How to remove the 5150 from public record

[tranquility]

And, just what will this do to affect the OP's 17 year old son? Is the NSA going to come down and pick him up for being suicidal? Is the FBI going to give him an anal probe for suspecting he might be a potential terrorist? Will the fact that some nebulous government database somewhere has his name associated with a 5150 hold be of any real import to him unless he seeks to obtain a firearm?

What is your solution for the OP, Tranq? That she should surrender, give up, and do nothing? Really?! Or, should she follow the process that is set out in an attempt to mitigate the harm done by the mental health hold. I, for one, do not opt for surrender and recommend that she seek legal counsel and try to mitigate the harm done by the hold if and when she can. As I mentioned, it may take some time because it is likely too close to the incident to be possible to remove it.

But, I suppose she can choose to surrender to fear and helplessness as you seem to have.

Sure. The OP should do the dance if desired. It"s just that to the OP's goal, it means nothing.

My advice is to all. Nothing is forgotten. Nothing. If a person can jump through hoops to be able to claim something on a form is interesting, but irrelevant.

Sorry we should just accept it, but, we should. Mom and son should accept it or spend a bunch of money and effort for the same result.

Such is the cost of an increment more of security. Such is the tradeoff.

Worth it? Yes, to me. OP's son? Your call.

 

[CdwJava]

Sure. The OP should do the dance if desired. It"s just that to the OP's goal, it means nothing.

I'm assuming the OP wants to limit the restrictions placed on her son's future by not being able to access firearms. It seems pretty clear to me.

The alternative is to just shrug one's shoulders, rage against the machine by doing nothing but a mad rant in the darkness and accomplish nothing. Personally, doing something that might yield the desired result is preferable to succumbing to feelings of despair and helplessness.

 

[tranquility]

I'm assuming the OP wants to limit the restrictions placed on her son's future by not being able to access firearms. It seems pretty clear to me.

The alternative is to just shrug one's shoulders, rage against the machine by doing nothing but a mad rant in the darkness and accomplish nothing. Personally, doing something that might yield the desired result is preferable to succumbing to feelings of despair and helplessness.

Accepting reality is not "doing nothing" and there is nothing "mad" in my "rant". Everything I've written is supported by sources that are usually considered reliable. It seems like you've back-peddled or "clarified" what you meant through this thread after I pointed out obvious issues with your statements. As to despair and helplessness, are you talking to me? I'm actually doing something by making sure people know that the internet changed everything. You realize a process "more than two decades" old might very well predate the public's use of the World Wide Web, right? Maybe they should update things. (Although the updates tend to close loopholes and make it harder, not easier. See also: NICS Reporting Improvement Act of 2007 and the upcoming NICS Reporting Improvement Act of 2013.)

Now, as to the OP's question:

Since his admission to the psychiatric facility was voluntary (I agreed with the ER physician's recommendation and did not make any objection), can we request that this "involuntary psychiatric hold" to be remove from his public record ?

No. It will always be on his record.

The "hold" would go into his public record and prevent him from working for any law-enforcement agency or joining the arm forces.

There is an automatic 5 year ban on the possession of firearms in son's situation which would legally prevent him from working in law enforcement. There is a process to remove the automatic ban, but not the record. Carl gave the statute. It would require an attorney and the cost of psychiatric examination to show son should no longer be prohibited. It is not guaranteed and incidents like the recent one in Santa Monica will insure the State will not just accept the ban's lifting. Finally, if the process did succeed, just because son would no longer be prohibited from possessing a firearm does not mean the agencies will hire.

I suspect the better course for the effort is to accept the agencies will know of the commitment. Help son with whatever treatment he needs and participates in positive activities to show how he has overcome his hurdles when he actually does seek a job in law enforcement or the armed forces. Perhaps he communicates with some of the places he is looking at (Or, does research on hiring policies.) to see how such a record will affect his chances. If he becomes healthy and strong in his sense of self and wise as to the requirements of the jobs he seeks, if that is before 5 years is up, he may consider getting the automatic ban removed.

 

[quincy]

Accepting reality is not "doing nothing" and there is nothing "mad" in my "rant". Everything I've written is supported by sources that are usually considered reliable. It seems like you've back-peddled or "clarified" what you meant through this thread after I pointed out obvious issues with your statements. As to despair and helplessness, are you talking to me? I'm actually doing something by making sure people know that the internet changed everything. You realize a process "more than two decades" old might very well predate the public's use of the World Wide Web, right? Maybe they should update things. (Although the updates tend to close loopholes and make it harder, not easier. See also: NICS Reporting Improvement Act of 2007 and the upcoming NICS Reporting Improvement Act of 2013.)

