In Re Mh2010-002637, 263 P.3d 82

Appellant seeks review of a trial court's order involuntarily committing him under Arizona civil-commitment statutes (ARS §36-539).
The trial court proceeded with the evidentiary hearing in Appellant's absence under §36-539(C) due to medical reasons, without first inquiring about alternative appearance.
Appellant, a diagnosed schizophrenic, was hospitalized with severe illness and a dangerously low white blood cell count, and was isolating from others.
Dr. Bailon testified telephonically that Appellant could not attend in person and that relocation of the hearing would not enable attendance within the relevant time window.
Counsel admitted he had not met or talked with Appellant, and did not pursue participation or alternative appearance methods; no cross-examination or closing argument occurred for Appellant.
The court admitted affidavits from doctors and heard additional testimony; the court found Appellant persistently or acutely disabled and in need of court-ordered treatment, and ordered inpatient/outpatient commitment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court must inquire into alternative appearance before proceeding without the patient	Appellant (through his counsel) argues §36-539(C) requires inquiry into alternatives to in-person appearance.	State asserts attendance could be dispensed with where medical reasons prevent presence.	Court must inquire into feasible alternatives before proceeding without presence.
Whether the patient has right to effective assistance of counsel in civil commitment hearings	Appellant contends counsel failed to meet statutory duties and provide effective representation.	State disputes the scope or sufficiency of showing ineffective assistance given record limitations.	Appellant has right to effective assistance; remand to assess counsel's compliance with §36-537(B).

Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480 (U.S. 1980) (civil commitment involves significant liberty interests requiring due process safeguards)
Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (U.S. 1979) (psychiatric diagnosis requires safeguards against erroneous deprivation)
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1976) (three-factor test for due process in procedural safeguards)
In re Beverly, 342 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 1977) (due process right to counsel in civil commitment contexts)
State v. Hasson, 217 Ariz. 559 (Ariz. App. 2008) (statutory interpretation and plain meaning with practical construction)
In re Commitment of Alleged Mentally Disordered Pers., 181 Ariz. 290 (Ariz. App. 1995) (strict adherence to statutory duties of counsel in civil commitments)
MH-2008-000867, 225 Ariz. 178, 236 P.3d 405 (Ariz. 2010) (telephonic appearance approved in civil commitment contexts; due process considerations)