Can you get Married In the Psych Ward?

wittyusernamehere · Aug 30, 2010

Hi! I have a character who will be put on an involuntary psychiatric hold in California (5150), on her way to a 14 Day hold. Could she get legally married during this time?

On the wikipedia page, it says citizens under 5150 do not lose rights except the right to leave the facility, but I wonder if there might be some problem with signing legal papers while on a psychiatric hold.

I really want her to have to get married in the psych ward, though, so anything we can cook up for that to happen would be fantastic.

As a subset, if a person is on a psychiatric hold, can they have more than 1 visitor at a time? We will need a groom, an officiant, and a witness. How can I make that happen?

Thank you!!

AyJay · Aug 30, 2010

I think the answer is: it's legal but highly unlikely.

For someone to be in the hospital involuntarily, it suggests quite a low level of mental functioning, psychosis or suicidology, so it's quite hard to imagine that he or she would be capable of making the decision to get married. Plus doctors, nurses, family, friends would discourage it such that even if it's in your character's legal rights, they could interfere with it happening rather easily under the circumstances.

You might have an interesting story if you're writing a conspiracy-style institutionalization, but otherwise, my BS meter would be going off with the question: why couldn't the patient just wait 14 days to get out of the hospital.

Re. visitors, to my knowledge, psychiatric patients can have more than one at a time. It's been a long time since I worked in a hospital, but that's my recollection.

Good luck!

suki · Aug 30, 2010

I'll agree with AyJay that even if legal, I'm having a hard time wrapping my brain around a senario that makes logical sense.

For it to work, I think the facility would have to consent to allow the marriage, as I think the person's visitors would be restricted, and not just in number, but in who it is. And if they are in bad enough shape to warrant detention, the facility would be screening every visitor for their possible effect on the patient, and, I think, unlikely to consent to the patient making such a life-changing decision while under hold.

So...maybe if you explain more of the senario there's a way to make it work, but I'm in the skeptical column right now.

~suki

wittyusernamehere · Aug 30, 2010

AyJay said:
I think the answer is: it's legal but highly unlikely.

For someone to be in the hospital involuntarily, it suggests quite a low level of mental functioning, psychosis or suicidology, so it's quite hard to imagine that he or she would be capable of making the decision to get married. Plus doctors, nurses, family, friends would discourage it such that even if it's in your character's legal rights, they could interfere with it happening rather easily under the circumstances.

You might have an interesting story if you're writing a conspiracy-style institutionalization, but otherwise, my BS meter would be going off with the question: why couldn't the patient just wait 14 days to get out of the hospital.

Re. visitors, to my knowledge, psychiatric patients can have more than one at a time. It's been a long time since I worked in a hospital, but that's my recollection.

Good luck!

Thank you! You are right that it will be hard to suspend disbelief, and I'm not sure if I can pull it off, but the idea is annoying me like a loose tooth.

veinglory · Aug 30, 2010

It would most likely be legal unless blocked, but would it be possible? That would depend on exactly what is needed for a legal marraige in that juristiction.

Said The Sun · Aug 30, 2010

Call me gullible or easily amused, but I find that idea kind of neat. ish.

Kitty Pryde · Aug 30, 2010

The point of a 5150 is that you are a danger to yourself or others. Ever met anybody in this condition? I have. Just post- or pre-suicide attempt, or major suicidal ideation and planning, or physically violent towards everybody, or so impaired by a mental disorder that you cannot care for yourself. These people are in no condition to get married whatsoever. They aren't even in good enough condition to sit at home on their couch watching tv. Especially considering that your character is in such distress that she will have a 14 day hold.

You can't really get an involuntary hold without deserving one, either. There must be immediate risk to self and others. I've had friends who have pleaded with police/doctors/social workers to get very ill family members committed before they harm themselves, and those people haven't been considered sick enough for an involuntary hold. You have to be in a terrible state.

veinglory · Aug 30, 2010

Yea, you have to be in a terrible state and probably should not be getting married, but that was not the question. The question was could you.

Kitty Pryde · Aug 30, 2010

Right, my point being that you CAN'T get married when you are physically combative/recovering from your OD and stomach pumping/heavily tranquilized/mentally unable to seek more basic life essentials like food and shelter/whatever.

JulieHowe · Aug 30, 2010

Because of past abuses (including what happened to Christine Collins, the real-life mother in the movie Changeling), the standards are extremely rigorous in California before someone can be held against their will beyond the standard 72 hour involuntary psych hold.

