Changes in State Mental-Health Laws May Prevent Future Tragedies
The state needs to reopen some of its mental-health facilities or build new ones, so there will be a sufficient number of beds to accommodate people suffering from mental disabilities.
March 01, 2019 at 09:23 AM
4 minute read
Students at Danbury High School were recently left stunned and confused by the senseless death of a classmate who took her own life by jumping from the fifth floor of the Danbury Fair Mall. There is nothing that can be said to make sense of tragedies like these, yet what makes them even more devastating is that we are prohibited from using the methods that could potentially prevent them.
As a former probate judge from neighboring Brookfield, and the parent of a child who has been treated for mental-health issues, I have long been aware that the laws for mental-health intervention in Connecticut are wholly inadequate and flawed; in fact, it is quite likely they contributed to the demise of this beautiful young woman.
What this young lady needed was a conservatorship, by which her parents could have sought an outpatient forced-medication order requiring her to take her medication in front of a parent each day, or else be hospitalized by order of the probate court. In states that allow such orders, there is a very high success rate as young people will usually choose compliance over the prospect of being committed to a hospital.
While we can never be certain of the outcome of any given individual situation, It is a fact that proper medication administered as directed by a mental-health professional greatly diminishes the likelihood that a person suffering from depression, anxiety, or other mental-health condition will reach the point of suicidal despair. Connecticut is one of only four states that does not provide for these kinds of orders. Stated another way for emphasis, 46 of 50 states allow the courts to issue these kinds of outpatient forced-medication orders. But whenever it is brought up in the Connecticut Legislature, the civil liberties lawyers raise their voices in protest, claiming that it would be a violation of the civil rights of the mentally disabled person.
What right is that exactly? The right to commit suicide when you are suffering from a mental disability? The right not to be mentally stable? The right to have a broken mind which causes you to hear voices telling you your life is worthless? My anger against these mental-health “advocates” is immense. A simple forced-medication order could very likely have saved the life of the Danbury teenager, but thanks to them, her parents did not have that option.
The other blatant omission in Connecticut is the lack of facilities for long-term stays needed to stabilize patients. This young woman had many short hospital stays to deal with emergency situations, but these acute stays cannot lead to true mental-health stability. Many times a stay of four to six months is necessary. We do not have the beds in this state to allow such lengthy stays because we shut down all our mental-health facilities. Think of the Newtown and Southbury facilities which were closed down under the promise that neighborhood homes would replace them. Nothing has replaced these facilities, nor can anything adequately restore the functions they fulfilled.
For example, to qualify for a long-term stay at the state mental-health facility in Middletown, a person needs to have had a certain number of psychiatric hospitalizations. Now think of a young person as a beautiful vase to hold flowers. We require that the vase be dropped several times before we sweep up the remains and then put the destroyed vase, now in a plastic bag, into the Middletown facility. Connecticut must begin to take the steps needed to correct its unacceptable treatment of the mentally disabled.
The state needs to reopen some of its mental-health facilities or build new ones, so there will be a sufficient number of beds to accommodate people suffering from mental disabilities. It needs to allow outpatient forced-medication orders by the probate courts NOW to prevent any more of these senseless tragedies. Please call the governor and your legislators and demand these changes, so we do not again lose one of our young people to this kind of unnecessary tragedy.
Retired Probate Judge Joseph P. Secola specializes in elder law and estate planning at Secola Law Offices in Brookfield.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllADVANCE Act Offers Conn. Opportunity to Enhance Carbon-Free Energy and Improve Reliability With Advanced Nuclear Technologies
Trending Stories
- 1The Fearless Forecaster’s Employment Law Predictions for 2025
- 2Judicial Conference Declines Democratic Request to Refer Justice Thomas to DOJ
- 3People in the News—Jan. 2, 2025—Eastburn and Gray, Klehr Harrison
- 4Deal Watch: Latham, Paul Weiss, Debevoise Land on Year-End Big Deals. Plus, Mixed Messages for 2025 M&A
- 5Bathroom Recording Leads to Lawyer's Disbarment: Disciplinary Roundup
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250