Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Involuntary Treatment Definitions topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee tables bill that would broaden 'harm' definitions for civil involuntary treatment
Summary
The House Health & Human Services Committee voted 5–4 to table House discussion on the committee substitute for Senate Bill 166, which would revise statutory definitions of 'harm to self' and 'harm to others' in New Mexico's mental‑health and assisted outpatient treatment laws after extensive public testimony both for and against the changes.
The House Health & Human Services Committee tabled consideration of the committee substitute for Senate Bill 166 after a contentious hearing that split witnesses, advocates and law‑enforcement groups.
Sponsor remarks and amendment: Senator Maestas and representatives sponsoring the amendment told the committee the bill updates decades‑old statutory language in the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Act and the Assisted Outpatient Treatment Act to provide clearer examples of conduct that meets the statutory standards for civil involuntary commitment and assisted outpatient treatment. "The amendment ... puts back into the bill language currently, which is ... lack the capacity and will result in mental debilitation," the sponsor said when describing the change.
Support and opposition: Supporters said the current statutory language can be too narrow and that clearer definitions would help judges, first responders and families identify people who need court‑ordered care. Troy Lujan of the New Mexico State Police and other law‑enforcement officials favored the change, saying it would help identify at‑risk individuals earlier.
Opponents warned the definitions could sweep in people whose problems stem from poverty, homelessness or lack of services, and several witnesses urged investment in voluntary housing and treatment instead of expanding civil commitment. Diane McCash, a community witness, testified, "I'm afraid that the definition of harm to self in this bill has the potential to open up the door to further harm to some individuals even as it may provide, a lifeline for others." Disability and homelessness advocates argued the bill risks criminalizing homelessness and called for more voluntary services.
Legal standard and threshold: Holly Agajanian of the governor’s office told the committee that the U.S. Supreme Court requires a danger‑to‑self‑or‑others standard but does not define it, and states vary in how they implement it. The sponsors emphasized they were not lowering the evidentiary threshold for civil commitment; the bill keeps the same statutory standard for court orders but changes the statutory examples and phrasing used to assess dangerousness.
Committee action: Representative Sena Cortez offered a substitute motion to table the measure; the committee took roll call and voted to table the substitute 5–4. Votes to table were recorded as: Representative Anaya (yes), Representative E. Chavez (yes), Representative Ferrari (yes), Madam vice chair/Representative Kates (yes), Madam chair (yes); against tabling: Representative N. Chavez (no), Representative Jones (no), Representative Martinez (no), Representative Sena Cortez (no). Committee members who supported tabling said the proposed changes needed more time and that broader system capacity questions had not been resolved.
Why it matters: SB 166 would alter how courts and agencies evaluate whether an individual meets the statutory criteria to be held involuntarily or ordered to assisted outpatient treatment. Critics say the bill could expand the pool of people subject to civil orders without first ensuring community treatment and housing capacity; proponents say clearer statutory language is needed to help families and first responders.
