Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Mental Health Crisis Hold topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears bipartisan bill to authorize 72‑hour mental‑health holds and waive court presence in narrow cases
Summary
Senate Public Health Committee heard Senate Bill 435, which would authorize a 72‑hour crisis stabilization hold initiated by a mental‑health professional and allow courts to waive a respondent’s physical presence at commitment hearings in narrowly defined situations.
Senate Public Health Committee heard Senate Bill 435, which would authorize a 72‑hour crisis stabilization hold initiated by a mental‑health professional and allow courts to waive a respondent’s physical presence at commitment hearings in narrowly defined situations.
Senator John Esp, sponsor of SB 435, said the bill would offer a more humane and practical process for people in crisis by enabling short‑term evaluations and stabilization without immediate involvement of the justice system. “The idea is crisis stabilization,” Esp said, noting language in the bill modeled on other states’ statutes.
Support came from county officials, NAMI Montana and county attorneys, who said the bill would allow communities to stabilize individuals locally — reducing repeated trips to the state hospital and repeated transports. Colleen Rahn of NAMI Montana said the bill “establishes a clear 72‑hour mental‑health hold process ensuring people in crisis receive timely evaluations and stabilization rather than cycling through jails or emergency rooms.” County attorneys said the waiver of physical presence could reduce costly and traumatic transports when a respondent’s condition would be harmed by travel.
Opponents were limited at the hearing; the Department of Public Health and Human Services’ deputy legal counsel said the department does not expect the measure to produce a material cost impact to the department itself but noted availability of local placements and capacity would affect outcomes. Committee members asked about county costs, whether the bill would create an unfunded mandate, and what facilities would provide holds. Testimony noted community behavioral‑health providers, including CCBHCs, may be future providers of stabilization services in some regions.
Sponsor Esp closed by urging the committee to move the bill and suggested delaying effective dates in areas without placement capacity might be considered if needed. The committee took no final action at the hearing.