Now, as to the OP's question:
No. It will always be on his record.

There is an automatic 5 year ban on the possession of firearms in son's situation which would legally prevent him from working in law enforcement. There is a process to remove the automatic ban, but not the record. Carl gave the statute. It would require an attorney and the cost of psychiatric examination to show son should no longer be prohibited. It is not guaranteed and incidents like the recent one in Santa Monica will insure the State will not just accept the ban's lifting. Finally, if the process did succeed, just because son would no longer be prohibited from possessing a firearm does not mean the agencies will hire.

I suspect the better course for the effort is to accept the agencies will know of the commitment. Help son with whatever treatment he needs and participates in positive activities to show how he has overcome his hurdles when he actually does seek a job in law enforcement or the armed forces. Perhaps he communicates with some of the places he is looking at (Or, does research on hiring policies.) to see how such a record will affect his chances. If he becomes healthy and strong in his sense of self and wise as to the requirements of the jobs he seeks, if that is before 5 years is up, he may consider getting the automatic ban removed.

tranquility, after the brief detour of yours through paranoia and tin foil hat territory, you have now merely repeated what Carl said and advised in the beginning (with one exception - the 5150 is not a public record).

But thanks for letting everyone know that, because of the internet and our nefarious government, we are all doomed.

 

[tranquility]

tranquility, after the brief detour of yours through paranoia and tin foil hat territory, you have now merely repeated what Carl said and advised in the beginning (with one exception - the 5150 is not a public record).

But thanks for letting everyone know that, because of the internet and our nefarious government, we are all doomed.

Once again, rubbish. Please point out the "paranoia". It's true. At least to the level modern journalism can show anything to be true. The government admits to most of it. I am uncertain about this talk of crazy in any way. Please, point out the crazy.

Carl provided the statute of the process to remove the automatic ban. Does that answer the OP's question? No. I did. The record does not go away.

One legal effect of the record MAY be removed if successful. (I still can't find if the Feds accepted California rules on removal. All that I read was it was "likely" because California had the most complete process.) As to this highly restricted database, I explained ALL medical records are supposed to be electronic by next year. In any event, the acceptance of a person to a 72 hour hold will, by law, be reported to the department of justice so I am uncertain as to why this highly restricted database was brought up. I suspect any background investigation of a person for a police position would include the information.

Then the statement was made:

Well, local and state agencies don't work for the feds, and the feds don't tend to share squat. So what they might know or have buried in a deep intel file somewhere is not shared.

Other than the legal requirement to report this to the "feds" I'm uncertain how some deep intel file is relevant. It would certainly go into one, but it seems in context Carl was stating information isn't shared. I pointed out how it was. There is a large infrastructure being developed to do the very thing. Of course, Carl was involved with this and he just forgot to mention it. In pointing out the information shared, I though it rather obvious a 5150 hold would be of much greater interest and would be shared, or taken, as well.

While you two seem to want to keep on making straw men and burning them down for some reason, let's focus. Nothing is forgotten. I did not say the OP's son will suffer ill effects from some NSA secret database. But, you can assure yourself it is there. It is in many places. It is in NSA records, it is in electronic medical records, it has been reported to the Department of Justice and the California Department of Justice and the County has been told. Probably the private (or public) insurance covering the treatment as well. All except the NSA and insurance, by statute. That I make a comparison that no data goes away with current events and link it to mom's hope she can make it go away is as valid as feel-good words to make mom think it can happen.

 

[quincy]

. . . . .The Man always knows. Period. Exclamation point. . . . .You will all be implicated. It will just cost you money, but, who cares? We, and those with money, will be safe in their vaunted estates. . . .

Sure TLTRAN, you want your child to not suffer. But, he will. Even if you have a legal reason to expunge the facts; they are always there. Always. Legal protections mean nothing. The government is better than us and they do what they want. . . . .

How, exactly, do you find any of the above helpful to TLTRAN, tranquility?



(I certainly hope that whatever you came down with in this thread is not contagious. . . . . . .)

 

[CdwJava]

Whatever ...

Look, Tranq, if the OP wants to hide away and wear a tinfoil hat and surrender to despair, that's her choice. But, having a 5150 hold is NOT the end of the world, it is nearly impossible to access, and even the temporary effects on firearm possession can be mitigated.

I think this trek into the wilds is done.