In re C.V.
384 P.3d 1048
| Mont. | 2016Background
- Dawson County petitioned to involuntarily commit C.V. to the Montana State Hospital, alleging a delusional disorder causing inability to care for safety and posing imminent risk to self/others.
- Initial mental-health evaluation at the hospital: C.V. largely refused to participate; evaluator Heidt relied on third‑party reports and court filings and diagnosed delusional disorder.
- Witness testimony (Oakland, Thompson) described repeated harassing/stalking phone calls, escalation, and instances of C.V. going to a third party’s home at night, causing fear and altered behavior by community members.
- The district court held probable cause and, after adjudicatory and dispositional hearings (including testimony from a second professional, Ms. Heidt), ordered a 90‑day commitment to the State Hospital as the least restrictive placement.
- C.V. appealed, raising (1) insufficiency of evidence (hearsay and lack of specific threats), (2) alleged violation of her right to remain silent, and (3) a due‑process challenge to a sentence condition allowing immediate return to the hospital for noncompliance with discharge recommendations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (C.V.) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to commit | District relied on hearsay and witnesses who never saw C.V. in person; no specific articulated threats, so no imminent danger | C.V. failed to object below; professionals also relied on C.V.’s own filings and live witness testimony showing escalation and risk | Affirmed — substantial credible evidence supports imminent threat and deterioration criteria |
| Use of respondent silence/refusal to evaluate | Court/reports impermissibly relied on C.V.’s silence/refusal to evaluate to infer disorder | No timely objection below; C.V. failed to preserve the claim and offered no legal analysis on appeal | Waived — appellate review declined for failure to object/preserve |
| Reliance on hearsay in professionals’ reports | Hearsay in reports invalidates professionals’ opinions and undercuts imminent‑danger finding | Any inadmissible hearsay was not the sole basis; non‑hearsay evidence (witness testimony, C.V.’s own filings) independently supports findings | Rejected — unlike cases where hearsay was sole evidence, here district court had admissible testimonial evidence; commitment upheld |
| Order condition permitting immediate return for noncompliance | The order lets hospital staff recommit C.V. without district‑court proceedings, violating § 53‑21‑128 and due process | (Not disputed as to statutory process; State did not preserve argument on this point) | Reversed in part — sentence condition struck; recommitment requires statutory court procedures and protections |
Key Cases Cited
- In the Matter of S.L., 339 P.3d 73 (Mont. 2014) (standard of review and commitment‑order review)
- In the Matter of the Mental Health of T.J.D., 41 P.3d 323 (Mont. 2002) (reversal where professional’s report contained hearsay that was sole evidence of imminent danger)
- In the Matter of the Mental Health of D.L.T., 67 P.3d 189 (Mont. 2003) (abuse of discretion where commitment rested solely on inadmissible hearsay through professional witness)
- In the Matter of K.M.G., 229 P.3d 1227 (Mont. 2010) (failure to object below waives appellate review)