Administrative Regulation  Promulgation of Standards of Judicial Practice, Civil Commitment and Authorization of Medical Treatment for Mental Illness

Date:	04/04/2019
Organization:	District Court Department of the Trial Court
Referenced Sources:	District Court

District Court Administrative Regulation No. 4-79 

Amended April 4, 2019

Amendments

Administrative Regulation 4-79 is hereby amended as follows: 

The provisions of the Standards of Judicial Practice, Civil Commitment and Authorization of Medical Treatment for Mental Illness, Specifically, sec. 4:00 as revised in light of the Supreme Judicial Court’s decision in Matter of M.C., 481 Mass. 336 (2019), are hereby promulgated for use in the District Court Department.

Note

The Civil Commitment Standards were first promulgated by Chief Justice Samuel E. Zoll in 1979. They were developed by the District Court Committee on Mental Health, consisting of Hon. George N. Covett (Brockton), Chair, Hon. Morris N. Gould (Worcester), Hon. Arlyne F. Hassett (Waltham), Hon. George N. Hurd (Brockton), Hon. Walter J. Moossa (Westborough), Hon. Alvertus J. Morse (Northampton), William J. O'Neil, Esq., Executive Director, Mental Health Legal AdvisorsCommittee, and Hon. Maurice H. Richardson (Dedham), with the assistance of James A. Robbins, Esq., Administrative Attorney in the Administrative Office of the District Court. The Committee dedicated their work to Chief Justice Franklin N. Flaschner, who had died untimely before its completion, and to Committee member Hon. Morris N. Gould, who had since retired. 

As the Committee noted,

“Judge Flaschner recognized the unique problems which these sensitive and often complex cases present for judges and other personnel in the context of a sometimes hectic community court system in which the court’s time and attention are in demand by great numbers of litigants, most of whom are far more able to assert their positions than is the typical respondent in a psychiatric commitment case. The late Chief Justice was a nationally recognized leader and prolific writer in this area . . . . His leadership and his commission of the District Court Committee on Mental Health have served and continue to serve to improve the performance of the District Courts in this as in other areas of law and judicial administration. 

“Judge Gould was a charter member and a primary member of the Committee which produced these standards . . . . His contributions were invaluable. He administered and heard most of the civil commitment cases in central Massachusetts, and did so in a way which brought great credit to our system in the eyes of all involved, in no small measure because of the great human concern which he exhibited toward the less fortunate members of society. His decisions and opinions in this area, both as a trial judge and as a member of the Appellate Division, have provided us with a proud legacy.”

In 2011, Chief Justice of the District Court Lynda M. Connolly promulgated revised Standards. At that time, she made the following acknowledgment,

“Three decades of experience and many significant appellate decisions and statutory amendments have made a comprehensive revision of the Standards necessary, as well as their expansion to include the District Court’s responsibility since 1986 for substituted judgment decisions concerning medical treatment of mental illness for incompetent civilly committed persons. I am grateful to Hon. Rosemary B. Minehan (Plymouth), Regional Administrative Judge for Region 1 and Chair of the District Court Committee on Mental Health and Substance Abuse, for undertaking this complex task. Thanks are also due Hon. Michael J. Brooks (Natick), Regional Administrative Judge for Region 4; Michael H. Cohen, Esq., Supervising Counsel at Bridgewater State Hospital; Hon. Kevan J. Cunningham (First Justice, Taunton); Hon. Paul F. LoConto (Worcester), Regional Administrative Judge for Region 5; and Debra A. Pinals, M.D., Assistant Commissioner of Forensic Mental Health Services, Massachusetts Department of Mental Health, for their thoughtful review and suggestions. A special word of thanks to Lester Blumberg, Esq., General Counsel, Massachusetts Department of Public Health; Stan Goldman, Esq., Director, Mental Health Litigation Division, Committee for Public Counsel Services; Michael T. Porter, Esq., of Connor & Hilliard, P.C.; and John M. Connors, Esq., former Deputy Court Administrator in the Administrative Office of the District Court, for their contributions of expertise, thoughtful input, and extensive drafting.”

Unlike rules of court, the Standards of Judicial Practice are not mandatory in application. They represent a qualitative judgment as to best practices in each of the various aspects of the civil commitment procedure. As such, each court should strive for compliance with the Standards and should treat them as a statement of desirable practice to be departed from only with good cause. In addition, many references are made throughout the Standards to provisions of statutory and case law which, of course, must be observed. 

These Standards may be amended from time to time. Comments and suggestions on how they may be improved are always welcome and should be sent to the Administrative Office of the District Court.

Paul C. Dawley
Chief Justice of the District Court
Boston, MA
April 4, 2019