Police hospitalize 7-year-old under Baker Act

**Dakota Valkyrie** · February 14th, 2009, 05:32 PM

I can't decide where I fall on this. For me, so much depends on what exactly occurred.

Police this week removed an unruly 7-year-old from his classroom and forced him to be hospitalized under the state's Baker Act — against the wishes of his outraged parents.

The boy spent the night alone at Morton Plant Hospital before he was seen by a child psychologist the next day and discharged.

"This is a total abuse of police power," said the boy's father, Richard Smith, 41. "My son has no mental health problems. He's never hurt himself. He's never hurt anyone else."

Smith and his wife, Barbara, said they want to consult a lawyer.

By all accounts, the second-grader threw a tantrum at Mildred Helms Elementary. The boy tore up the room during his fit. In the process, he stepped on a teacher's foot and "battered" a school administrator.

Largo deputy police Chief John Carroll said the tantrum was so bad that school officials had to evacuate students from the classroom.

School officials called the parents and police. When officers arrived, they decided the boy needed a mental health examination.

This was not the first time the boy had acted up, Carroll said, and the lead officer, Michael Kirkpatrick, decided the boy couldn't just go home again with his mother.

"He just felt that this young man needed some mental health service he wasn't getting," Carroll explained. "The Baker Act is a kind of a Band-Aid that allows us to have somebody introduced to the service providers that can actually do something for him."

Barbara Smith said she could have defused the situation had officers let her see her son. Instead, they kept her from him as they conducted their investigation, she said. When police decided to take him to a hospital, she agreed to ride with the boy in a police car to comfort him.

The incident was terrifying for the boy. Barbara Smith is keeping the boy and his 9-year-old sister out of school because they are "scared to death" to go back, she said.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publics...icle975987.ece

No where do the parents say they are getting assistance for their child's obvious anger issues. In fact, I get the impression that if they were to seek help it would be for the "trauma" of spending the night in the hospital.

Baker Act:

The Baker Act allows people to be taken for mental health examination against their will. But it requires a person show a substantial likelihood of causing serious injury to himself or others.

Absent that, police cannot use the Baker Act to take someone into custody against their will, even if they think the person needs help, said Raine Johns, who handles Baker Act cases for the Pinellas-Pasco Public Defender's Office.

"That's not the purpose of the Baker Act at all," said Johns, who is not involved in the case. "Stepping on somebody's foot doesn't rise to the level of substantial bodily harm."

Johns said she has seen children as young as 7 taken into custody under the Baker Act before, but usually it's voluntary.

The article does no say what the police officer observed that led him to the decision to Baker Act the child. It does not say what previous incidences of acting up were - or how they were handled.

Is this a case of the police overstepping things? Parents being oblivious?

**Nell** · February 14th, 2009, 05:45 PM

Parents not wanting to realize that their child is out of control. I don't blame the school. It wasn't the first instance of this boy flipping out. I have a 7 year old boy and nephews, younger brothers. This is not normal boy behavior, and one of these days he will be bigger, and then he could cause way more harm than just stepping on someones foot.

I personally hope that the kid was scared shittless and stops. And if the parents win a judgement against the school I will be disappointed.

**evervigilant** · February 14th, 2009, 06:04 PM

It was the police who decided further action was needed so why are they thinking of suing the school ? The other parents would probably be suing the school if they hadn't acted and a child was hurt .

**Sister Iroz** · February 14th, 2009, 09:04 PM

WOW! This is a hard call to make. But apparently it's not the first time the boy has acted out in RAGE! Rage is completely different than behavioral acting out, it sounds to me he was totally out of control. He could have harmed himself or others around him. So, I believe they did the right thing.

My concerns are a psychologist discharged him the next day. WTF, he needs to see a psychiatrist first to possibly have some tests run on him and to discuss with the parents possible medications. If the child was out of control in a rage I can tell you for a fact a good psychiatrist would not be releasing the boy the next day. My point here is first a psychiatrist should see you before a psychologist because they can't prescribe medications. He would be carefully observed for at least the next couple of days and probably put on some type of medication. How do I know this my son Ian has had to be admitted to one before for rage. Also, I would like for the parents to get him help along with counseling.

I also wonder if the parents have similar problems at home with their son and are denying or not discussing his behaviors. I hope they do look for further help for their son before something worse happens. Because it will!

**Castille** · February 15th, 2009, 11:54 PM

Without more background of how previous incidents were handled, or what services the boy is already receiving, I can't make any judgments on whether the parents are oblivious or not. But even not knowing these things I can say the police totally abused the Baker act. The Baker Act is for forcing mentally ill noncompliant people who are *actually* dangerous into emergency care. It isn't a way to find appropriate services for an out of control 2nd grader, or persuade parental compliance in pursing mental health services. Now, I could see trying to stretch and contort the law a bit if the parents wanted an inpatient evaluation of the boy and couldn't obtain one due to lack of child beds available or finances... But that appears not to be the case here.

