Source: http://www.toddlertime.com/advocacy/5150/rights/applying-the-law-9.htm
Timestamp: 2018-12-17 15:52:44
Document Index: 647867610

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 5600', '§ 7296', '§ 5600', '§ 5600', '§ 72529', '§ 865']

﻿ APPLYING THE LAW
The right to participate in the development of individualized treatment and services planning (Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 5600.03).
All mental health facilities must:
The bilingual staffing requirement applies when five percent or more of the people served by the agency either do not speak English or are unable to communicate effectively in English because it is not their native language.
(Cal. Gov’t Code § 7296.2).
2. Right to Aftercare/Discharge Planning.
Mental health clients have a right to access services and programs which promote a satisfying life in the least restrictive environment (Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 5600.1).
Patients should be the central and deciding figure in all planning for their individual needs (Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 5600.2(a)).
a. A functional assessment of the patient's level of daily living skills, such as personal care and grooming, health maintenance, communication, food preparation, vocation and employment;
b. The specific programs and services required so that he/she can minimize future confinement and receive further mental health services in the least restrictive setting; such specific programs and services include:
Advocates should assist patients in assuring that: 1) patients are in fact being included in their treatment and placement planning; 2) discharge criteria is appropriate and is not vague; 3) the discharge/placement plan is the least restrictive environment; and 4) patients are receiving sufficient notice of discharge. Failure to comply with state statutory aftercare/discharge plan requirements is a denial of a patient's rights.
4. Theft and Loss of Property.
Also, existing regulations covering community care and skilled nursing facilities require the facility to keep residents' money and valuables separate, intact, and free from any incumbrance. (22 C.C.R. §§ 72529, 80026).
a. That the exercise of the specific right would be injurious to the patient; or
b. That there is evidence that the specific right, if exercised, would seriously infringe on the rights of others; or
c. That the institution or facility would suffer serious damage if the specific right is not denied; and
d. And that there is no less restrictive way of protecting the interest specified in a, b or c above.
(9 C.C.R. § 865.2).
1. Is there a right?
2. Can that right be denied?
3. Is it an absolute denial or a restriction?
4. If restriction, is it within reasonable limits (i.e., coffee in a.m. and meals, regular visiting hours)?
5. Is there a reason given for the denial?
6. Does the reason constitute "good cause"?
7. Is the reason given for the denial related to the right denied?
8. Were there less restrictive alternatives tried to address the reason prior to denying the right?
9. Was the denial punishment, substitute for programming or for staff convenience?
10. Was the denial properly document?
11. Was the denial properly documented?
12. Was the right restored when good cause no longer existed?