Warning

Info

Warning

Info

Warning

Info

LSDefine

Simple English definitions for legal terms

protective custody

Read a random definition: preferential tariff

A quick definition of protective custody:

Protective custody is when someone is kept safe by the government because they might be in danger. This can happen if someone is a child who needs help, a witness who needs to be protected, or a person who is mentally ill and might hurt themselves or others. For example, if a child is in danger, the government might take them into protective custody to keep them safe.

A more thorough explanation:

Protective custody is when someone is confined, either voluntarily or involuntarily, because government authorities believe that person will be in danger if they are not confined. This is done to protect children, witnesses, or mentally ill individuals.

  • Child Protection: In New York, the Family Court Act requires peace officers or government social workers to take necessary measures to protect a child's life or health, including taking or keeping a child in protective custody.
  • Witness Protection: In New York, inmates who are serving as witnesses for trial proceedings can be placed in protective custody to ensure their safety.
  • Mental Health: In Texas, a judge or magistrate can issue a protective custody order for a mentally ill patient if a physician has stated that the patient is a person with mental illness and presents a substantial risk of serious harm to themselves or others.

These examples illustrate how protective custody is used to keep people safe from harm. Whether it's a child who needs protection from an abusive parent, a witness who needs protection from retaliation, or a mentally ill person who needs to be restrained for their own safety, protective custody is a tool that can be used to ensure the safety of vulnerable individuals.

Protectionism | protest

Warning

Info

General

General chat about the legal profession.
main_chatroom
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
yeah there are so many good cuisines in ithaca
renard99
22:31
@lilypadfrog: that’s a pity I’da be liking them all
texaslawhopefully
22:31
Only food I’m going to miss for sure if I leave Texas is texmex
22:31
waspy hasnt had thai food in ithaca yet. ithaca thai is so good
^^^^ truuuuuu
22:32
there are two major thai places and they have very similar names bc a divorced husband and wife own them lol
22:32
personally i think taste of thai is better than taste of thai express but thats just me
i had pho tho and it was really good and huge portions
texaslawhopefully
22:32
Glad they have good Thai food, I love Thai food! Can’t wait to visit :)
22:33
when tex goes to ithaca i want to come
Dkk
22:34
Crying Tiger, best Thai dish.
damn im so hungry all i had today was a curry tonkatsu and buldak
and it was a lil baby noodle cup
vvv hungry
22:36
curry tonkatsu so yummeh
22:36
whats even open rn? pizza?
CTB is it i think
22:37
is collegetown pizza not open
22:37
i used to get a slice from there or wings over at like 1am after my shift at the restaurant
Dkk
22:48
Ross Ulbricht free. God Bless Trump. Huge win.
JeremyFragrance
22:54
agreed
texaslawhopefully
22:55
This is an interesting read: https://thedispatch.com/article/birthright-citizenship-trump-implications/
Dkk
23:01
I mean, idk how it's possible to end birth right citizenship without amending the constitution because to me the 14th amendment is pretty clear about it.
ross ulbricht tried to hire a hitman to kill 5 people
i am not that sympathetic to him
Dkk
23:04
@KnowledgeableRitzyWasp: That might have been an FBI agent. It was most likely him and he was most likely doing it to retrieve stolen funds that corrupt FBI agents stole, but yeah moral gray area but me personally, cool with hitmen. It's not like it is uncommon to hire hitmen. I don't think the action itself is necessarily wrong but the intent behind it can be.
Dkk
23:05
Like, Boeing whistblowers being killed by hitmen = wrong but a guy hiring hitmen to retrieve stolen funds = good to me.
texaslawhopefully
23:05
@Dkk: Yeah, for sure. My guess is it'll go to SCOTUS and it'll be 8-1 or 7-2, saying that EO was unconstitutional.
Dkk
23:06
Indeed. I need a count for how many exectuive orders he has signed and how many already have pending lawsuits.
i've been away for a while what were the most recent waves? any this week?
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.