sobe
Landed Gentry
Posts: 534
Mar 10, 2005 7:03:02 GMT -4
|
Post by sobe on Oct 17, 2014 23:29:28 GMT -4
Why the doctors and not her parents? Her parents wouldn't be able to compel her to get treatment even if they were to get a conservatorship, but doctors can. The TMZ article is wrong on the law (it's been wrong a lot and it drives me kinda bonkers, but it's a super niche area of law). The reason it's the doctors is because, under the LPS Act, it is the doctors that have to certify that she needs a conservatorship -- which is true for every case. LPS conservatorships can only be initiated by psychiatrists, who then refer the matter for investigation and court proceedings. Her parents might be consulted, but there's nothing under the law that allows her parents to petition for an LPS conservatorship. (Again, LPS conservatorships are different than the type Britney Spears has; under the Probate Code, anyone can petition for a probate conservatorship.) Amanda's parents could be named conservators through the court proceedings, or someone else may be appointed. The doctors would not be named conservators. Mentally ill people without families or friends willing or able to step in will be appointed conservators employed by the county. TMZ is also wrong when it says that her parents couldn't get her involuntarily admitted for treatment. If her parents were appointed as LPS conservators, they could have her involuntarily admitted to inpatient care if it's appropriate. The LPS Act requires the conservator, whoever it is, to place the conservatee in the "least restrictive alternative" suited to the patient's condition. (Cal. Welf. & Inst. sec. 5358.) Sometimes, there is no appropriate option less restrictive than involuntary inpatient admission. A person ill enough to be conserved in the first place will usually require involuntary admission into a locked facility to start with, but should be moved if/when he or she improves, as appropriate.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 26, 2024 13:14:28 GMT -4
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2014 11:18:48 GMT -4
Oh please. Look who's trying to take the moral high ground. Shady and svengali are both words that are extremely common and pretty unlikely to be used to express racism or antisemitism in the current culture. Funny thing is, starting out with this passive-aggressive accusation against his detractors is an excellent example of manipulative behavior. And this is classic martyrdom.
|
|
|
Post by chonies on Oct 18, 2014 11:31:38 GMT -4
I did not know Svengali was anti-Semitic until he mentioned it. I knew what the word meant, but the more you know, I suppose.
He's a real-life troll.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 26, 2024 13:14:28 GMT -4
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2014 12:13:51 GMT -4
Yeah, I had to look it up. The original character named Svengali was anti-semitic, but it's become a noun with a definition that has nothing to do with antisemitism. He really reached with that one. And he reached even further with trying make shady out to be a racist term.
|
|
|
Post by Hamatron on Oct 18, 2014 19:46:35 GMT -4
No one is calling him a Svengali. People are calling him a creepy shit head. He's about as Svengali as a pimp or a drug dealer.
|
|
|
Post by eclair on Oct 18, 2014 19:49:10 GMT -4
"He's no Sven-jolly." - Elaine Benes
|
|
|
Post by LurkerNan on Oct 20, 2014 11:17:34 GMT -4
Why in the hell is he even involved in the celebrity scene anyway? What could possibly his talent to put him in that pool?
|
|
|
Post by GirlyGhoul on Oct 20, 2014 14:05:07 GMT -4
Sam Lufti belongs in the celebrity scene as much as that dude who kept attacking Brad Pitt on the Red Carpet. Can Amanda's parents get a pre-emptive restraining order against this guy?
|
|
|
Post by discoprincess on Oct 21, 2014 10:04:32 GMT -4
Sam Lufti belongs in the celebrity scene as much as that dude who kept attacking Brad Pitt on the Red Carpet. Can Amanda's parents get a pre-emptive restraining order against this guy? Word. The Bynes should call Jamie Spears to pick his brain. The TMZ article is wrong on the law (it's been wrong a lot and it drives me kinda bonkers, but it's a super niche area of law). The reason it's the doctors is because, under the LPS Act, it is the doctors that have to certify that she needs a conservatorship -- which is true for every case. LPS conservatorships can only be initiated by psychiatrists, who then refer the matter for investigation and court proceedings. [snip] TMZ is also wrong when it says that her parents couldn't get her involuntarily admitted for treatment. If her parents were appointed as LPS conservators, they could have her involuntarily admitted to inpatient care if it's appropriate. The LPS Act requires the conservator, whoever it is, to place the conservatee in the "least restrictive alternative" suited to the patient's condition. (Cal. Welf. & Inst. sec. 5358.) Thanks for the clarification! Harvey Levin should have done some research on his own or have consulted with another lawyer who is well-versed in that specialty before allowing that to go to press. #fail From Sam Lufti: So he's trying to be the Olivia Pope of Hollywood?
|
|
|
Post by Auroranorth on Oct 22, 2014 8:33:57 GMT -4
So he's trying to be the Olivia Pope of Hollywood? Sans snazzy wardrobe and scriptwriters, unfortunately.
|
|