I am asking Kentucky lawmakers to address gaps in our mental health crisis system that can leave families with few options when a loved one is experiencing severe mental illness and refuses treatment.

My mother’s case is one example of why additional safeguards should be considered.

 

Problem #1: A Court Approved Petition Expired and Left No Meaningful Path Forward

During the early stages of my mother’s last manic episode, I obtained a judge’s signature on a 202A petition. However, law enforcement was unable to locate her, and the petition expired after 48 hours without an evaluation ever taking place.

After the petition expired, I was unable to obtain additional signatures and was advised to pursue guardianship instead. Because of my mother’s severe paranoia, getting her to voluntarily attend appointments or submit to evaluations was nearly impossible, making the guardianship process extremely difficult to pursue.

 

Proposed Reform:

When a judge has determined that sufficient evidence exists to order a mental health evaluation, the order should remain active until it is executed or otherwise reviewed by the court. It should not become invalid simply because the individual was not located during the 48 hour allotted time frame.

Law enforcement should be required to make continued reasonable efforts to locate and transport the individual for evaluation until executed or otherwise reviewed by the court. Families should not be forced to restart the process or pursue guardianship simply because the individual was not located during the 48 hour allotted time frame.

 

Problem #2: A Missed Opportunity for Psychiatric Intervention

Later, after my mother was hospitalized following a car accident, there was another opportunity for intervention through emergency psychiatric hospitalization.

Despite her documented history of serious mental illness and prior involuntary psychiatric hospitalizations, she was not admitted for psychiatric treatment. A physician who was not a mental health specialist determined that she did not qualify for a 72 hour emergency admission based largely on a brief interaction, her refusal to voluntarily seek treatment, and the fact that she was not expressing suicidal thoughts.

 

Proposed Reform:

When substantial evidence suggests severe mental illness, providers should be required to consider available medical records, prior psychiatric hospitalizations, documented psychosis, court documents confirming a history of involuntary hospitalization petitions filed and credible information provided by family members before determining that psychiatric hospitalization or discharge is appropriate.

 

Problem #3: A Single Decision Determined the Outcome

The decision not to pursue psychiatric hospitalization was ultimately based on the judgment of a single provider despite significant evidence suggesting ongoing psychiatric instability.

 

Proposed Reform:

When substantial evidence suggests severe mental illness, decisions regarding psychiatric discharge should not rely solely on the judgment of a single provider. Additional review by another qualified mental health professional or treatment team should be considered in high risk cases.

 

The Outcome:

Shortly after being discharged, my mother wandered off in the middle of the night while everyone in the house was asleep during a manic episode, a behavior that was documented in previous 202A petitions.

She was never seen alive again.

Months later, her remains were found in a wooded area. It is believed she suffered a fall, became unable to get up, and died from exposure to the elements.

 

While no one can know with certainty what would have happened, reforms such as these may have provided additional opportunities for intervention in my mother’s case and may have prevented her death.

Mental illness is a medical condition. Families seeking help should encounter a system designed to intervene before a tragedy occurs, not after.

If you support improving Kentucky’s mental health crisis laws, please sign and share this petition to support “Lisa’s Law”.