basic approach of a "mental defect" defense in a criminal court is for the defense attorney to make the case that a defendant is not mentally competent to be responsible for the crime in question. Six months later, the same attorney will try to make the case that the same defendant is perfectly healthy and should no longer be confined.

98 posted on 04/21/2007 8:52:43 AM PDT by Alberta's Child
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies ]

To: GovernmentShrinker

Wouldn’t it be easier for your father to simply draw up a will in which your sister’s 25% of the estate is paid to her over time from a trust of some sort?


99 posted on 04/21/2007 8:54:28 AM PDT by Alberta's Child
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson