Case of slain mental health worker shedding light on civil commitment debate in Oregon

PORTLAND, Ore. (KATU) — On Tuesday, the mother of a slain mental health worker faced the courtroom and did something few victims will do -- she advocated for her daughter's killer.

"It took a lot," Meshell Rogers told the judge after he commended her for her compassion towards 61-year-old James Smith.

Smith was found guilty except for insanity in the killing of Meshell Rogers' 26-year-old daughter, Haley Rogers, in July 2023. Haley Rogers had been working a night shift alone at the Cascadia group home where Smith had been living.

READ MORE: Man accused of killing mental health worker found guilty except for insanity

Speaking after the verdict, Meshell Rogers told the judge her daughter would have wanted to see Smith get help for his mental health issues rather than being put in prison for life.

"Even though it kills me to advocate for him in any way, I believe that the mental health system failed him just like it failed Haley," she said in court.

Smith had previously been found guilty except for insanity in a 2021 case in which he had stabbed a random woman on the streets of Northwest Portland. Court documents note he had testified in court in that case, saying auditory hallucinations had caused him to commit the crime.

Court documents also note mental health workers told police they believed Smith had been off his meds and had alarming behaviors before Haley's fatal stabbing.

In court, Meshell told the judge that Smith should have been committed to the state hospital.

It's an issue mental health advocates are debating with vigor this legislative session, as some advocates push to lower the bar for civil commitment, the process by which a judge can allow for someone to be involuntarily committed to a mental institution when they are a danger to themselves or others.

READ MORE: Health company identifies employee fatally stabbed by resident at Gresham care facility

Dozens of mental health advocates have testified for and against House Bill 2467, which would make it easier to civilly commit someone. The bill was written by the Oregon branch of the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) and has received a great deal of political support, including from Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek. Kotek's behavioral health policy expert testified in favor of the bill along with her wife, Aimee Kotek Wilson.

As a former mental health worker, Kotek Wilson said she has seen firsthand the effects of Oregon's stringent civil commitment laws.

"I was responsible for assessing clients in critical need of care to determine if they met criteria for civil commitment," she said. "Too many times I came face to face with the reality that, despite good intentions, Oregon's current laws pose a real threat to the health and safety of patients in urgent need."

Advocates for the bill say, as written, Oregon's civil commitment laws, which call for involuntary commitment only when the threat of harm is "imminent," have been interpreted by courts to mean when the danger is occurring the same day.

The bill specifies that the timeline for a threat within 30 days. It also makes it possible to civilly commit a person who is in jail rather than relying on the jail's medical system to provide for the person's mental health.

The bill also sets the threshold for civil commitment higher when it applies to danger to self and lowers the bar when it applies to danger to others. The goal is to balance out the civil liberties of people with mental health illnesses to make their own choices with the need for public safety.

However, advocates like Sarah Smith feel 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 twelve 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."

NAMI did not immediately respond to a request for comment.