In March Defendant is examined and found not competent to stand trial.

In July Defendant is reexamined and found not competent to stand trial and not likely to regain competence in the forseeable future.

In July (dated one day after the above report) report from State Hospital states Defendant NO LONGER REQUIRES INPATIENT PSYCHIATRIC CARE.

Okay, now what?

First, look at 46B.084, and then 102:

Given that you have only one shot at restoration, which the def has failed, you could nonetheless commit the person under 46B.102 -- and thereby press the state hospital to consider the necessity for continued inpatient care. That is a civil matter and even if this is a misdemeanor, will outlive the criminal jurisdiction. That might buy a little more time to find some rational outpatient care.

If the matter is a misdemeanor, you might consider transfer to the court having civil mental health jurisdiction for an outpatient commitment (if you could find a treating entity, coupled with a residential facility or personal care home) who will take the person. This tactic will allow swift modification back to an inpatient status without the procedural requirements of inpatient (when starting with an EDW/OPC).

The difficult part is that the SH has prejudiced the outcome by boldly stating (before they get him back) that he doesn't meet criteria for inpatient care. How can one say delicately, "You may be out-of-luck?"