Witnesses to Judiciary committee urge clearer court pathway to revoke orders of nonhospitalization
Loading...
Summary
Witnesses told the Judiciary committee that designated agencies face a bottleneck when attempting to have orders of nonhospitalization (ONH) revoked: agencies file revocation requests to the Department of Mental Health, which often delays or declines to petition courts, leaving people and communities at risk and prompting calls to clarify statutory authority.
Committee testimony on Jan. 29 focused on gaps in oversight for people placed on orders of nonhospitalization and on how the state moves (or fails to move) revocation petitions to court.
"There are limited mechanisms for meaningful community oversight of individuals who are on orders of nonhospitalization," said Dr. Simi Ravan, chief medical officer at Howard Center and a forensic psychiatrist. She told the Judiciary committee that many people subject to ONHs come out of criminal court and that when they disengage from mandated treatment, clinical teams have few tools to protect public safety and the individuals themselves.
Ravan described the current practice: designated agencies complete an application for revocation and submit it to the Department of Mental Health clinical team, which reviews the materials and may request a hearing. "That is the sort of rate limiting step that we are experiencing," Ravan said, adding that the DMH review can prevent timely petitions to the court.
Committee members pressed for timing details. Ravan said hearings and the revocation pathway can be slow: "My colleagues have, say, two weeks. My experience as little as two weeks, my experience has been more, like, four or six weeks," and she said individuals are sometimes hospitalized emergently while awaiting a hearing.
Members also asked whether there is an intermediate review or appeal if DMH and a designated agency disagree. "We do not have a process like that of appeal or another level of review," Ravan replied, and said practices vary by state.
Witnesses recommended statutory clarification to give designated agencies more authority or a clearer channel to notify courts when nonadherence raises safety concerns. "A solution to that would be for designated agencies to be able to inform, a quote, the relevant court directly, of concerning nonadherence to orders of nonhospitalization," Ravan said.
Kelsey Stavsett, executive director of Northeast Kingdom Human Services, framed the suggestion in the context of existing law and agreements: designated agencies are written into state statute and operate under provider agreements with state commissioners, and any change would likely require adjusting statute and provider-entry processes before the judiciary stage.
The panel did not vote on legislation. Committee members indicated a bill related to forensic facilities and competency restoration is anticipated; witnesses said they would provide further testimony once specific statutory language is available. The committee scheduled follow-up time and thanked the witnesses.
