Casey’s Law Explained
For Kentucky families and guardians of individuals struggling with addiction, canvasing the court systems forms a large part of the daily struggle to make sure their loved ones are safe. Involuntary treatment presents numerous challenges that patients and their families often do not know how to navigate. Such is the case with Casey’s Law, an involuntary commitment law that arises under Kentucky’s KRS 222.430(1)(2)(3). Casey’s Law is a preconviction civil commitment law aimed at preventing individuals with substance abuse issues from coming to harm -whether it be harming themselves or harming others as a result of their addiction. But these proceedings are complex and can be overwhelming for someone who is unaware of the ways in which they work.
Casey’s Law was enacted following a series of heroin related deaths of young adults in Casey Smith’s hometown of Campbellsville. Following Smith’s death, his mother began advocating to the Kentucky legislature for a more aggressive approach at fighting drug related crime. Casey’s Law is the result. Enacted in 2004 , Casey’s Law allowed for the involuntary treatment of people who were abusing alcohol and drugs. Three years after it was enacted, Governor Ernie Fletcher extended the program with Amy’s Law which provided for the mandates of Casey’s Law to be carried out by local attorneys across the state.
These lawyers act as Substance Abuse Advocates who can be contacted by the individual or by the family of the individual and will file the Petition for Commitment in Jefferson District Court.
The purpose of Casey’s Law is to prevent an addicted person from coming to harm or from causing harm to others as a result of drug abuse. It allows for a non-punitive civil action to compel an individual to undergo a compulsory substance abuse program. The hope of Casey’s Law is that the treatment mandated by the court will help the substance abuser reclaim their once productive lives and that by becoming a productive member of society, he or she will avoid further criminal consequences down the line.
Eligible Individuals
Casey’s Law (KRS 222.430) defines an "Eligible Person" by the following conditions:
(a) The person is at least eighteen (18) years of age;
(b) The person is a resident of the state of Kentucky;
(c) The person shows signs of abuse or has demonstrated a high probability of addiction to alcohol or other drugs or a combination of alcohol and other drugs;
(d) The person has lost the ability to control their substance abuse and continue to use despite the danger of continued use;
(e) The person has a substantial risk of serious physical harm, either directly from the continued use or from the effects of withdrawal; and
(f) The person’s addiction impedes their ability to make a rational decision as to voluntary admission to a drug or alcohol treatment program.
If you or someone you know is battling drug or alcohol addiction, Kentucky’s Casey’s Law provides you with a possible solution that seeks to admit the person entering a treatment program and ultimately ending their addiction. If you are the Petitioner who files the petition, there will be a probable cause hearing that follows. A local court will hear the case. If the court finds that the criteria of a "person eligible for involuntary treatment" have been satisfied by clear and convincing evidence, the court will order a drug or alcohol assessment evaluation.
If you or someone you know has passed away as a result of drug or alcohol addiction, Casey’s Law can also be filed in certain circumstances.
Filing the Petition
Visitors to our office sometimes ask about Casey’s Law, often confused about when Casey’s Law is applicable, whether it is a practical option, and how to file it. Although it is commonly known as Casey’s Law, what it is really called is the Intervention for Substance Use Disorders Act. It is a Kentucky law that allows for involuntary commitment (meaning someone doesn’t voluntarily seek treatment) for substance use or alcohol abuse if the individual is deemed to be dependent on a substance (like alcohol or drugs), and they currently have a physical or mental illness, impairment, or disability that substantially interferes with the individual’s ability to make informed choices regarding treatment.
In order to seek treatment for someone under Casey’s Law, a petition must be filed in Court by any of the individual’s friends, relatives, or parents of a minor child. There are four steps in this process:
- File a petition. The petition must be filed in the district where the individual resides, and there is no filing fee. The petition must allege that the individual suffers from abuse or dependence of a substance, is a danger to himself or herself or others, and is incapable of appreciating the nature of his or her condition. It must also name all whereabouts for the individual, including any facilities where the individual has been treated, temporary residences, places where the individual is known to visit, and work, if any. An affidavit of an individual who has personal knowledge of the facts alleged in the petition must be filed. This person needs to be able to adequately describe the individual’s substance abuse, mental illness, and the current behavior that poses a risk to themselves or others. A notice to appear at the hearing must be served on the respondent or individual for whom the petition is filed a sufficient time prior to the hearing.