**Silvahalo** · February 16th, 2009, 03:08 AM

Originally Posted by Castille

Without more background of how previous incidents were handled, or what services the boy is already receiving, I can't make any judgments on whether the parents are oblivious or not. But even not knowing these things I can say the police totally abused the Baker act. The Baker Act is for forcing mentally ill noncompliant people who are *actually* dangerous into emergency care. It isn't a way to find appropriate services for an out of control 2nd grader, or persuade parental compliance in pursing mental health services. Now, I could see trying to stretch and contort the law a bit if the parents wanted an inpatient evaluation of the boy and couldn't obtain one due to lack of child beds available or finances... But that appears not to be the case here.

I agree Castille, I think the abused the use of the Baker act and why it was setup. I put my son in this child's case, and sure as hell, I'd be pissed had they done this to him and NOT let me see him immediately. My son had VERY bad, EXTREME, tantrums/fits, but was associated with his speech disorder...at least that what I was told. What if this child has an undiagnosed disorder of some sort, all this caused was shame and embarrassment.

I do think his behavior was outrageous and unacceptable, clearly he needs help. I just think for a child of that age and under the circumstances, (its not like he brought out a weapon of sorts), it was an over reaction on the school and police. I do wonder what the other tantrums were like and under what stress encouraged it.

My concern now is if the parents will actually do something smart and get their child help instead of just pursuing a complaint regarding the way the incident was handled.

**Dakota Valkyrie** · February 16th, 2009, 08:06 AM

I'm not sure it was an abuse of power. I assume the child was still "unruly" or at least exhibiting signs of "not normal". If the school had previously addressed problems with this child, it was obvious the parents weren't doing a damn thing.

**Castille** · February 16th, 2009, 10:10 PM

Originally Posted by Dakota_Valkyrie

I'm not sure it was an abuse of power. I assume the child was still "unruly" or at least exhibiting signs of "not normal". If the school had previously addressed problems with this child, it was obvious the parents weren't doing a damn thing.

I won't argue that something shouldn't have been done - just not using the baker act for an unruly child. It can't be legal. Now maybe you call DFS/CPS to argue that a child isn't recieving appropriate medical care, but you don't go pretending that this is a genuine threat requiring forced emergency care to attempt to coerce parental compliance when you're annoyed. The use of the Baker act tramples so many rights that I am unwilling to tolerate it in the slightest degree when the situation isn't honestly thought to be urgently dangerous, (with flexibility when the subject, or guardians of subject, of it are willing.) Even if the police mean well - which I think in this case they probably did.

And while the article is skewed in that direction, there's still no evidence that the parents weren't doing anything, or that the boy hasn't recieved services of some kind - only that his parents say he has no mental health issues, and whatever they might be doing wasn't working on this particular day. They seem quickly responsive and involved. But it's entirely possible they are completely oblivious, defensive, and in denial - I've seen parents like that, and I'd believe it. However, it's also possible they're dealing with their son in the best way they know how, and the school is being particularly difficult in accomodating him - I've seen that too. I don't know.

**Athena** · February 16th, 2009, 10:53 PM

If he's THAT much of a problem, they should have released him to his parents again to let them deal with it, under the understanding that the next time means an expulsion. Or just expell him now. You know - like normal schools deal with this type of issue. Either way, evoking the Baker Act does strike me as government intrusion.

If the parents really are simply ignoring the issue of their son's behavior, the trouble of searching for and transporting him to a new district ought to straighten that out in short order.

**flawed_existence** · February 17th, 2009, 01:51 AM

My eldest son cleared his kindergarten classroom multiple times. I was told that the other parents were complaining that their children were having nighmares as a result of my child's violent behavior. We didn't have the same behavior at home for a number of reasons. But I couldn't get the school to have my son evaluated. They just kept sending him to hang out with the principal. We had him evaluated privately at Vanderbilt University and got the "diagnosis of the month", which at that time was ADHD. WRONG! My son DID eventually spend quite a bit of time inpatient, but it was arranged by his psychiatrist and his parents. And it was under completely different circumstances. Given that my son was pretty well unattached to anyone, he never really cared whether I was around or not. He would go off with anyone. Very, very few children are unattached to an adult caregiver. I would suspect that the child in the described situation IS attached to one or both parents and found his night in the hospital terrifying and traumatic. Most children would.

Tha Baker Act is designed to humanely confine those who, for reasons of mental illness, are a DANGER to themselves or others. There is no 7 year old on the planet who has the ability to be a "danger" to others. It doesn't sound as though anyone thought the child might be a danger to himself, so the Baker Act did not apply to this situation. But the idea that the POLICE were called to deal with a 2nd grade classroom situation disturbs me. If the teacher /principal/guidance counselor believed that the parents were not taking their son's behavior problems seriously, then a suspension from school and a call to DCS were the next logical step. Although, it is also the SCHOOL'S responsibility to have their School Psychologist observe disruptive students and determine if the child meets the criteria for Section 504 or IDEA. In that case, the School Psychologist has the authority to make recommendations regarding the child's appropriate classroom setting and call for an IEP meeting to officially place the child in Special Education. If the School Psychologist does not find SPED criteria, then he is perfectly placed to call DCS for intervention in the home environment.

Seriously Emotionally Disturbed children are at risk for a lifetime of inappropriate behaviors if there is no intervention in early childhood. Helping these children while they are young prevents the very behaviors we read about on the D'D every day. A 7 year old who cannot control his temper is no fun to be around (Believe me, I know what I'm talking about!), but an adult who cannot control his temper is deadly.