About a year ago I posted this. A few weeks ago out young adult intellectually disabled autistic son became emotionally dysregulated when we had to stop a medicine due to side effects. We ended up having him involuntarily committed for a week to stabilize, which was a bit of a process. Good news he got through it, new meds were introduced and he is stable again. 5-6 weeks after that incident, this Sunday, the local PD showed up and arrested him for things he said and did during the incident. “Terrroristic threats to a family member” (which was me). I didn’t want him arrested but in TX family violence laws dictate that the police determine to press charges, not the victim. If the police don’t press charges and something later happens, they will get fired and are personally liable. So now we have local police departments arresting family members dealing with special needs and mental illness issues to protect themselves. Another example of a do gooder well intentioned law causing unintended consequences.
You are a good man Charley Brown and I feel for you. These types of bizarre laws could certainly be justification for GTF out of a state with them. Sad that it has come to that. I can't convince one daughter to move back to Florida under MAGA law and the second has decided not to pursue her goal of becoming a special needs teacher due to MAGA influence on the school boards. Hoping that the populace sees what is happening under MAGA populist BS and the pendulum swings back the other way.
I imagine the intentions behind this sort of law are to arrest abusive partners, rather than special needs kids. I'm not defending the law. Well-intentioned laws can do harm. @l_boy, have you been able to see if the ADA will drop the charges?
Generally speaking, the state should stay out of your home, but with domestic violence towards women, citizens demanded more awareness. Now the state is forced to apply these laws to all family members so that we are treating everyone equally. Holding the police responsible for the actions of others when not in police presence is pretty ridiculous. I tend to agree with your premise. The moral of the story, as with many things in life: be careful what you ask for. When you ask the state to get involved, they’ll oblige and then some. In your case, you had your son involuntarily admitted to a hospital for psychiatric care. When you did this, you likely didn’t realize that you just invited the state to sniff your drawers a thousand different ways. I get it. It’s damned if you do, damned if you don’t. But when you ask the state to get involved, they assume all liability whether it’s required of them or not and you are no longer in control of your situation. I don’t envy you and I do feel your pain, sir. I would avoid involving the state whenever it’s possible in the future. But again, I know you are in a tough spot.
Just because the police felt compelled to make an arrest doesn't mean the prosecuting authority has to prosecute the case. Gather as much documentation together about his mental health situation that led up to his commitment as you can get your hands on and make an appointment with the prosecutor assigned to the case. Be clear this was the result of a destabilization due to the medication stoppage (I assume he stopped the meds cold turkey instead of being weaned off of them which made his situation worse), that he has been back in the home stabilized and without incident, that no one is in fear for their safety because of him and that you'd like to sign a waiver of prosecution. If the prosecutor or a member of their victim's assistance department won't meet with you, go see his assistant public defender and present this to that lawyer. Florida actually has a similar law to the extent the police view it as a compulsion to arrest the "primary aggressor" if there is evidence of domestic violence, regardless of the "victim's" desire to prosecute. There is pressure on the SAO by some organizations not to dismiss typical DV cases due to victim's wishes as that is seen as "perpetuating the cycle of violence," but yours is not even remotely the typical case and the cycle of violence model has no applicability to your family's situation. Good luck.
My son’s court appointed attorney thinks she can get the DA to drop them. When my son called me after bail had been set he informed me there was a 1000 ft restraining order on him against me and our home, which would have been a disaster. Upon the recommendation of the bail bonds lady with 30 years experience and former neighbor of the judge, I waited outside the jail for 2 hours until the judge walked out, explained the situation and the judge reversed the restraining order.
My son was the one who called 911, alleging “abuse” because we had household rules he didn’t like. He was delusional. The state was already involved. It wasn’t my choice. We had worked with the local mental health resources agency to have him committed, and order was put out, the someone in the law enforcement chain shut it down. Then it escalated to what I described above, another order was issued and the police executed that one, but in doing so sniffed around and got enough probable cause to press charges later.
I'm not sure this is a "MAGA" thing, this is pretty characteristic of America in general where the only solution people can come up with to social problems and disturbances is more policing and violent state intervention. I'm not sure laws like this are all that well-intentioned either. I'm not sure people who actually work with victims of domestic violence think these laws are all that useful to dealing with the problem either.
I'm sorry to hear all of that happened. I would suspect that it would be hard to convict somebody with that sort of a mental health issue going on at the time, but I don't know Texas law in that regard. And, either way, a huge waste of time and energy off of what is clearly a mental health issue.
No this isn’t recent. These laws were made decades ago because police would show up to a scene and battered wives would not press charges, then later the situation would escalate and one of the two parties would get hurt or killed. Helping battered wives is a bipartisan endeavor and it came about in the anti crime push in the 90s i think. As with many things what started out as well intentioned was way overdone and now has unintended consequences.
Based on what happened in my case (DA dropped it) and what my son’s attorney said - she thinks she can have it shut down once the police paperwork is filed. I’m not too worried but nonetheless until it is resolved it sucks having it over your (his) head.
It was definitely misguided because one of the reasons people dont press charges is they dont want to turn someone they possibly have feelings for into a criminal. I'm not sure what the point is if the main witness refuses to testify anyways if the state presses charges? I dont know what the thinking was in the 90s but its definitely changed now, there is more of a decriminalization mindset in intervening to separate but not necessarily turn it into a criminal problem, but rather a social problem that can be addressed outside the justice system. Of course, in a country with easy access to guns and little political support for social workers, it complicates things to a high degree.
I think the intentions are good, even if I agree it misses the mark in actuality. Speaks more to ignorance than maliciousness imo.
I mean if you think criminal justice actually solves problems, I suppose literally every law is well-intentioned. I dont think its either malicious or ignorant, just the result of a certain mindset about social problems.
I can't imagine a prosecutor would want to take that to trial on several levels. Among other things, there's a potential temporary insanity defense. Sounds like everything is on track for a good outcome. Not much I can do for a case in Texas, but if you need anything, pm me.
They did start off with good intentions. Prior to Florida adopting its "primary aggressor" scheme, if law enforcement went to a domestic scene there was frequently evidence of domestic violence by both parties. In those situations, the police were often arresting both. That was overkill if you were primarily trying to diffuse a situation and caused havoc if minor children were involved. Our scheme resolved a lot of those issues.
The criminal legal system can solve some problems. I disagree that it's an all or nothing proposition.
Good dad, waiting outside the jail 2 hours for a judge. Took some courage, despite the info you had about the judge beforehand.
Him having a restraining order not being able to be around me, his primary caretaker and not being able to be around our house would have been a disaster. There is a bright side to all of this - this elevated him to the top of a 20 year wait list for extended Medicaid services, and also he now seems open to guardianship.
Behind every dark cloud there is a silver lining. It is helpful for his medical expenses not to be a drain. Such expenses would take a toll on most families. Sounds like it is going to work out. This is a big boost.