For your character to be locked up in California on a 14-day involuntary psychiatric hold, she's been legally designated as a danger to herself or someone else, even temporarily, and it's highly improbable she would be allowed to get married without the express permission of the same dependency court judge who signed the papers to extend her involuntary psychiatric hold from 72 hours to 14 days. The judge probably isn't going to sign off on anything beyond what is absolutely legally necessary.

http://www.aroundthecapitol.com/code/getcode.html?file=./wic/05001-06000/5150-5157

wittyusernamehere · Aug 30, 2010

Thanks for the responses! I appreciate hearing about what kind of reasonable obstacles there are for making this scenario work.

veinglory · Aug 30, 2010

Frankly, not all people in involuntary are that badly off. Maybe it depends on how rigorous your local law enforcement and mental health people are. One aquaintance I know was locked up for a sarcastic drunken comment, she was totally lucid as soon as she sobered up, but it took a while to get her out because her assigned psychatrist was impossible to contact for two days. So she would totally have had the ability to want to follow through with a marraige. If her boyfriend and a bureacrat visited, I bet she could have done it. Hopw would they stop her from signing a piece of paper in the waiting room? The powers that be would probably not even know it was happening.

Kitty Pryde · Aug 30, 2010

Right, but she's saying this isn't just a rowdy drunk, this is someone in a 72 hour involuntary hold on her way to a 14 day involuntary hold. As in, danger to self/others and expected to continue to be so for days at the least.

Wiskel · Aug 30, 2010

It should be legal in the sense that no legislation would restrict it, but I can't see it happening.

First off you have a capacity problem. Most powers of dentention have to argue that a person's capacity to make decisions is reduced or altered by a mental illness. It would be hard to argue that capacity was reduced but the decision to marry was made with proper consideration.

You've said your character is female. Unless you write the scene very well, you have a fine balance to walk between the groom coming off as a good guy, or someone who would exploit the vulnerability of his bride to be...unless that's what you're aiming for.

The ward are going to advise everyone to wait. If the groom is a good guy it's going to be hard to figure out why he'd ignore this advice and why he'd want his bride's memories of her wedding day to include being detained on a psychiatric ward, instead of the nice thing that happened after the bad thing and helped wash away the memories.

Even if the woman wants to go ahead, and the groom ignores the ward's advice, I also imagine the person performing the ceremony is going to ask the ward what they think, and there will need to be a good reason for them to ignore being told to wait too.

You've a hard task either explaining why the ward would give their blessing, or why everyone would ignore the ward's advice if they're all meant to be reasonable people.....if you can do all that, or you're going for "feelgood" rather than realistic, then go for it.

Craig

wittyusernamehere · Aug 30, 2010

veinglory said:
Frankly, not all people in involuntary are that badly off. Maybe it depends on how rigorous your local law enforcement and mental health people are. One aquaintance I know was locked up for a sarcastic drunken comment, she was totally lucid as soon as she sobered up, but it took a while to get her out because her assigned psychatrist was impossible to contact for two days. So she would totally have had the ability to want to follow through with a marraige. If her boyfriend and a bureacrat visited, I bet she could have done it. Hopw would they stop her from signing a piece of paper in the waiting room? The powers that be would probably not even know it was happening.

Aha. That is an interesting idea. Are visitors searched? Could a visitor bring in papers and a pen, or are those things contraband?

wittyusernamehere · Aug 30, 2010

Wiskel said:
It should be legal in the sense that no legislation would restrict it, but I can't see it happening.

First off you have a capacity problem. Most powers of dentention have to argue that a person's capacity to make decisions is reduced or altered by a mental illness. It would be hard to argue that capacity was reduced but the decision to marry was made with proper consideration.

You've said your character is female. Unless you write the scene very well, you have a fine balance to walk between the groom coming off as a good guy, or someone who would exploit the vulnerability of his bride to be...unless that's what you're aiming for.

The ward are going to advise everyone to wait. If the groom is a good guy it's going to be hard to figure out why he'd ignore this advice and why he'd want his bride's memories of her wedding day to include being detained on a psychiatric ward, instead of the nice thing that happened after the bad thing and helped wash away the memories.

Even if the woman wants to go ahead, and the groom ignores the ward's advice, I also imagine the person performing the ceremony is going to ask the ward what they think, and there will need to be a good reason for them to ignore being told to wait too.

