CO's Landmark Goebel Case & How the CO Legislature Amended the Law in an Attempt to Prevent Such a Case From Being Brought in the Future.

The Case

Denver Post
Lawsuit's End Restarts Battle for Mental Care
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_3715392

Westword
A Badly Altered State
http://www.westword.com/news/a-badly-altered-state-5064246

Colorado Supreme Court in Goebel v. Dept. of Institutions (1992)
http://law.justia.com/cases/colorado/supreme-court/1992/91sc218-0.html

The Care and Treatment Act was enacted in substantially its present form in 1973 and provides comprehensively for the commitment, care and treatment of persons who are mentally ill and, as a result of mental illness, a danger to others or to themselves or gravely disabled.

 The act encompasses both voluntary and involuntary treatment, to be administered in designated hospitals and other mental health facilities. Id., 764 P.2d at 796 (emphasis added). Although we specifically mentioned those who are dangerous or gravely disabled in our description of the general scheme of the Act, the opinion in its entirety interpreted the Act to encompass all mentally ill persons.

 Our language, recognizing that the purposes of the Act extend "comprehensively to address the needs of all mentally ill persons," supports this reading of the opinion. Id. Such language logically *1043 includes those who voluntarily seek treatment before they reach the point of mental illness resulting in grave disablement or danger to themselves or others.

The trial court here misconstrued our language in Goebel I to limit the meaning of "voluntary" to those who voluntarily seek treatment, but could be involuntarily treated. 

We did not intend to impose such a limitation then, and we see no reason to so limit section 27-10-116 now. 

We conclude that the trial court's certification of the class under C.R.C.P. 23 is too narrow, and that the class should be construed to include those who voluntarily receive mental health services and could not be involuntarily committed.

The Original Attorneys

James W. Dean, Legal Aid Soc. of Metropolitan Denver, Inc.
(when Legal Aid could still legally do Class Actions)

Kathleen Mullen, Law Offices of Kathleen Mullen, Denver.

Rodney R. Patula, Pryor, Carney & Johnson, P.C., Englewood, for Colo. Lawyers Committee.

The Amendment
to Colorado's Care and Treatment of Persons with Mental Illness Act

CRS 27-65-101 (see below)
(a) To secure for each person who may have a mental illness such care and treatment as will be suited to the needs of the person and to insure that such care and treatment are skillfully and humanely administered with full respect for the person's dignity and personal integrity; 

(b) To deprive a person of his or her liberty for purposes of treatment or care only when less restrictive alternatives are unavailable and only when his or her safety or the safety of others is endangered; ( ...... provide the fullest possible measure of privacy, dignity, and other rights to persons undergoing care and treatment for mental illness;

 (d) To encourage the use of voluntary rather than coercive measures to provide treatment and care for mental illness and to provide such treatment and care in the least restrictive setting;

 (e) To provide appropriate information to family members  ...... location and fact of admission of a person with a mental illness to inpatient or residential care and treatment; 

(f) To encourage the appropriate participation of family members in the care and treatment of a person with a mental illness and, when appropriate, to provide information to family members  ...... order to facilitate such participation; and

 (g) To facilitate the recovery and resiliency of each person who receives care and treatment under this article.

(2) To carry out these purposes, subject to available appropriations, the provisions of this article shall be liberally construed

[Surprise, surprise -- "subject to available appropriations" got added after Goebel -- AND another big shock it costs money to adequately fund a mental health system which Colorado has stubbornly refused to do with tragic consequences.]