Court-Ordered Psychiatric Evaluations Explained
A court-ordered psychiatric evaluation is an examination of an individual’s psychological health, which may include both physical exams as well as psychological tests, depending on the individual’s situation and the specific request of the court. The purpose of such an evaluation is to gain a better understanding of a person’s mental state for various purposes .
Examples of areas in which a court may request a psychiatric evaluation include:
-Child custody disputes
-Probate matters
-Assessment of psychological competency
In other situations, a court may order an evaluation because a complaint has been filed regarding an individual’s mental state. For example, a spouse may file a divorce petition, stating that the other party is mentally unstable, and the court will order an evaluation to verify the claims and determine what, if any, modifications are needed in the legal proceedings given the result.
Statutory Grounds for an Order
When a request is made for a judicial-ordered psychiatric evaluation, these three questions must be answered: (1) Does the court have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the evaluation to be ordered? (2) Is the subject of the evaluation competent? and (3) Is the proposed order "necessary". Although the threshold question of jurisdiction is rarely contested, the second two questions are often in dispute.
The courts have jurisdiction over all mental health and child custody proceedings. In addition to determining jurisdiction, the mental health court must decide whether the defendant is competent to proceed with the civil or criminal case. A defendant who is competent is able to understand the charges against him and the nature of the proceedings. He is able to assist the attorney to make a defense. See People v. Keck, 203 P.3d 545 (Colo. 2009). The court may order an evaluation when there is "some evidence of mental illness, which requires a response from the court" or "factors that raise a concern about a person’s present ability to protect himself or herself". Id. In Keck, the court ordered an evaluation where there had been allegations of hallucinations and suicidal ideations.
In simple terms, competency refers to a defendant’s capacity to understand the charges against him and participate in the proceedings, whereas sanity or mental illness refers to an individual’s state of mind as it pertains to their ability to conform their conduct to the requirements of the law at the time the offense was committed. See People In Interest of B.E., 33 P.3d 1182 (Colo.App. 2001); People v. Novak, 25 P.3d 779 (Colo. App. 2001).
The choice of retaining experts for a civil commitment proceeding involves substantial deliberation. Client selection is a subjective exercise that focuses on the attorney-client dynamic. Attorneys often change experts due to significant personality conflicts. When attorneys do not select an expert to prepare a report, they are often criticized by the court and personnel in hospitals while the client is involuntarily committed.
Civil procedures govern involuntary commitment of patients in Colorado only. Nonetheless, the procedures are closely related to criminal cases. Inmates are subjected to forced medication and other invasive treatment in the custody of the state. When compelled to accept treatment, inmates often lack the ability to refuse care. The overlap, which is very low according to ASPA, illustrates the need for assessment in those proceedings too.
In Colorado, there are four elements established in order to prevail in a civil commitment proceeding: 1) the individual suffers from a mental illness; 2) the individual poses a danger to himself or others; 3) the individual is unable to make responsible decisions about treatment; and 4) the individual needs treatment. This is the civil standard analogous to criminal commitments governed by the insanity defense and Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity.
C.G.S.A. § 17a-580 et seq. (West) authorizes a court to order a psychiatric examination in civil commitment proceedings. Connecticut also uses the procedures set forth in GS § 17a-593a in criminal commitment cases. 131 Conn. Op. Atty. Gen. No. 06-02 (Jan. 23, 2006) (commitments and sex offender evaluations)
Requesting an Order for an Assessment
In seeking to obtain a court-ordered psychiatric evaluation of a party, there are two primary procedural steps. First, you must file a motion to the court requesting that the evaluation be performed. In this motion, the requesting party must allege facts that support the need for the evaluation. Although allegations of a party’s mental health issues or behavior can be itself considered hearsay, the party requesting the evaluation must support the factual basis for the underlying problems at issue. Therefore, particularly where the psychological issues are personal in nature and outside the knowledge or perception of the requesting party, the requesting party will need to demonstrate the existence of his or her personal experiences that show potential problems.
