Fairfax County readers of this blog are angry and distrustful of local officials based on emails that I received this week about the Natasha McKenna police investigation. Many of you do not live in Virginia, but you have been following my posts about the death of the 37 year-old African American with schizophrenia who was shocked with a taser at least four times while in handcuffs and leg restraints inside our local jail.

Her death is yet another example of what can happen when persons with mental disorders become entangled in our criminal justice system instead of being diverted into community treatment. Sadly, Fairfax County has dragged its feet on accepting Crisis Intervention Team Training and implementing such jail diversion tools as a mental health court.

This week, our chief of police announced that his office had completed a five month long investigation of the McKenna case but he didn’t reveal specifics.  Instead, he turned his report over to the local commonwealth’s attorney who will determine if criminal charges will be filed.  That office has not filed criminal charges against anyone in law enforcement involved in a police shooting while on duty since the police department was created more than seventy years ago.  Fairfax County averages about four police shootings per year. About half of those involve persons who have a diagnosed mental illness.

One troubling shooting involved David Masters who attempted to drive away from officers after being ordered to stop. Masters, who had a diagnosed mental illness, was suspected of taking flowers from outside a business. The officer who fatally shot Masters was later quietly discharged from the police force.

Click to continue…

I’ve been asked to post the comments that I made during the 2015 NAMI convention where I appeared on a panel discussing Assisted Outpatient Treatment, one of the most divisive topics in the mental health community. Panel members were asked to briefly comment on San Francisco’s version of Laura’s Law and then talk about a specific subject. In my case, it was what I have learned getting individuals with mental illnesses engaged in treatment based on my experiences with my adult son.

Remarks July 9th, NAMI Convention, panel discussion “Treatment Engagement in San Francisco: Humane or Coercion?”  (Slightly edited.)

I have read San Francisco’s version of Laura’s Law and after hearing Dr. Angelica Alameida’s description of it, I would characterize it as an attempt to make coercion less coercive.

Consider the multiple safeguards in the bill’s language: A judge can only implement an AOT order if: “a referred individual is unlikely to survive safely in the community without supervision.. if a referred individual has a history of lack of compliance within a specified time period…If a referred individual has been offered the opportunity to participate in a treatment plan voluntarily…If a referred individual’s condition is substantially deteriorating.  AOT must be the least restrictive placement necessary to ensure the referred individual’s recovery and stability. The referred individual must benefit from AOT.” The law requires peer specialists and family members to be involved in the process.

According to Dr. Alameida, the law is intended to engage persons who are in critical need of help not force them into treatment.  All of this language is intended to insure that AOT is not used flippantly and not implemented until after every other form of treatment has been attempted and has failed.

Will San Francisco’s law placate opponents of AOT? I decided to find out by asking several of them before I came to San Francisco. All of them said they wouldn’t support this new version. “You can put lipstick on a pig,” one said, “but it still is a pig.” This critic and others said they oppose all forms of coercion. If we simply had patience, met individuals where they were, and provided them with enough community support, acceptance and love, they would recover without being coerced.

I’ve thought a lot about those critics’ argument and I am confused by it.

Click to continue…

Singer Jason DeShaw at NAMI convention

Sometimes in life you feel as if you are part of something bigger than yourself. You feel connected to strangers because of a joint experience. You feel a bond, as if you are part of a family.

This is how I felt Thursday night during the closing ceremony of NAMI’s national convention in San Francisco. It was a warm sensation, a rewarding one and an invigorating one. More than two thousand of us had come together.

It was liberating knowing that the persons sitting near you understood what you had gone through because they also had gone through similar experiences.When Kevin had his first breakdown more than 13 years ago, a friend introduced me to Mark Gale whose son also had been diagnosed with a mental illness.  Neither of us knew much about mental disorders. Now Mark is one of California’s most influential champions for reform.  Our son’s illnesses changed both of our lives and thankfully, both of our sons are in recovery. Mark represents the best in NAMI to me. A take charge individual determined to help others.

Click to continue…

I’ll be participating in an afternoon session Thursday (7-9-15) at the national convention of the National Alliance on Mental Illness being held this week in San Francisco.  The panel discussion is entitled: Treatment Engagement in San Francisco: Humane or Coercion?

In July 2014, San Francisco approved an innovative approach to engage individuals living with serious mental illness who are most vulnerable to hospitalization, arrests or other negative consequences due to lack of treatment. Laura’s Law authorizes courts to order treatment for individuals who meet specific criteria. San Francisco’s approach differs from other states and counties in key ways. Peers and family members must be included on all treatment teams. Additionally, comprehensive services must be available to individuals on a voluntary basis before a court order can be issued. This forum will examine San Francisco’s new approach from multiple perspectives, including peers, family members, mental health professionals and others.

Click to continue…

The man at the door said he was doing a background investigation and asked if I could answer some routine questions about the man next door. Most of my neighbors work at federal government jobs that require security clearances so I was not surprised.

The first questions were about criminal activity. Had I seen the police coming to the house? Did I know if my neighbor had a criminal record? Did he seem to spend money lavishly? Had I noticed any suspicious behaviors?

Next came this question: “Do you know if  your neighbor has a mental illness? Do you know if he has every been under a psychiatrist’s care or if he is seeing a therapist? Does your neighbor seem stable to you?”

Not long after that exchange, I went online to get pre-approved for the TSA Pre-Select program. I travel a lot and wanted to shortcut the line by not having to remove my shoes or put my toiletries on display when passing through airport security. Sure enough, after answering questions that asked if I had ever been arrested, convicted of a felony, or done time in jail or prison, there were queries about my mental state. Had I ever been a patient in a psychiatric ward, been involuntarily committed, or been diagnosed with a mental illness?

Click to continue…