State v. T.C.

For a court to grant conditional release from an involuntary-commitment order, that the committed person must prove that the conditional release would be in their best interest, and that they would be adequately supervised by an able caretaker.

Appellant seeks reversal of an involuntary-commitment order pursuant to ORS 426. Appellant argues that the trial court erred by committing him to the Oregon Health Authority (OHA), instead of conditionally releasing him to his wife’s care. The state argues that appellant did not meet his burden of proof that his wife could care for him. ORS 426.125 sets out what conditions must be met for the court to issue conditional release, including the ability of a caretaker to care for the mentally ill person, and whether conditional release is in that person’s best interest. The Court determined that because the appellant’s suicide attempts have become increasingly severe, and appellant would require 24 hour supervision that conditional release was neither in appellant’s best interest, nor could appellant’s wife be an adequate caretaker. Affirmed.