You've a hard task either explaining why the ward would give their blessing, or why everyone would ignore the ward's advice if they're all meant to be reasonable people.....if you can do all that, or you're going for "feelgood" rather than realistic, then go for it.

Craig

These are excellent points. I think the marriage is going to be more of a legal document, certifying that this guy is her next of kin, than a love birds kind of ceremony. I like your points about the groom. I think he's going to have to swing both ways on the good guy/ exploitive bastard issue.

Thank you for these good suggestions!

Giant Baby · Aug 30, 2010

I had a brief but intense friendship when I was younger with a woman who was routinely held involuntarily (it's been a while, but I want to say it's 10 days here? I'm in Massachusetts, and we use section 12 for involuntary holds, as I recall). She was held three or four times in the year or so I knew her. She could have more than one visitor at a time- I know for certain at least two were okay, as long as the guests were not on "the list."

When I visited her, we were monitored, but only visually for the most part. If we were quietly getting married by another guest, I'm not sure staff would have caught on if it just looked like a conversation. My main concern would be the signatures. They'd need a pen, and guests wouldn't be able to bring anything inside a patient could use to harm themselves or others. However, if your MC is manipulative or cunning enough, she could probably sign the certificate under the eyes of the staff, if they had a workable reason to think it was something harmless.

The real problem is getting the marriage license beforehand, IMO. Both parties need to go down, so she'd have needed to know this was the plan before she was committed. Unless she's got a sister or friend who looks enough like her to carry off the fraud and get it for her.

As an aside, my friend routinely got her visitors priveledges revoked, and I'd just go to the fence around the smoking area and hang with her there. It was usually several minutes before I'd get sent off if I didn't come too close to the fence. The groom, officiant, witness (although, it'd be fun if one of the other patients served as witness- but that would probably only work in the indoors scenario), could all slip up, do it through the fence *really* quickly, and then she could sign the documents held up to the fence with a pen slipped through to her.

The groom and officient would need to be ready to work quick (seconds, not minutes) and haul ass as soon as they were through, and she'd definitely get caught and searched/restricted, but from my experience, it's not totally improbable that she could pull it off.

suki · Aug 30, 2010

wittyusernamehere said:
These are excellent points. I think the marriage is going to be more of a legal document, certifying that this guy is her next of kin, than a love birds kind of ceremony. I like your points about the groom. I think he's going to have to swing both ways on the good guy/ exploitive bastard issue.

Thank you for these good suggestions!

If all you want is him to be her next of kin, there's easier ways than marriage - if she's truly not at difficient mental capacity - ie, if she's not hallucinating, confused, etc. then she could easily sign a will. And that's more likely to get through than a marriage - she calls a friend who is a lawyer and he drafts a will, or she write a letter liek will herself. There's requirements for it to be valid, and you'd have to look them up, but the capacity to sign a will is less than what is required for contracts, including marriage. All kinds of people sign wills in "lucid moments" even when on a hold, if they are considered competent to do so - ie, in most states, they know who they are and what property they own and can articulate it.

OTOH, the slapstick smoking fence marriage could work, but the explanations for why the groom would go through with it would have to be good. Seems if she's only going to be held temporarily, why not wait?

~suki

wittyusernamehere · Aug 30, 2010

suki said:
If all you want is him to be her next of kin, there's easier ways than marriage - if she's truly not at difficient mental capacity - ie, if she's not hallucinating, confused, etc. then she could easily sign a will. And that's more likely to get through than a marriage - she calls a friend who is a lawyer and he drafts a will, or she write a letter liek will herself. There's requirements for it to be valid, and you'd have to look them up, but the capacity to sign a will is less than what is required for contracts, including marriage. All kinds of people sign wills in "lucid moments" even when on a hold, if they are considered competent to do so - ie, in most states, they know who they are and what property they own and can articulate it.

~suki

Aha, this is also an interesting idea. Since they are unrelated, would he be her next of kin, though? While she is still alive, will he have any legal standing as a family member? I will look into it.

KTC · Aug 30, 2010

might depend on administration, even if it is legal. they would have last word, i would guess...legalities aside.

shadowwalker · Aug 30, 2010

There's a difference between being declared incompetent and being put on a psychiatric hold (of any length). One has to do with whether or not you have the mental capacity to make decisions, the other to do with your safety/the safety of others. A fine line, but there, nonetheless. Facilities do not have the right to prevent visitors, btw, unless they can prove that it's somehow dangerous. It can't be used as punishment. Clients also have the right to their own money and personal possessions - same restrictions on the facility. If they have the right to spend their money, they aren't "incompetent".

