EDITORIAL: Orange County sets example with passage of Laura's Law

It will use $4.4 million of Prop. 63 funds to care for the mentally ill.

May 21, 2014 


Carol Allen, with husband, George, look over binders holding information they have collected relating to the life and death of their 25-year-old son, James Allen, who was shot and killed by a Visalia Police officer in October, at their home. The Allens believe an answer could be found in Laura's Law, which grants judges limited powers to institutionalize mental health patients without their consent if they have an ongoing pattern of psychiatric holds, jail time or violent behavior.

JOHN WALKER — Fresno Bee Staff Photo Buy Photo

Finally, some people in positions of power in California and Washington, D.C., are confronting the reality that they must be more aggressive in caring for the most severely mentally ill.

The Orange County Board of Supervisors last week voted to adopt Laura's Law, a 2002 state law that allows counties to set up courts in which judges can order mentally ill people to receive treatment while allowing them to remain in their homes.

To qualify, individuals must have a history of mental illness, an inability or unwillingness to remain in treatment, and a record of having been jailed or hospitalized for their illness.

The unanimous vote came after more than two years of study, and it makes Orange County the largest county by far to adopt Laura's Law, named for Laura Wilcox, a college student who was killed by a severely mentally ill man in Nevada County in 2001.

Until Orange County's action, only Nevada and Yolo counties had embraced Laura's Law. Los Angeles County has a limited program, though officials there are contemplating expanding it.

Orange County plans to use $4.4 million from Proposition 63, the 2004 initiative that raised taxes by $1.4 billion a year on wealthy Californians to pay for mental health care. The Legislature last year loosened the strings on Proposition 63, allowing its funds to be used to pay for Laura's Law programs.

In Washington, D.C., Rep. Tim Murphy, a Pennsylvania Republican, is pushing an important bill, HR 3717, which would expand care for the most severely mentally ill people. The bill would free federal funds to help states pay for hospitalization of severely mentally ill people, and relax a federal privacy law that denies family members access to information about mentally ill loved ones.

Several Democrats, including Rep. Ami Bera, D-Elk Grove, and Rep. Karen Bass, D-Los Angeles, have signed on as co-sponsors of the legislation. Others from both parties ought to join in what should be a nonpartisan issue, caring for vulnerable people in need.

Unfortunately, the issue has become bogged down in partisanship. Several Democrats, including Rep. Doris Matsui, D-Sacramento, have lined up behind weaker legislation by Rep. Ron Barber, an Arizona Democrat. Though it's an election year, they ought to find a middle ground.

Meanwhile, California authorities continue to spend Proposition 63 money on too many feel-good programs, including billboards that are supposed to combat stigma.

Stigma is a problem. But nothing fans fear of mental illness more than the all-too-often tragic results of untreated severe mental illness, as some thoughtful officials recognize.

The Fresno Bee is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere in the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

Commenting FAQs | Terms of Service