"How the state and county circumvent and violate state mental health law
I'm still working on a petition to the Supreme Court of the United States. As I was looking up laws and regulations, this once again came to light. On the day I was picked up and interviewed, I filled out, signed and dated a "DMHSAS Designation of Treatment Advocate". The form says:
"Each person served by a licensed mental health provider or organization has the right to name a Treatment Advocate. This can be someone with whom you would like to partner during your course of treatment. A Treatment Advocate should be someone you trust and whose advice you value, such as a family member, spouse or partner, or a friend or representative from an advocacy organization. You have the right to set limits regarding the level of involvement of the person you select and you have the right to change your selection at any time. You also have the right not to name a Treatment Advocate. If you choose to name a Treatement Advocate, this person must agree to serve and adhere with all policies and rules addressing confidentiality."
This is governed by Oklahoma State Code Title 43A, sections 1-109.1 (including, "The individual designated as a treatment advocate shall act at all times in the best interests of the consumer"), 3-424.B ("the right to communicate with legal counsel, a treatment advocate, or the Department may not be denied."), and 4-107a.B ("the right to communicate ... may not be denied").
Further, the regulations of the Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services state: 450:15-3-18. Right to consultant opinions
(a) Every consumer has the right to request the opinion of an outside medical or psychiatric consultant at his or her own expense and the facility shall not impede access between the consultant and the consumer.
(b) Every consumer shall have a right to an internal consultation upon request, at no expense. The second opinion shall become part of the consumer record.
(c) The facility's medical director shall review the second opinion as well as the treatment team's opinion and shall document decision.
Governance by the Hippocratic Oath is questionable, at best.
I filled out this form, dated 8/3/10, and wrote: "Dr Beaman OU Psych Dept 619-4400". I wanted the O.U. Psychiatric Clinic involved because I had been going there for the previous seven years for medication management for depression and PTSD, demonstrating that I took my medication faithfully (after all, I had asked for something to help me deal with an internal hell) and had not committed or planned any violence. I expected the O.U. Psych Clinic to point these things out in my defense and mediate my "treatment".
Instead, on August 6, 2010, District Court Judge Theresa Dreiling filed a court paper declaring that TCBH held the medical information that "is not available elsewhere and can only be obtained from the detaining and/or treating facility". That is patently false. I had not only been consulting with the O.U. Psychiatric Clinic for the previous seven years, but also with the O.U. Adult Medicine, and then Family Medicine Clinics.
The TCBH Psychiatrist who was allegedly treating me, Dr. Lori C. Miller, who signed as a "witness", mental health evaluator, and petitioner for detention and commitment, informed me that I could not talk to Dr. Beaman, or for that matter anyone else at the O.U. Psychiatric Clinic. Her excuse - they were "not admitted to practice" at TCBH. When I got someone in supposed authority from the O.U. Psychiatric Clinic on the phone to beg them to intervene on my behalf, that person refused to become involved, claiming they couldn't. ODMHSAS regulations state that a "consumer" has a right to at least an internal second opinion. After I applied for one, a psychiatric technician, one of the grunts on the floor, informed me that it had been decided above his pay grade that I just wasn't going to get one.
Well that's understandable. If psychiatrists at TCBH (paid by the State of Oklahoma) are going to pick out who needs to be their captive patients and get them committed by the County District Court without any fuss, it just won't do to have any exculpatory information come to light. And it won't do to have another arm of the State mental health system interfering, just because someone has been a patient there for most of a decade. That would all have to be repressed regardless of any State law or regulation, or any Constitutional right to due process or equal protection. I suppose that complaining about this state of affairs, as best one can, is what U.S. Federal District Court Judge Terrance Kern refers to as "frivolous", and even "illogical".
In Barefoot v. Estelle (1983) the Supreme Court of the United States says of the duties of federal courts in death penalty cases, "They need not, and should not, however, fail to give nonfrivolous claims of constitutional error the careful attention they deserve." But in our system of justice, it seems this can't apply to cases of false involuntary commitment; in order to justify the indefinite imprisonment of a single sexual predator in Kansas v. Hendricks (1997), the Supreme Court has declared that it is not possible for such imprisonments to be "punitive", because they are "treatment".
Faced with a mental health system that would betray us even after we ask for help and spend years within it, and faced with the kind of justice that, for the sake of twisting logic in the cases of a few, rolls over us like a plague and then refuses to hear our pleas, it is no wonder that our society is more violent than others. "