PORTLAND, Ore. (KATU) — Jeff Rott and Cathleen Shaughnessy had no experience dealing with someone in a mental health crisis until their son, Jeff, who at the time was in medical school, began having one.

“He was a top student and then all of a sudden he went into a psychotic event,” Rott said. “It was almost like it was a joke because it was so unreal what we were being presented with.”

In Oregon, when a person undergoing an event like that is taken to the hospital, doctors can hold them against their will for no more than five days without undergoing civil commitment proceedings.

During the proceeding, an individual is assigned an attorney, and a judge decides whether they are a danger to themselves and/or others and whether their current mental health stops them from providing themselves with basic care needed to live.

The state’s current statutes require the danger to be imminent for civil commitment to occur, a process that many mental health advocates believe has stopped people from getting consistent help, especially with chronic mental health conditions.

READ ALSO | Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek signs behavioral health bills, answers questions

Oregon lawmakers changed the state’s civil commitment laws to make treating someone against their will when they are deemed a danger to themselves or others more accessible.

The changes, passed by lawmakers this session through HB 2005 and signed by the Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek on July 24, will take effect in January of 2026.

The bill provides a list of things a judge can consider when making the civil commitment determination and removed the imminent language that had stopped many like Jeff from receiving treatment.

Rott said his son at times agreed to treatment, other times he was able to be civilly committed because he said the “magic words” that allowed medical professionals to determine he was an “imminent threat.” However, Rott said often he was released from the hospital while he was still in psychosis.

Rott said during one of those times, in 2019, Jeff left the state and took a plane to New York.

“It’s like the scariest thing you can imagine. It’s your child, your loved one going off into New York City, city of millions and millions of people when he is not himself,” Rott said.

When he arrived, he was taken to the hospital by police and ultimately ended up getting civilly committed and stabilized through medication.

“They got him back to Jeff and that was a real eye-opening experience for me because it was very different from what we saw in Oregon where they’re like, ‘Hey, as long as he’s not going to hurt himself or someone else like right now, we can let him go,'” Rott said.

His son is living at home and has been stable for years, partially thanks to lessons learned from the experience in New York and partially thanks to his current medication, which is working well for him, according to Rott.

He said the new law gives him a sense of relief in knowing that if his son does need help again in Oregon, he will not risk becoming homeless or worse because they can not civilly commit him.

READ ALSO | What does President Trump’s Homelessness Executive Order mean for Oregon?

The bill was both supported and opposed by mental health advocates. It has also been opposed by defense attorneys who represent people in civil commitment proceedings.

Sarah Smith, also a parent supporting her adult child’s mental health, feels the bill is setting the bar too low overall and will harm people with mental health illnesses by taking away their freedom to choose the care that works for them.

“I have a daughter who was civilly committed 12 consecutive times for a total of six years,” she said in written testimony opposing the bill. “I oppose HB 2467 because it makes existing problems with Oregon’s mental health system even worse by further eroding the rights of individuals perceived to be mentally ill and robs funds from life-enhancing evidence-based alternatives such as peer respites.”

A number of shelter providers and homeless advocates have supported the bill pointing out that many of their clients need stabilizing mental health services. In written testimony, Blanchet House, a day center provider in Portland, told the story of a woman who ended up killed in a hit-and-run because she had the habit of walking in front of vehicles due to her mental health condition.

Shelter providers would be able to send civil commitment referrals to police who could transport an individual on a mental health hold to a hospital. Once there the hospital could initiate a civil commitment proceeding which would then be investigated by a county behavioral health practitioner and referred to a judge within the five-day period if a longer hold is needed.

In Oregon, a person cannot be civilly committed for substance use disorders only. The danger would need to exist without the substance use for civil commitment to take place. HB 2005 does not change that.

In Washington, Ricky’s Law, passed in 2016, allows for civil commitment based solely on substance use and addiction.

HB 2005 also prescribes timelines for individuals deemed unfit to stand trial due to their mental health issues. It dictates how much time they can spend in the state hospital for certain types of crimes, and when they should be transferred to a secure residential facility in the community. The bill mirrors a judicial order that is already requiring the state hospital to meet certain timelines.

Lawmakers also set aside $65 million in HB 2059 to prop up new secure residential facilities.