Beane v. S.R.B.
830 N.W.2d 565
N.D.2013Background
- Petition for involuntary commitment filed Feb 28, 2013 by S.R.B.'s father alleging mental illness and risk if untreated; emergency treatment sought.
- Trial court ordered emergency treatment and hospitalization at Sanford Health, then prelim hearing limited treatment to 14 days.
- Treating psychiatrist Dr. Shrestha testified S.R.B. has schizophrenia and faces substantial deterioration without antipsychotic treatment.
- Court found S.R.B. mentally ill with substantial risk of deterioration and ordered 90 days of hospitalization at the North Dakota State Hospital.
- Dr. Pryatel sought court authorization for prescribed medication; ex parte order granted; S.R.B. appeals the hospitalization and medication orders.
- Court remanded to cure insufficient findings and reversed the medication order for lack of proper notice and evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the hospitalization order had required findings under Rule 52(a)(1). | S.R.B. contends the court failed to make specific, detailed findings. | Court relied on on-record conclusions; record supports hospitalization. | Remand for expedited, specific findings; hospitalization order reversed pending proper findings. |
| Whether the least restrictive alternative was properly considered. | Court failed to determine if hospitalization was least restrictive or if alternatives sufficed. | Evidence indicated alternatives were inadequate due to medication refusal and risk. | Remand to make explicit findings on least restrictive treatment. |
| Whether notice and a hearing were provided for prescribed-medication authorization. | S.R.B. received no notice or hearing on the medication authorization. | Ex parte order issued; argues statutory process satisfied. | Reversed the medication order; improper ex parte action and lack of required findings. |
| Whether the four statutory factors for prescribing medication were proven by clear and convincing evidence. | Factors not properly examined due to lack of notice and findings. | Court did not adequately address the statutory factors on the record. | Remand pending explicit findings on the four factors. |
| Whether the court referenced Dr. Shrestha's report in its conclusions. | Findings did not identify reliance on Shrestha's report. | Record supports the treatment decision. | Remand to include evidentiary basis and references to the report. |
Key Cases Cited
- Interest of J.S., 2001 ND 10 (ND 2001) (emphasizes need for explicit findings and evidentiary basis)
- In re D.Z., 2002 ND 132 (ND 2002) (clear standard for review and proof of danger)
- Interest of Riedel, 353 N.W.2d 773 (ND 1984) (necessity of specific findings under Rule 52(a))
- Rothberg v. Rothberg, 2006 ND 65, 711 N.W.2d 219 (ND 2006) (requires explicit findings on evidentiary basis)
- In re K.L., 2006 ND 103, 713 N.W.2d 537 (ND 2006) (least restrictive treatment principle and requirement for findings)
- Interest of B.L.S., 2006 ND 218, 723 N.W.2d 395 (ND 2006) (statutory notice and procedural requirements for medication orders)
- L.C.V. v. D.E.G., 2005 ND 180, 705 N.W.2d 257 (ND 2005) (highlights need for specific, supported findings)
- Interest of J.S., 2001 ND 10, 621 N.W.2d 582 (ND 2001) (foundational discussion of evidentiary basis for involuntary treatment)