Vermont assesses competency evaluations and mental health care options for defendants

The House Judiciary Committee convened on May 29, 2025, to discuss critical issues surrounding mental health evaluations and competency determinations in Vermont's legal system. The meeting focused on the processes involved when an individual is assessed for competency to stand trial, particularly in cases involving mental health concerns.

The discussion began with an overview of the evaluation process conducted by the Department of Mental Health (DMH). It was noted that the DMH collaborates with contracted forensic psychologists and psychiatrists, who may be sourced from out of state. When an individual's competency is evaluated, the forensic experts may provide reasons for their findings, which could include mental illness, dementia, substance abuse, or brain injury.

If either the defense or the state attorney disagrees with the initial evaluation, they have the option to request a third-party evaluation for a second opinion. Should the second opinion differ from the DMH's assessment, a hearing will be held to contest the competency evaluation. Both the DMH expert and the third-party expert would testify in court to determine the validity of the incompetency claim.

The committee outlined three potential outcomes once an individual is deemed incompetent. If the incompetency is due to a traumatic brain injury sustained within the last five years, the individual would be referred to the Department of Aging and Elder Services for community-based treatment. In cases where a major mental illness poses a danger to themselves or others, the individual would be processed under civil commitment standards. If neither condition is met, charges may be dismissed, or the individual may return later for further proceedings.

The discussion highlighted the limited options available for competency restoration, particularly for individuals with developmental disabilities, substance use issues, or dementia. Those deemed incompetent and requiring civil legal standards for mental illness would be placed in the custody of the DMH, with hospitalization orders limited to 90 days. Nonhospitalization is the default option, while hospitalization requires meeting both civil and medical standards.

The meeting concluded with a transition to further discussions on Vermont's policy landscape, indicating ongoing efforts to address the complexities of mental health within the judicial system. The committee's deliberations underscore the need for comprehensive solutions to improve the handling of mental health issues in legal contexts.