2015 ORS 427.235¹
Notice to court of need for commitment
  • investigation
  • report and recommendation

(1) Any two persons may notify the court having probate jurisdiction for the county or the circuit court, if it is not the probate court but its jurisdiction has been extended to include commitment of a person with an intellectual disability under ORS 3.275 (Procedure for transfer of jurisdiction over certain family-related matters), that a person within the county has an intellectual disability and is in need of commitment for residential care, treatment and training. Such notice shall be in writing and sworn to before an officer qualified to administer an oath and shall set forth the facts sufficient to show the need for investigation. The circuit court shall forward notice to the community developmental disabilities program director in the county if it finds the notice sufficient to show the need for investigation. The director or the designee of the director shall immediately investigate to determine whether the person has an intellectual disability and is in need of commitment for residential care, treatment and training.

(2) Any person who acts in good faith shall not be held civilly liable for making of the notification under subsection (1) of this section.

(3) Any investigation conducted by the community developmental disabilities program director or the designee of the director under subsection (1) of this section shall commence with an interview or examination of the person alleged to have an intellectual disability, where possible, in the home of the person or other place familiar to the person. Further investigation if warranted shall include a diagnostic evaluation as described in ORS 427.105 (Diagnostic evaluations) and may also include interviews with the persons relatives, neighbors, teachers and physician. The investigation shall also determine if any alternatives to commitment are available. The investigator shall also determine and recommend to the court whether the person is incapacitated and in need of a guardian or conservator.

(4) The investigation report shall be submitted to the court within 30 days of receipt of notice from the court. A copy of the investigation report and diagnostic evaluation, if any, shall also be made available to the Department of Human Services and to the person alleged to have an intellectual disability and, if the person is a minor or incapacitated, to the parents or guardian of the person as soon as possible after its completion but in any case prior to a hearing held under ORS 427.245 (Hearing).

(5) Any person conducting an evaluation or investigation under this section shall in no way be held civilly liable for conducting the investigation or performing the diagnostic evaluation.

(6) If requested by a person conducting an investigation under this section, a physician who has examined the person alleged to have an intellectual disability may, with patient authorization or in response to a court order, provide any relevant information the physician has regarding the person alleged to have an intellectual disability. [1979 c.683 §17; 2003 c.89 §4; 2009 c.595 §442; 2011 c.658 §13; 2013 c.36 §8]

Notes of Decisions

Circuit court in county in which juvenile resides has jurisdic­tion over juvenile for civil commit­ment purposes. Childrens Services Div. v. West, 79 Or App 484, 719 P2d 904 (1986)

Where mental health investigator con­ducted interviews pursuant to this sec­tion and interviews indicated that appellant may have intellectual disability and re­quired commit­ment, further investiga­tion was warranted and investigator was re­quired to perform diagnostic evalua­tion that complied with ORS 427.105 (Diagnostic evaluations). State v. R.E.G., 275 Or App 239, 364 P3d 733 (2015)

Chapter 427

Notes of Decisions

Former commit­ment pro­vi­sions of this chapter were constitu­tional. State ex rel Vandenberg v. Vandenberg, 48 Or App 609, 617 P2d 675 (1980), Sup Ct review denied

Standard of proof in former version of this chapter was proof beyond a reasonable doubt. State ex rel Vandenberg v. Vandenberg, 48 Or App 609, 617 P2d 675 (1980), Sup Ct review denied

As commit­ment pro­ceed­ing is not crim­i­nal matter, principle of double jeopardy has no applica­tion. State ex rel Vandenberg v. Vandenberg, 48 Or App 609, 617 P2d 675 (1980), Sup Ct review denied

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Preemp­tion of the Oregon Revised Statutes by the pro­vi­sions of the Interstate Compact, (1973) Vol 36, p 297; civil commit­ment to Mental Health Division of per­son against whom crim­i­nal charges are pending, (1980) Vol 41, p 91

Law Review Cita­tions

16 WLR 439 (1979)


1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 427—Persons With Intellectual or Developmental Disabilities, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors427.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2015, Chapter 427, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano427.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent.