Yes. Mine were ok. Good for knowledge but my sarcasm got the best of me at times. Got in big trouble telling an obnoxious member of the publix “This isn’t Burger King, you don’t get to have it your way”. I love that line.
15 Likes
I think the average person would feel terrible or would never go to such length to harm someone.
But I honestly do not know if LK is capable of empathy. JMHO.
Oh, there are. There are much worse human beings than LK as well. There is a dark nature to some human beings that exists. It keeps me up at night sometimes.
As far as paying for care - to be blunt, some patients are violent and destructive. They can cause a lot of property damage. There are also instances where they commit a crime inpatient and must be removed from the program. Both circumstances could accumulate costs for the patient. Doesn’t mean standard patients are obligated to pay.
4 Likes
#1 What you think is relevant is completely irrelevant.
#2 Whether or not the insanity / delusion continues is completely irrelevant.
The ONLY thing that is relevant in a Krol hearing is whether or not - in the opinion of expert mental health professionals - the person in question posed a danger to himself or to others. Period. That’s it.
Lots of people are “insane” and pose no threat to themselves or others. Lots of people have delusions and pose no threat to themselves or others.
Why do you refuse to accept this simple basic truth? It was explained to you numerous times around the time of the hearing. It has been very patiently explained to you numerous times since.
Forget what you “think” the purpose of the Krol hearing was because you are wrong about that. Focus on what the actual, legal purpose of the hearing was. It’s very clear, and very easy to understand. For most people anyway.
32 Likes
6 Likes
I make a wicked good homemade deep dish Chicago-style pizza, from scratch. No wood fired oven though, sadly, and I make it so rarely because I need more than two people to finish one. I can eat about one slice, maybe two if I’m really hungry.
3 Likes
A friend of mine had a pretty challenging horse a few years back. He told me he tried every single bit he had on the property on that horse, including the bits that had been hanging on the wall in the lounge as decorations for decades.
I feel like Mod1 may end up using that approach here soon with the pulley rein. Lol.
19 Likes
When my family comes by for dinner I make 2 pan pizzas while the. pizza stone heats, then flat pizzas, not any particular style other than what we like. Serious Eats has good recipes. We cook on our Big Green Egg
4 Likes
Horrifying and probably why I love my little life with animals.
7 Likes
Here is what I think the judge may have issued MB. I expect him to be out of the psychiatric hospital and in some kind of a monitored home and continuing intensive treatment at the end of the 6 months (unless he does something dangerous).
C. CONDITIONAL EXTENSION PENDING PLACEMENT (CEPP) PURSUANT TO RULE 4:74-7(h) (2)
-
The Court may enter an order of CEPP when a patient no longer satisfies the standard for involuntary commitment, but cannot be discharged to live on his/her own or with family and there is no appropriate placement immediately available, an order of conditional extension pending placement (CEPP) should be entered.16 The intent of this order is to discharge the patient as soon as an appropriate placement is found. When a CEPP Order is entered, the patient is no longer committed.
16 CEPP was formerly known as DPP (Discharged Pending Placement). The DPP status originated by administrative order of Chief Justice Hughes, dated July 28, 1978, and its concept was not incorporated
32 -
CEPP is not appropriate for patients who have a place to live but for whom the hospital has not yet made arrangements for follow-up care in the community. Matter of Commitment of G.G., 272 N.J. Super. 597 (App. Div. 1994); see also Matter of Commitment of B.L., supra, 346 N.J.Super. at 308; In re Commitment of M.C., 385 N.J.Super. 151,162 (App. Div. 2006). The Court should not order CEPP where there is no evidence presented of “the unavailability of an appropriate placement.” Matter of Commitment of G.G., supra, 272 N.J. Super. at 605. The term “appropriate placement” as used in R. 4:74-(h)(2) refers to a facility that will provide continuing support and assistance through the day to people who are incapable of survival on their own e.g…, elderly patients who have lost their personal capacity to survive due to the effects of prolonged hospitalization. In re S.L., supra., 94 N.J. at 139-140. The phrase “appropriate placement” must be based on the justification for the CEPP exception to the general rule requiring release of those who are not dangerous within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.2h, i. Justification is based on the patient’s incapacity to survive. In re S.L., supra., 94 N.J. at 140; In re Commitment of M.C., supra, 385 N.J.Super. at 163. CEPP is not a fallback option when the state cannot implement a discharge plan within 48 hours. Nor is it a means through which the judge may delay a conditional release. In re Commitment of M.C., supra. Fear of potential relapse and recidivism is not legally sufficient to maintain an individual on CEPP status. I/M/O Commitment of T.J., 401 N.J.Super. 111 (App. Div. 2008).
-
Once an order of CEPP has been entered, the individual can be recommitted only if the procedures of N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.1 et seq. and R. 4:74-7 are met. A CEPP Order cannot be summarily revoked. In re S.L., supra, 94 N.J. at 143, fn. 11. (See also Section II above.)
