In re D.K.D.
360 Mont. 76
Mont.2011Background
- D.K.D. is a seriously developmentally disabled individual committed to MDC for up to one year.
- D.K.D. does not appeal the commitment order, only the provision authorizing involuntary medication under MDC policy.
- The District Court’s order stated MDC staff could administer medication involuntarily under their policy.
- RFST recommended MDC for up to one year with a multidisciplinary treatment plan.
- The district court, at the end of the commitment order, included language authorizing involuntary medication under MDC policy, which D.K.D.’s counsel did not object to.
- The issue is whether that language constitutes plain error warranting reversal or modification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred by authorizing involuntary medication under MDC policy | D.K.D. argues plain error | State argues no error; policy-based provision is surplusage | No plain error; language is surplusage; no reversal; affirm |
Key Cases Cited
- In re L.S., 349 Mont. 518, 204 P.3d 707 (2009 MT 83) (applies clearly erroneous and correctness standards in civil commitment)
- In re Mental Health of E.P.B., 339 Mont. 107, 168 P.3d 662 (2007 MT 224) (clarifies standards in commitment proceedings)
- In re Mental Health of L.K.-S., 359 Mont. 191, 247 P.3d 1100 (2011 MT 21) (confirms clearly erroneous and correctness standards)
- In re T.P., 345 Mont. 152, 190 P.3d 313 (2008 MT 266) (applies standard of review in civil commitment)