For example, in child custody matters there is often an allegation that the other party’s behaviors present an unreasonable risk to the general welfare of the children. If the requesting party is alleging that the other party engages in abusive behavior or otherwise places the child in dangerous situations, that party will need to lay a proper foundation for this claim. This can include providing details about the behavior or a description of the situations in which the child could potentially be harmed. It is not enough to simply state-the other party engages in criminal activity or is medically impaired, although these factors may be relevant.
In addition to filing a motion appealing for the court to order the evaluation, the requesting party should be ready to request an evidentiary hearing on the matter before a judge. In some circumstances, the court will require evidence submitted to establish the basis for the request, in which case a hearing will be held. Generally speaking, to obtain an involuntary or forced evaluation, the requesting party must present more than just a showing that the party has a problem. Instead, a showing that the problem presents a real risk to the health, safety, and welfare of any individuals involved will be required before a court will issue an involuntary psychiatric evaluation.
In addition to the motion itself, the court may request that the party to be evaluated sign the consent for release of information that is required for the evaluation to be performed. In these circumstances, the court will not order an involuntary psychiatric examination as the party to be evaluated will have already provided consent to have the evaluation performed. The court will not, however, force a party to sign the consent and therefore, cannot order an involuntary evaluation for this reason alone.
Role of Attorneys and Legal Counsel
Attorneys and legal counsel may play a crucial role in assisting parties with the process of initiating a court-ordered psychiatric evaluation. Some of their roles and functions may include: Advice and Guidance: Attorneys should be prepared to carefully explain the grounds for or merits of seeking a court-ordered psychiatric evaluation. If they do not have expertise in the field of mental health, they should seek assistance from an expert in the field. Preparation and Filing of the Required Paperwork: If the petition is correctly drafted and compelling, the chances the court will grant the petition may be enhanced. Communication with the Court: Attorneys should be responsible for direct communication with the Court regarding the case at hand. If possible, the office should be kept apprised of all developments and status updates, including the scheduling of hearings, outcome of hearings, postponements or rescheduling of existing hearings, and other matters that arise in the course of the case. Preparation for Hearings: Attorneys should be prepared to examine witnesses at the hearing. Although the rules of evidence are relaxed in these hearings, the attorney should nonetheless be prepared and have an organized approach to their questioning. The Importance of Legal Representation While the law allows a party to file their own petition for a court-ordered psychiatric evaluation, legal representation is critical to safeguard against any legal missteps that could jeopardize the petition and the ability to obtain an evaluation. Obtaining a court-ordered psychiatric evaluation can be a complicated procedure that must be navigated through the court system. While it is possible to petition the court for an order on your own, it is highly recommended to obtain legal representation.
Steps to Prepare for an Assessment
An appointment for a psychiatric evaluation may be scheduled for one of two reasons. First, if the appointment is required by the court, it will likely be scheduled after your spouse files a temporary assignment judgment and also petitions the court for additional relief. If your psychiatric evaluation appointment is court-mandated, failure to attend can have severe consequences for the judgment against you. At this point, you have no choice whether or not to participate.
On the other hand, a psychiatric evaluation appointment may be requested by your spouse for various reasons. For example, if you have made comments that indicate you may hurt yourself or your spouse or children, if you don’t listen to reason regarding financial matters, or if you are in denial regarding a substance abuse issue, your spouse may encourage you to voluntarily attend an appointment. You may be asked to submit to a psychiatric evaluation appointment in order to demonstrate good faith in working out a parenting agreement and demonstrate that you are mentally stable enough to co-parent with your spouse or spouse’s new partner. If you refuse to attend this appointment, it could be used against you in court.
No matter who instigates the psychiatric evaluative appointment, here is what you can generally expect:
If your appointment is court-ordered, you will most likely need to provide the evaluator with a signed release of records form to complete his or her evaluation . If the appointment is recommended by your spouse, however, you may be able to attend the appointment without signing the form. Still, be aware that the psychiatrist can contact others on his or her own to perform the necessary interview for the evaluation.
