{"data":{"id":"us-dc/d.c.-code-7-1304.11","jurisdiction":"us-dc","citation":"D.C. Code § 7-1304.11","heading":"Periodic review of commitment order.","body":"(a)\n(1)\nAny decision of the Court ordering commitment of a person with an intellectual disability, other than a decision of the Court ordering commitment of a person found incompetent in a criminal case to DDS pursuant to § 7-1304.06a, that was issued before May 5, 2018, shall be reviewed in a Court hearing annually. The commitment shall be terminated unless there is a finding of the following:\n(A)\nThe Court determines that the person with an intellectual disability has benefited from the habilitation;\n(B)\nDDS demonstrates that continued residential rehabilitation is necessary for the habilitation program;\n(C)\nThe person with an intellectual disability is a resident of the District;\n(D)\nThe Court determines beyond a reasonable doubt that:\n(i)\nBased on a comprehensive evaluation of the person performed within one year before the hearing, the person has at least a moderate intellectual disability and requires habilitation; and\n(ii)\nDDS is capable of providing the required habilitation; and\n(E)\nThe person with an intellectual disability, or an individual authorized pursuant to paragraph (2) of this subsection, provides informed consent to continue the person's commitment.\n(2)\nIf a person with an intellectual disability does not have capacity to give informed consent to continue the person's commitment, the following individuals, in the order of priority set forth below, shall be authorized to consent on behalf of the person with an intellectual disability to the continued commitment of the person with an intellectual disability pursuant to paragraph (1)(E) of this subsection:\n(A)\nA court-appointed general guardian or limited guardian of the person with an intellectual disability whose scope of appointment includes the authority to consent to the continued commitment of the person;\n(B)\nA court-appointed conservator whose scope of appointment incudes the authority to consent to the continued commitment of the person;\n(C)\nThe spouse or domestic partner of the person;\n(D)\nAn adult child of the person;\n(E)\nA parent of the person;\n(F)\nAn adult sibling of the person;\n(G)\nA religious superior of the person, if the person is a member of a religious order, or a diocesan priest;\n(H)\nA close friend of the person;\n(I)\nThe nearest-living, adult relative of the person; or\n(J)\nA guardian ad litem appointed by the Mental Health and Habilitation Branch of the Court for the sole purpose of consenting to the continued commitment of the person.\n(3)\nA decision by an individual authorized pursuant to paragraph (2) of this subsection to consent to the continued commitment of a person pursuant to paragraph (1)(E) of this subsection shall be based on the expressed wishes of the person or, if the wishes of the person are unknown and cannot be ascertained, on a good faith belief as to the best interests of the person.\n(4)\nIf no individual in a prior category of individuals listed in paragraph (2) of this subsection is reasonably available, mentally capable, and willing to act, authority to consent to the continued commitment of a person shall rest with the next reasonably available, mentally capable, and willing individual on the priority list.\n(5)\nAny individual listed in paragraph (2) of this subsection shall have legal standing to challenge in the Court any decision made by an individual of higher priority listed in paragraph (2) of this subsection.\n(6)\nThe order of priority established in paragraph (2) of this subsection creates a presumption that may be rebutted if an individual of lower priority is found to have better knowledge of the wishes of the person, or, if the wishes of the patient are unknown and cannot be ascertained, is better able to demonstrate a good-faith belief as to the interests of the person.\n(7)\nNothing in this section shall be construed to change DDS's responsibility to provide services and supports pursuant to § 7-761.05(1).\n(8)\nFor the purposes of this subsection, a prior court decision to commit a person shall not be determinative of whether the person has capacity to give informed consent to continue the person's commitment pursuant to paragraph (1)(E) of this subsection.\n\n(a-1)\nAny decision of the Court ordering commitment of a person found incompetent in a criminal case to DDS pursuant to § 7-1304.06a shall be reviewed in a court hearing annually. The person shall not be discharged if the Court finds that the person is likely to cause injury to others as a result of his or her intellectual disability if allowed to regain his or her liberty.\n\n(b)\nIf a person with an intellectual disability is discharged in accordance with the provisions of subsection (a) or subsection (a-1) of this section but continues to evidence the need for habilitation and care, it shall be the responsibility of the Department on Disability Services to arrange for suitable services for the person.","path":["Title 7. Human Health Care and Safety.","Chapter 13. Citizens with Intellectual Disabilities.","Subchapter IV. Hearing and Review Procedures."],"source_url":"https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/7-1304.11","current_through":"2026-08-20 (D.C. Law 26-175)","vintage":"","retrieved_at":"2026-08-29T05:44:07Z","sha256":"d5b571482715dfac1dda7a4c0fcad1252d550a73354279f5ddd4ad8fd4861f7b","source_id":"us-dc","stale":false,"prev":"us-dc/d.c.-code-7-1304.10","next":"us-dc/d.c.-code-7-1304.12"},"notice":"GroundRules: Original legal text. Not legal advice."}