- Attend the hearing. The Court will schedule a hearing no sooner than fifteen days and no later than thirty days after the petition is filed. The petitioner and court’s social worker will meet with the individual before the hearing and discuss treatment options. At the hearing, the petitioner must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the individual is a danger to himself/herself, is incapable of appreciating the nature of his/her condition, and that treatment will improve their situation.
- Court orders treatment. If the Court agrees that the individual is a danger to both him or herself and others, and that the treatment will help, the Court will order the individual to receive treatment. The Court will name the treatment facility, and direct the court social worker to arrange transportation to that facility. The facility shall work with the Court on a treatment plan that is to be reported back to the Court every thirty days for ninety days. If the person refuses to go into treatment after the order has been entered, the individual may be transported to the facility by law enforcement.
- Treatment. The petitioner may obtain a temporary detention order (TDO) if the individual refuses to go to treatment. This temporary order will allow law enforcement to respond to the facility and bring the individual to the facility. Inpatient care should last a minimum of five days in a treatment facility. After approximately five days in inpatient treatment, the individual should be discharged to outpatient treatment. The petitioner is only responsible for costs of treatment for individuals who are insured and exceed maximum limit on treatment in the insurance policy. The petitioner is not responsible for the total cost of treatment.
Rights and Obligations
The person on whom the involuntary treatment order is ordered is entitled to all the rights granted to persons at liberty by the Kentucky Constitution or constitutional laws, and the committed person also has the right to be treated and housed in the least restrictive environment necessary to achieve the treatment purposes of the order. The Kentucky Court of Appeals has delineated the following specific rights of a committed person: The petitioner may not have custody of the individual who is subject to the commitment order, but the petitioner is entitled to visitation. Finally, the petitioner has the moral responsibility for collecting funds from the committed person or his family as reimbursement for all or part of the cost incurred by the state in treating the committed person.
Impact of Casey’s Law on Families and Individuals
Casey’s Law has garnered a mix of opinions and experiences from those involved. Many families and individuals struggling with addiction have found hope and relief through the law’s provisions, while others have faced complications and unintended consequences.
For families, Casey’s Law offers the possibility of intervention when voluntary treatment approaches have failed. A recent case study featured several personal stories illustrating the impact of Casey’s Law on various families. One family described their difficult decision to file a petition after years of futile attempts to get their loved one into treatment voluntarily. After filing the case and appearing in court, the individual was admitted to a treatment program, and the family credited the law with providing the necessary leverage to get their loved one the help he needed. This positive outcome has been echoed by others who have utilized Casey’s Law.
However, critics of Casey’s Law have pointed to situations where the legislation has strained family relationships or caused further challenges. One personal story described a family who struggled with what they viewed as an overly simplistic legal process that did not take into account the complexities of addiction. They felt that Casey’s Law oversimplified a highly complex issue and failed to provide adequate support for the entire family. This family described how their long-held resentment bubbled to the surface after filing a petition, and they felt a rift had been created in their family that would take more than just treatment to heal.
From the perspective of individuals receiving treatment under Casey’s Law , there is a range of views as well. Some individuals have credited the law with literally saving their lives. An individual described how he was tired of living a life controlled by his addiction. When his family filed for involuntary treatment, he initially resisted the process. However, once admitted into the treatment facility, he realized that he wanted sobriety. After completing the program, this individual also described how he would not have been able to make any improvement in his life had the law not provided a means for his entry into treatment.
Unfortunately, not all stories have had a happy ending. In some cases, individuals have gone through the system; however, they still fail to find long-term recovery. One individual detailed how she experienced treatment after her family filed a petition for involuntary treatment. However, she has continuously struggled with addiction ever since, describing how she constantly focuses on her sobriety in order to stay clean. Others experiencing this cycle have described how addiction is a constant battle, one that requires ongoing attention and management.
