Site search
sponsored by
Home
News
A state mental health patient group is considering legal action against Nevada County after the board of supervisors implemented Laura's Law Tuesday.
The state law was named for Laura Wilcox, one of three people killed by mental health patient Scott Thorpe in the infamous January 2001 shootings in Nevada County. The law, backed by her parents Nick and Amanda Wilcox of Penn Valley, calls for involuntary treatment of mental health patients who are deemed by a judge to be a threat to themselves or others.
The involuntary aspect is the hang-up for the California Network of Mental Health Clients, who unsuccessfully sued Los Angeles County for implementing a similar law on a trial basis earlier in the decade, even though it called for voluntary treatment.
"We have the same objections we always had," said network Executive Director Laurel Mildred from her Sacramento office. "It sets a dangerous precedent. We're definitely exploring legal action."
"We have a fundamental difference in our beliefs," said Amanda Wilcox. "This group is in denial about severely mentally ill people who do not have insight into their condition and don't seek treatment. You have to address that population."
"We always expected it," said Nick Wilcox. "This is a lawsuit that needs to happen, and I expect the county to fight it vigorously."
Nevada County agreed to implement Laura's Law in 2004 in a settlement with the Wilcoxes over their daughter's death. The law was not implemented around the state for several years for fear of lawsuits and because the state did not fund it.
That changed when the Prop. 63 Mental Health Services Act, approved by California voters, began pouring millions of dollars into state coffers for mental health patients.
When Michael Heggarty took over the reins at the county's Behavioral Health Department several years ago, he figured out a way to implement Laura's Law using the Prop. 63 funds. But it has taken until now to fully set up, and it is the first full implementation of the law in the state.
When Heggarty's Prop. 63 spending plan for Nevada County was approved by the state, Laura's Law was legitimized, the Wilcoxes said.
The possible lawsuit is a way to scare other California counties away from implementing the law, they added.
The funds will go for a team concept for four to five severely mentally ill people per year who are placed in the program by court order, Heggarty told supervisors earlier this year.
The supervisors went into a closed session Tuesday to discuss the possibility of lawsuits stemming from the Laura's Law implementation. No action was taken.
County Counsel Rob Shulman said he knew of no lawsuits against Laura's Law, but felt the county was in good shape to defend itself.
Laura's Law is "essentially voluntary," Shulman said, because a patient refusing it's use upon him cannot be held in contempt of court or be civilly committed to an institution.
The state law was named for Laura Wilcox, one of three people killed by mental health patient Scott Thorpe in the infamous January 2001 shootings in Nevada County. The law, backed by her parents Nick and Amanda Wilcox of Penn Valley, calls for involuntary treatment of mental health patients who are deemed by a judge to be a threat to themselves or others.
The involuntary aspect is the hang-up for the California Network of Mental Health Clients, who unsuccessfully sued Los Angeles County for implementing a similar law on a trial basis earlier in the decade, even though it called for voluntary treatment.
"We have the same objections we always had," said network Executive Director Laurel Mildred from her Sacramento office. "It sets a dangerous precedent. We're definitely exploring legal action."
"We have a fundamental difference in our beliefs," said Amanda Wilcox. "This group is in denial about severely mentally ill people who do not have insight into their condition and don't seek treatment. You have to address that population."
"We always expected it," said Nick Wilcox. "This is a lawsuit that needs to happen, and I expect the county to fight it vigorously."
Nevada County agreed to implement Laura's Law in 2004 in a settlement with the Wilcoxes over their daughter's death. The law was not implemented around the state for several years for fear of lawsuits and because the state did not fund it.
That changed when the Prop. 63 Mental Health Services Act, approved by California voters, began pouring millions of dollars into state coffers for mental health patients.
When Michael Heggarty took over the reins at the county's Behavioral Health Department several years ago, he figured out a way to implement Laura's Law using the Prop. 63 funds. But it has taken until now to fully set up, and it is the first full implementation of the law in the state.
When Heggarty's Prop. 63 spending plan for Nevada County was approved by the state, Laura's Law was legitimized, the Wilcoxes said.
The possible lawsuit is a way to scare other California counties away from implementing the law, they added.
The funds will go for a team concept for four to five severely mentally ill people per year who are placed in the program by court order, Heggarty told supervisors earlier this year.
The supervisors went into a closed session Tuesday to discuss the possibility of lawsuits stemming from the Laura's Law implementation. No action was taken.
County Counsel Rob Shulman said he knew of no lawsuits against Laura's Law, but felt the county was in good shape to defend itself.
Laura's Law is "essentially voluntary," Shulman said, because a patient refusing it's use upon him cannot be held in contempt of court or be civilly committed to an institution.
