In re M.G.
Filed 12/22/22 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
H050341 (Santa Clara County In re M.G. Super. Ct. No. 20MH043843)
on Habeas Corpus.
Petitioner M.G. was detained in a locked behavioral health facility under the authority of Welfare and Institutions Code section 5250. That law allows for temporary detention of up to 14 days when a person poses a danger to self or others because of a mental disorder and is unwilling to accept treatment. A companion statute, Welfare and Institutions Code section 5276, provides for prompt judicial review: within two judicial days of a detainee’s request, the superior court must hold an evidentiary hearing to decide whether the detention is warranted. M.G. requested a hearing but the superior court did not hold it within two judicial days. M.G. then petitioned this court for a writ of habeas corpus ordering her release. We conclude Welfare and Institutions Code section 5276 imposes a mandatory duty to conduct an evidentiary hearing within two judicial days of a detained person’s request; failure to do so requires that the detainee be immediately released. Although we therefore find petitioner’s contention has merit, we will deny the petition as moot because petitioner has already been released. I. BACKGROUND Welfare and Institutions Code section 5000, et seq., (the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act) provides a procedure for temporarily detaining a person who poses a danger because of a mental health disorder. The Act is intended to protect public safety while preventing
indefinite involuntary commitment of people afflicted with a mental disorder, safeguarding the rights of the mentally ill through judicial review. (See Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5001, subds. (a)–(d); unspecified statutory references are to this code.) To achieve its aims, the law provides for gradually increasing periods of temporary confinement with an opportunity at each step to determine whether further confinement is necessary. If a mentally ill person presents a danger to self or others, a law enforcement officer can take the person into custody for placement at a state approved facility for evaluation and treatment up to 72 hours. (§ 5150, subd. (a).) If the evaluation conducted during that time determines the detainee remains a danger but is not willing to accept treatment, the person may be involuntarily confined for an additional 14 days of intensive treatment and the detainee has a right to seek judicial review by petition to the superior court for release through a writ of habeas corpus. (§ 5250, subd. (a); § 5275.) Given that the maximum confinement period at that point is limited to 14 calendar days, the superior court must “order an evidentiary hearing to be held within two judicial days after the petition is filed.” (§ 5276.) If the court finds the detainee does not meet the statutory criteria for involuntary detention, he or she must be ordered released. (§ 5276.) Otherwise, the detention can continue and an additional 30-day detention may commence at the end of the 14-day period. (§ 5270.15.) On recommendation of a treating professional, a person certified for intensive treatment can then be subject to temporary or permanent conservatorship proceedings. (§§ 5352.1, 5361.) In this case, M.G. was detained in August 2022 for the 14-day confinement allowed by section 5250. The 14-day period was set to expire September 4. On August 26, a Friday, M.G. petitioned the superior court for a writ of habeas corpus ordering her release on the ground that she was not mentally disordered, gravely disabled, or a danger to anyone. An evidentiary hearing on the petition was set for the following Tuesday, August 30. Because M.G. is hearing impaired, she requested two sign language 2
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)