-
When a judgment of CEPP is entered, the court “shall inquire into the needs of the individual for custodial and supportive care, the desires of the individual regarding placement, the type of facility the would provide the needed level of care in the least restrictive manner, the availability of such placement, the efforts of the state to locate such placement and any other matters it deems pertinent. In re: S.L., supra.
into a court rule until January 1, 1988. The court rule was adopted after the Supreme Court’s opinion In re S.L., supra, directed the Supreme Court’s Task Force on Mental Commitments to recommend a rule.
33 -
If DDD is involved the court should inquire into whether eligibility has been established for DDD, and what efforts are being made by hospital to facilitate placement. See In re Matter of B.R., 202 N.J.Super. 182 (App. Div. 1985) (In most cases the commitment court cannot require DDD to provide services before DDD has made a determination of eligibility).
-
As long as the patient remains physically in the hospital under a CEPP Order, his/her case must receive periodic review. Such a review is known as a “CEPP review hearing” or “placement review hearing” to differentiate it from periodic review of a patient still under an order of involuntary commitment.
-
The first such placement review hearing is held within 60 days from the entry of the CEPP judgment. Prior to the review hearing, the hospital employee who has primary responsibility for placing the patient shall prepare a written report and shall make it available to the court and all counsel no later than one business day prior to the hearing. R. 4:74-7(h)(2). At the placement review hearing, the Court:
a. reviews the needs and desires of the patient regarding placement and the recommendations of the hospital regarding placement.
b. reviews the efforts made by the hospital to locate a suitable placement. The court “must determine whether the State has undertaken all good faith efforts necessary to place the individual in an appropriate setting outside the mental institution.” In re S.L., supra. 94 N.J. at 141. If the court is advised that an appropriate placement is available, it shall order such placement. R. 4:74-7 (h) (2).
c. determines whether in the interim the hospital has placed the individual in the least restrictive setting in the institution.
d. determines whether “all reasonable efforts within available resources (are being) made to improve the individual’s ability to function in a placement outside the hospital.” In re S.L., supra, 94 N.J. at 141.
e. reviews the written report prepared by the employee who has primary responsibility for placing the patient. This report
34
shall be made available to the court and to counsel at least one business day prior to the hearing. R. 4:74-7 (h) (2).
8. If the court is not satisfied as to the sufficiency of the hospital’s efforts, an appropriate Order may be entered.
9. If placement has not been accomplished by the time of the first placement review hearing, the court should set the matter down for a second placement review hearing no later than six months after the initial CEPP hearing. Subsequent placement review hearings shall occur at least every six months until the individual is physically discharged. The court shall inquire into the same factors as in the initial placement review hearing. R. 4:74-7 (h) (2).
10. The patient has the right to counsel in all placement review hearings. R. 4:74-7 (h) (2)
11. Notice of the date, time and place of all such hearings shall be given to the patient and his/her counsel no later than ten days prior to the hearing. At the placement review hearing, counsel has the right to introduce evidence and cross-examine. Counsel is also entitled to inspect and copy all records relating to the patient’s condition (including clinical chart and records relating to placement) in advance of the hearing. R. 4:74-7 (h) (2).
12. If an appropriate placement becomes available in the interval between hearings, the patient must be administratively discharged to such placement. R. 4:74-7 (h) (2).
13. Court has discretion to require that a report be submitted by the parties within a six-month period following placement as to the overall adequacy of the placement. In re S.L., supra, 94 N.J. at 141- 42.
14. At any time thereafter, any party or the court on its own motion may reinstitute proceedings concerning the individual’s placement. In re S.L., supra, 94 N.J. at 142.
3
1 Like
Your copy and paste skills are top notch!! Bravo
20 Likes
There is a lot of discussion on heroin and drug abuse and I was reflecting on the abuse of legal and illegal substances. The Plaid Horse recently had an article on the subject of drug abuse in the horse world.
2 Likes
For the civil lawsuit, I think the jury will find him responsible for her medical bills for the shooting but maybe not anything more on the pain and suffering line.
I don’t think the subpoenas for the parents will come to anything. Yes, I agree it was odd that they didn’t respond but I also think it was understandable. I think the parents were aghast that the man they trusted would shoot their daughter. I think it was just emotional avoidance.
But, once again IANAL.
2 Likes
Based on comments made across social media it seems most people believe scenarios of self defense or accidental discharge of a gun during a physical altercation. That’s where the facts point.
When determining possible civil case outcomes it’s helpful to consider how other people see it. The SM comments are clear.
24 Likes
2 Likes
Maybe. I think though that the SM posts are guided by people who either know or have followed MB for years and just struggle with the scenario. I don’t think a jury will see it the same way.
You may be right.
I know I’m right.
17 Likes
Unless they settle, we will find out eventually. I’m still hoping they settle.
That’s laughable
18 Likes
How embarrassing for the K’s.
8 Likes
blah, blah, blah, who cares. you’ve said it a million times. On and on, and on…
12 Likes