In conclusion, Casey’s Law has had a significant impact on many families and loved ones struggling with addiction. Its ability to provide an opportunity for involuntary treatment has been credited with saving lives by several people who have struggled with addiction. Yet, for others, the law has highlighted the challenges associated with addiction, and it continues to be seen as a constant battle without a defined end.
Legal and Ethical Impacts
At the heart of any intervention statute, including Casey’s Law, is the tension between the needs of the individual and the needs of the state. On one hand, intervening in the life of an individual raises ethical concerns of autonomy. Proponents of Casey’s Law generally argue that the statute’s focus on rehabilitation as opposed to punishment demonstrates the law’s grounding in basic ethical notions of the duty to assist others, particularly those suffering from a disease. Those in favor of Casey’s Law have cited its success in helping individuals recover from substance abuse disorders when other treatment attempts have failed. Those opposing the law believe that such coercive efforts are far less humane than voluntary or family-supported treatment, and enter the conversation with anecdotal evidence of individuals being coerced to receive treatment and prevented from freely choosing not to enter or to leave treatment.
The ethical conversation is complemented by a legal context challenging the constitutionality of Casey’s Law. Casey’s Law, like many intervention laws, has been challenged on the basis that it violates an individual’s right to due process, in part because a court makes a significant, involuntary intrusion into the life of an individual. Casey’s Law specifically eliminates the necessity of a medical diagnosis, such that the court is permitted to order treatment based on the testimony of lay witnesses, a procedure opponents argue violates evidentiary standards. Critics also argue that Casey’s Law fails to offer sufficient procedural safeguards for an individual who is considered for involuntary treatment under the law, as its loss of liberty provisions involve a summary proceeding that cannot be immediately appealed. The courtroom hearing, long seen as a fair and open forum for individuals to make their case, is viewed by some as limited and unconstitutional under traditional standards of due process. As intervention statutes become more widespread, their critics will continue to challenge their validity as they do now.
Available Resources and Potential Sources of Assistance
Families considering Casey’s Law can access a number of resources, including those offered by substance abuse and mental health agencies. Lawyers in Kentucky can also help guide families through the intricacies of Casey’s Law. A lawyer with a strong focus on addiction law will have experience working with the Kentucky Administrative Office of the Courts on these cases, having filed them and fully understanding the process. For example, they will understand what standard of proof is necessary to prevail in a commitment hearing, and how to introduce appropriate evidence and prove the case to the court. While Kentucky has a different standard than many states for conducting an involuntary intervention for drug use, several public resources are available to help families and friends already involved in the voluntary intervention process. Having guidance from a Kentucky attorney with knowledge of substance abuse recovery programs can help give this process more direction.
Successes and Criticism of Casey’s Law
Anecdotal success stories often accompany many forms of rehabilitation, particularly when the addicted individual fears that the only option may be incarceration. Opposed to some of the more expensive and less useful rehabilitation programs available within the private treatment industry, there is a lot to be said about the potential offered by Casey’s Law, including the information that – based on reported statistics – up to roughly 50% of patients will remain sober three years after entering the program.
Despite the overall picture of the success that Casey’s Law can offer, there are nevertheless detractors who typical cite a variety of reasons why the law and its implementation in specific instances cannot be fully endorsed. Critics including the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) report that of those placed into treatment through Casey’s Law, only a third are released into community-based long-term treatment programs in an environment separate from the addicted person’s home environment. All too often, the third fraction of addicted individuals who do complete treatment return home to the same environment that ultimately created or exacerbated their addiction in the first place .
In addition, national data supports the idea that even individuals who successfully complete a 30-day program at a short-term treatment center have a 50% or greater chance of relapse within months. As a result of this potentially high number of recidivism, critics argue that Casey’s Law lacks true efficacy by placing addicted persons back in the environment of origin, where they will almost certainly return to their original social group of peers, which was also the source of the individual’s addiction in the first place.
Despite these criticisms, a local medical provider involved in the creation of Casey’s Law at the initiation of the program’s introduction in Kentucky and surrounding states reports that of those who take advantage of the law, 80% follow the recommendations of their treatment providers. NSLocalized studies on proponents of the law in Kentucky have revealed that those addicted people who do follow-through with those recommendations are more likely to follow-through with their addictions counseling.