Neither commitments nor guardianships are automatic. Most commitment statutes require the court to consider the least restrictive alternative to inpatient treatment if inpatient treatment is not necessary. There are also limited guardianships. The court determines what powers the guardian will be able to exercise when a full guardianship is contraindicated.

What is particularly troublesome to me is the therapist has treated both Lisa and her husband. The therapist has a conflict of interest, unless the conflict was knowingly waived. Most states have a therapist/client privilege. The privilege is waived by law as to the principle in the commitment or guardianship proceedings.

The therapist has already told Lisa there are things in her file the therapist believes would disqualify her from being her husband's guardian. The therapist would not have that information if Lisa had not been a client. There is something wrong when a therapist uses privileged information from the treatment of a former client against her in a proceeding involving a current client.

Some time needs to pass to determine if the husband needs treatment and is prepared to cooperate in the treatment. There are strict time limits in commitment proceedings. Soon there will be some answers.