But I wanted to mention only the former, and even then, only briefly. The holding is an unremarkable one: that when deciding whether someone's "gravely disabled" and hence can be involuntarily institutionalized, whether they refuse to take medication is simply a factor -- not a prerequisite -- to such a determination. That seems entirely right.
The thing that struck me about the opinion, however, were the facts of this particular case. You read a lot of Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPS) opinions in the Court of Appeal, and in nearly all of them, you walk away from the fact section by saying: "Oh my goodness, this person is totally crazy, and definitely needs help." The stuff they do is ordinarily beyond bizarre (and scary).
But in today's opinion, the "evidence" recited by the California Supreme Court for K.P. needing to be institutionalized -- for nine-plus years, no less -- is quite underwhelming. And, sure, I realize that the case isn't about his particular facts (it's more about the underlying legal standard), but still, it was a little surprising that the opinion thought that all we needed to know about the evidence of K.P.'s disorder was what was mentioned.
Here's what Justice Corrigan says about K.P.:
"The Los Angeles County Superior Court established a
conservatorship for 23-year-old K.P. in May 2008 and renewed
it annually over the next nine years. In April 2018, the county’s
public guardian (Public Guardian) filed another renewal petition, alleging K.P. remained gravely disabled. This time,
K.P. demanded a jury trial.
A psychologist from K.P.’s residential facility testified that
he suffered from schizophrenia, with auditory hallucinations
and paranoid delusions. For example, on the morning of trial he
asked to enter a witness protection program because he believed
a fellow resident was planning to attack him. In another
incident, K.P. chased and threatened someone he believed had
intentionally hit him with a basketball. He could not be
redirected and was hospitalized. K.P. also displayed “grossly
disorganized behaviors,” lack of motivation, and difficulty
speaking and socializing. The psychologist concluded K.P.
lacked significant insight into his disorder. He minimized his
symptoms and believed they were caused by medications. His
mother had expressed the same belief. K.P. resisted taking his
prescriptions or participating in therapy and other services. The
psychologist concluded K.P. could not provide for his basic needs
without medication and did not believe he would take them
consistently or correctly without a conservator’s supervision.
The day before trial, K.P. almost gave himself a double dose of
one potentially toxic pharmaceutical. The psychologist believed
K.P. needed round-the-clock supervision and lacked the
initiative and insight necessary to obtain treatment himself.
Although he had opportunities to do so, K.P. had never left the
facility without his therapist or mother."
That stuff isn't really on the "totally crazy" side of the "crazy" to "incredibly sane" spectrum, is it? The first thing the opinion mentions is that he wanted protection from a fellow detainee who he thought was planning to attack him. But, like, maybe the detainee was planning to attack him, right? The guy's in a mental institution, after all. Maybe some crazy guy there was out to get him. To paraphrase Joseph Heller, it's not paranoia if they're in fact after you. Second, the Court says that in another "incident" K.P. chased and threatened someone who "he believed had intentionally hit him with a basketball." But I've seen totally sane people do that tons of times on the basketball court. Maybe the guy did throw a basketball at him on purpose. That'd hack me off too. The opinion just seems to assume that all these things were "hallucinations and paranoid delusions" -- without any evidence at all that they weren't real.
Then there's K.P.'s alleged "lack of motivation, and difficulty speaking and socializing." Maybe it's just San Diego, but the number of perfectly sane people here whom I could accurately describe as less than motivated and/or subpar at conversation and socialization is fairly high. Doesn't make 'em crazy. And, yeah, K.P. didn't want to take medication -- like a ton of sane people (and need I compare K.P. in this regard to the millions of people who don't want to get vaccinated for COVID?) -- and almost took a double dose of medication accidentally once, but again, I think that can describe a ton of people, both young and old.
I'm not saying that K.P. doesn't need help. Probably he does. I just thought there'd be a lot more in the opinion about his particular problems taking care of himself. Because, trust me, in most of these cases, the person really is gravely disabled. So I was surprised that the facts the California Supreme Court recited as the background for why this particular person gets hospitalized for nine-plus years were so seemingly slim.
