Persons With Mental Illness

ORS 426.125
Qualifications and requirements for conditional release


The following qualifications, requirements and other provisions relating to a conditional release under ORS 426.130 (Court determination of mental illness) apply as described:

(1)

A court may only order conditional release if all of the following occur:

(a)

The conditional release is requested by the legal guardian, relative or friend of the person with mental illness.

(b)

The legal guardian, relative or friend requesting the conditional release requests to be allowed to care for the person during the period of commitment in a place satisfactory to the judge.

(c)

The legal guardian, relative or friend requesting the release establishes all of the following to the satisfaction of the court:

(A)

The ability of the legal guardian, relative or friend to care for the person.

(B)

That there are adequate financial resources available for the care of the person.

(2)

If the court determines to allow conditional release, the court shall order that the person be conditionally released and placed in the care of the requester. The court shall establish any terms and conditions on the conditional release that the court determines appropriate.

(3)

Any conditional release ordered under this section is subject to the provisions under ORS 426.275 (Effect of failure to adhere to condition of placement). [1987 c.903 §18; 2013 c.360 §28]

Notes of Decisions

Finding that person was mentally ill, without specific finding that person was dangerous to self or others or was unable to provide for personal needs, was insufficient to support order placing person on conditional release. State v. Gill, 120 Or App 543, 853 P2d 304 (1993)

§§ 426.070 to 426.170

Notes of Decisions

Where defendant in involuntary commitment proceeding asserted he was denied due process because investigator misled him as to how soon hearing would take place and did not take long enough to complete investigation but defendant did not assert that investigation report was inaccurate or incomplete, due process violation was not established. State v. Pieretti, 110 Or App 379, 823 P2d 426 (1991), Sup Ct review denied

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Mental Health Division recognition of commitment order issued by Indian tribal court, (1979) Vol 40, p 31

Law Review Citations

53 OLR 245-270 (1974)

§§ 426.005 to 426.395

Notes of Decisions

The doctor-patient privilege applies under these sections. State v. O'Neill, 274 Or 59, 545 P2d 97 (1976)

Prior to commitment there must be evidence proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the individual is mentally ill as defined. State v. O'Neill, 274 Or 59, 545 P2d 97 (1976)

The Oregon commitment statutes are not unconstitutional on the grounds of vagueness or as an invasion of privacy as protected by the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. State v. O'Neill, 274 Or 59, 545 P2d 97 (1976)

Oregon Constitution did not require jury in mental commitment hearings. State v. Mills, 36 Or App 727, 585 P2d 1143 (1978), Sup Ct review denied

Alleged mentally ill person does not have right to remain silent in civil commitment proceeding. State v. Matthews, 46 Or App 757, 613 P2d 88 (1980), Sup Ct review denied

Law Review Citations

9 WLJ 63-85 (1973)

Chapter 426

Notes of Decisions

The entire statutory scheme of involuntary commitment provides adequate procedural safeguards which satisfies the requirements of due process and equal protection. Dietrich v. Brooks, 27 Or App 821, 558 P2d 357 (1976), Sup Ct review denied

Atty. Gen. Opinions

County of residence paying mental commitment costs, (1979) Vol 40, p 147; civil commitment to Mental Health Division of person against whom criminal charges are pending, (1980) Vol 41, p 91

Law Review Citations

16 WLR 448 (1979)


Source

Last accessed
Jun. 26, 2021