So yes, if they already have the license, the facility could not prevent the marriage unless they went back to a judge and had the client declared incompetent. Why they would do that, I don't know. But I don't know, as others have mentioned, why the rush to get married, either.

wittyusernamehere · Aug 30, 2010

Giant Baby said:
I had a brief but intense friendship when I was younger with a woman who was routinely held involuntarily (it's been a while, but I want to say it's 10 days here? I'm in Massachusetts, and we use section 12 for involuntary holds, as I recall). She was held three or four times in the year or so I knew her. She could have more than one visitor at a time- I know for certain at least two were okay, as long as the guests were not on "the list."

When I visited her, we were monitored, but only visually for the most part. If we were quietly getting married by another guest, I'm not sure staff would have caught on if it just looked like a conversation. My main concern would be the signatures. They'd need a pen, and guests wouldn't be able to bring anything inside a patient could use to harm themselves or others. However, if your MC is manipulative or cunning enough, she could probably sign the certificate under the eyes of the staff, if they had a workable reason to think it was something harmless.

The real problem is getting the marriage license beforehand, IMO. Both parties need to go down, so she'd have needed to know this was the plan before she was committed. Unless she's got a sister or friend who looks enough like her to carry off the fraud and get it for her.

As an aside, my friend routinely got her visitors priveledges revoked, and I'd just go to the fence around the smoking area and hang with her there. It was usually several minutes before I'd get sent off if I didn't come too close to the fence. The groom, officiant, witness (although, it'd be fun if one of the other patients served as witness- but that would probably only work in the indoors scenario), could all slip up, do it through the fence *really* quickly, and then she could sign the documents held up to the fence with a pen slipped through to her.

The groom and officient would need to be ready to work quick (seconds, not minutes) and haul ass as soon as they were through, and she'd definitely get caught and searched/restricted, but from my experience, it's not totally improbable that she could pull it off.

This is very helpful and interesting. It is really interesting that a holding area would have a chain link fence. Can you elaborate as to how they kept this area secured? I would love to use something like what you've described, but I'm very curious as to how the staff tried to keep that area secure.

shadowwalker · Aug 30, 2010

wittyusernamehere said:
Aha, this is also an interesting idea. Since they are unrelated, would he be her next of kin, though? While she is still alive, will he have any legal standing as a family member? I will look into it.

For more detail:

http://definitions.uslegal.com/n/next-of-kin/

Appears it only has any real meaning when the person has died.

wittyusernamehere · Aug 30, 2010

shadowwalker said:
There's a difference between being declared incompetent and being put on a psychiatric hold (of any length). One has to do with whether or not you have the mental capacity to make decisions, the other to do with your safety/the safety of others. A fine line, but there, nonetheless. Facilities do not have the right to prevent visitors, btw, unless they can prove that it's somehow dangerous. It can't be used as punishment. Clients also have the right to their own money and personal possessions - same restrictions on the facility. If they have the right to spend their money, they aren't "incompetent".

So yes, if they already have the license, the facility could not prevent the marriage unless they went back to a judge and had the client declared incompetent. Why they would do that, I don't know. But I don't know, as others have mentioned, why the rush to get married, either.

Thank you for the distinction between declared incompetent and psychiatric hold. As for the rush to get married, I guess I haven't entirely sketched the reasoning behind that out yet. I wanted to find out if the marriage thing was even a possibility before I built anything else on that foundation.

wittyusernamehere · Aug 30, 2010

shadowwalker said:
For more detail:

http://definitions.uslegal.com/n/next-of-kin/

Appears it only has any real meaning when the person has died.

This is still a very interesting alley you've opened up. Perhaps there is some other type of legal document to get me where I want to go. *starts thinking about where exactly this story is going*

Thank you!

Can you get Married In the Psych Ward?

Luv's Conscript

Opinionated

volitare nequeo

foremost, for prose

i luv you giant bear statue

volitare nequeo

i luv you giant bear statue

Spent the night with Jack Daniels

volitare nequeo

i luv you giant bear statue

practical experience, FTW

Oh, the humanity.

Opinionated

Stand in the Place Where You Live

empty-nester!

empty-nester!