A typical psychiatric evaluation appointment lasts about 90 minutes. In most cases, the psychiatrist will ask you to fill out some paperwork, including personal information and a description of the issues you are having. After the paperwork portion of the appointment, the psychiatrist will meet with your children privately, if possible. This process is meant to determine your capacity as a parent and the potential effects living with you (or not) may have on your children.
Notice, the appointment will not necessarily last the full 90 minutes. The psychiatrist will be observing your words, body language, and the responses of you and your children to his or her questions. The psychiatrist may reduce the paperwork time and add more time to the interview process if that seems to be what is needed for the evaluation.
In the end, you should be somewhat familiar with the process before you attend your appointment. While the appointment will focus on your mental stability, the mental health of your children, and your rights as a parent, it doesn’t mean you should skip the process completely. The psychiatrist will perform numerous interviews and tests to determine your mental capabilities, and the information included in the final report should be taken into account when your divorce settlement is reviewed in court.
Possible Outcomes and Legal Effects
The outcomes of a court-ordered psychiatric evaluation can vary widely, ranging from a clean bill of mental health to a diagnosis of a serious psychological disorder. In the context of divorce proceedings, the court may issue recommendations, such as referring a parent to therapy, or re-visiting the custody issue after a certain time has passed. The results will be specifically tailored to the needs of the case at hand, and tailored as well to the credibility of the evaluator in the eyes of the judge. When the individual being evaluated is a parent, the truth is that judges do not always take the recommendations of evaluators. Worse yet, when a judge holds a low opinion of a mental health professional, the court may ignore the findings entirely and even forbid them from rendering an opinion in the future. In cases where the findings are deemed credible, the results of the evaluation may be submitted to the court as evidence or placed in the case file for review by the judge. In court, the evaluator may be asked to testify regarding their findings. For example, if the evaluator determined that a parent gave the child conflicting messages about their relationship, the divorce attorney may elicit testimony from the evaluator to that end so that the judge understands the problems with the behavior of one parent. In some cases, the results of the evaluation can rebut false allegations, a tactic sometimes used by those who want to hide uncomfortable truths. If you know or strongly suspect that lies or half-truths are being used to undermine your position, request an evaluation so that the court has the benefit of the impartial findings. In this way, the psychiatrist or psychologist acts as an expert witness. A judge is likely to put more stock in the findings of a psychiatric evaluation than in those by lay witnesses (your friends and neighbors) who are not qualified as objective witnesses or have a stake in the outcome of the case. For this reason alone, it is generally smart to pursue the court-ordered psychiatric evaluation. Your circumstances are unique – U.S. Family Law will help you understand how a psychiatric evaluation may affect your case specifically.
Challenging an Assessment
Additionally, if after reviewing the report, you believe that the psychiatrist’s findings and conclusions were incorrect, the first step is to request a hearing in the case asking the judge to disapprove the psychiatrist’s report. Specifically, New Jersey Court Rule 4: 74 – 7(q) states: On receipt of the report of the panel of experts, any party may file with the clerk of the court a notice of intention to contest the report and serve the notice on all parties to the action and on the court appointed experts. Unless the contest notice requests a de novo hearing, the court shall enter an order approving the report, provided that the moving party who filed the notice of intention to contest the report has the burden of showing that the report is not acceptable. If the moving party requests a hearing de novo , the court shall hold such hearing unless the psychiatrist the subject of the report is not available or otherwise does not desire to testify as to the report. At the hearing the party making the motion shall have the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the report did not meet the standards of State v. Krol, 68 N.J. 236 (1975). The hearing may be conducted by the court without a jury. The court shall make findings of fact on the record. The failure of a party to file a timely notice of intention to contest shall prevent any subsequent motion to disapprove the report, unless cause can be shown for the failure to timely file. If you do contest the report and seek a hearing, generally, the State will have the same burden of proof that they would have had at trial, namely, proving beyond a reasonable doubt that you are legally insane.