Opinion ID: 1364184
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: placement hearing

Text: (8) Appellant contends that immediately following the jury's finding that he was mentally retarded and a danger to himself or others the court should have held a hearing to determine the least restrictive placement facility in which appellant could be placed. Such a hearing is not required. Section 6509 provides that [i]f the court finds that the person is mentally retarded ... the court may make an order that the person be committed to the State Department of Health for hospitalization. Appellant contends that use of the word may in section 6509 renders the provisions of that section permissive, thus requiring that the availability of alternate placements be considered by the court. This interpretation is incorrect. No statutory power is given to the court to do other than to commit the dangerous mentally retarded person to the Department of Health for hospitalization. Such an interpretation is consistent with section 6502 which requires that the petition filed under section 6500 shall seek a commitment to state hospital. The Legislature did not vest the courts with the power to determine the precise institutional placement that should be made. Courts are ill-suited for this task which is more properly the function of an appropriate medical administrative agency. (9) Appellant nonetheless contends that because former Health and Safety Code section 38009.2, now Welfare and Institutions Code section 6513, provides for placement in the least restrictive residential facility in the case of developmentally disabled persons who are subjects of civil commitment proceedings, equal protection principles therefore mandate that we read into section 6509 such a provision for least restrictive placement in the case of a dangerous mentally retarded person. We conclude, however, that there is a rational basis for the distinction made by the Legislature between the placement procedures to be followed in regard to these two classes of individuals. The Legislature has determined that in the case of the dangerous mentally retarded person the only suitable treatment is confinement in a state hospital. A similar result does not necessarily follow in the case of the developmentally disabled person because no finding of dangerousness is required for commitment of the latter. Assuming, for purposes of discussion, that a strict scrutiny test is the proper equal protection standard to be applied in the instant case because of the liberty interest involved, there exists a clear and compelling state interest in the classification in issue. By very definition, in the case of the dangerous mentally retarded person, the state has a strong interest in protecting the general public, other patients, and the institutional personnel, from physical harm. Hospitalization in a state hospital serves to guarantee such protection, providing as it does the requisite trained assistants to restrain those who may become violent. Accordingly, appellant's equal protection argument must fail.