Background:

Determining a defendant’s eligibility for mental health diversion is a vital legal framework aimed at diverting individuals with mental health disorders from incarceration to treatment programs, fostering recovery and easing pressures on the judicial system. This case study explores a scenario of a 33-year-old Mexican American female defendant, referred to here as “Jane Doe,” who was referred to our office for a mental health diversion evaluation. Our evaluation revealed that Jane was did meet criteria for mental health diversion and her attorney did confirm that the judge granted her mental health diversion. 

 

Case Details:

Jane Doe faced charges of Battery on a Spouse/Cohabitant. During the preliminary court hearings, her defense attorney expressed concerns regarding her mental condition at the time of the incident, suggesting it significantly influenced the alleged assault. The attorney noted that Jane was intoxicated during the event and exhibited various mood-related symptoms. Crucially, her attorney emphasized that Jane was currently not in custody, was behaviorally and psychiatrically stable, and held full-time employment at the time of the evaluation referral. This underscored the defense’s intention to facilitate Jane’s access to community treatment for the symptoms that contributed to the incident. The defense argued that incarcerating Jane would only exacerbate her instability, rather than provide the necessary treatment and services. As a result, the defense filed a motion for a mental health diversion evaluation in accordance with California Penal Code 1001.36.

 

Jane’s history included: 

  • Jane was born and raised in Los Angeles and indicated that her upbringing was marked by chaos, as she lived with her mother and stepfather and was exposed to domestic violence between them. Jane is estranged for all of her biological family and had no formal or informal supports at the time of the evaluation
  • Jane has a 12-year-old son whose father has primary custody. She reported a history of domestic violent relationships. 
  • Jane reported a history of physical, sexual and emotional abuse. She was molested by an uncle, raped by her stepfather and physically abused by her mother from ages seven to fourteen.
  • Jane reported going to therapy at age 15 after she started to engage in self-harm (cutting) due to the sexual abuse. She reported a previous diagnosis of depression and anxiety. Additionally, she had one previous suicide attempt at 16. 
  • She dropped out of high school after 9th grade due to her mother sending her to live in Mexico after she disclosed the sexual abuse from her stepfather. 
  • She has a long history of working in restaurants as a server. 
  • Jane has an extensive history of substance abuse, including marijuana, alcohol, cocaine, ecstasy, acid, and shrooms, starting as early as age 15.  

 

California Penal Code 1001.36:

Purpose: outlines the specific conditions that must be satisfied for a defendant to qualify for mental health diversion, specifying the eligibility criteria, the role of mental health professionals, and the responsibilities of the judiciary to guarantee adequate support. Focus: CA PC 1001.36 aims to redirect individuals with mental health challenges away from the criminal justice system and into suitable treatment options. It evaluates several criteria: the presence of a mental disorder in the defendant, excluding Antisocial Personality Disorder, Borderline Personality Disorder, and Pedophilic Disorder; the extent to which the mental disorder significantly contributed to the defendant’s criminal actions; the potential for the defendant’s symptoms, which led to the criminal behavior, to improve with mental health treatment; the defendant’s willingness to adhere to treatment as a condition for diversion; and the assessment of whether the defendant would pose an unreasonable risk to public safety, as outlined in PC 1170.18, if treated within the community.

 

California Penal Code 1170.18

Purpose: CA PC 1170.18 Petition for resentencing for conviction of nonserious or nonviolent crimes. Focus: CA PC 1170.18 Per the statute, an “unreasonable risk to public safety” is defined as a reasonable risk that the defendant will commit one of the following types of offenses: sexually violent offenses, oral copulation with a child under 14, sodomy with a child under 14, sexual penetration of a child under 14, lewd act with child under 14, homicide or attempted homicide, assault with a machine gun on a peace officer or firefighter, solicitation to commit murder, possession of a weapon of mass destruction, any serious or violent felony punishable by life imprisonment or death.

 

Evaluation:

Jane underwent a psychiatric evaluation along with a Historical Clinical Risk Management-20, Version 3 (HCR-20-V3) risk assessment to evaluate her potential risk to public safety if she were to be treated in a community setting. Furthermore, standardized trauma assessments were utilized for diagnostic clarification, given her extensive trauma history. These assessments included the Detailed Assessment of PTSD Symptoms (DAPS) and the Trauma Symptom Inventory, Second Edition (TSI-2). Although collateral contacts from friends or family were sought, Jane indicated that she was estranged from her family. Additional psychiatric records were requested beyond the initial discovery, including a felony complaint, police report, and RAP sheet; however, these documents were not available at the time of the evaluation.

 

Findings and Conclusion:

We concluded that Jane did meet the criteria for mental health diversion. Our report highlighted:

  • Jane’s diagnosis of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, Chronic, Major Depressive Disorder, Moderate, Recurrent, Alcohol Use Disorder, Mild and Cannabis Use Disorder, Mild. 
  • Jane’s mental disorder of MDD, PTSD, and alcohol use disorder played a significant role in committing the alleged offenses. Highlighting the nexus between her trauma startled response and being under the influence of alcohol leading her to become physically aggressive with her ex-boyfriend. 
  • If Jane attends and participates in outpatient trauma-focused and evidence-based treatment, the symptoms responsible for the offense would respond to treatment. Additionally, the report provided treatment recommendations and contact information for follow up. 
  • It addressed the fact that Jane agreed to participate in mental health treatment as a condition of diversion at the time of this evaluation. 
  • Lastly the risk assessment address historical risk factors, clinical risk factors, Jane’s primary critical risk factors and risk management strategies, outlining that Jane will not pose an unreasonable risk to public safety, as defined in PC1170/18 if allowed to participate and be treated in the community.

Based on this comprehensive evaluation, the court granted Jane mental health diversion for outpatient mental health treatment and NA/AA classes.  

 

Implications for Forensic Psychology Practice:

This case highlights the pressing issue of untreated mental health disorders resulting in incarceration, paving the way for potential solutions. It serves as a success story that illustrates the challenges posed by untreated mental health conditions and the positive impacts of implementing PC 1001.36 diversion programs. These programs have demonstrated significant reductions in recidivism rates, enhancements in mental health outcomes, successful treatment completions, and decreased costs associated with court proceedings and incarceration. The effectiveness of these initiatives not only aids individuals but also fosters a more compassionate and efficient approach to mental health care. There is an increasing acknowledgment of the critical role that mental health diversion plays in the broader context of justice reform.