In re S.D., 422 P.3d 122

Background

The State filed a petition to involuntarily commit 71‑year‑old S.D. after suicide attempts and reported ongoing suicidal ideation; a mental‑health professional recommended up to 90 days at the Montana State Hospital.
The petition incorporated the evaluator’s report and listed statutory procedural rights under §§ 53‑21‑115 to ‑118, MCA.
At the initial appearance (via videoconference), the court advised S.D. of her rights; S.D. said she had no questions.
S.D. and her attorney then filed a signed written "Waiver of Hearing on Petition" in which S.D. acknowledged understanding her rights, waived (almost) all rights, and consented to commitment; counsel certified he discussed the waiver with her and believed she understood it.
The District Court entered an order committing S.D. for up to 90 days, stating it had considered the waiver under § 53‑21‑119, MCA, and found S.D. capable of making a knowing decision.
S.D. appealed, arguing the court violated statutory and due process rights by committing her without a hearing; the Court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court could accept S.D.'s written waiver and commit her without holding an in‑court hearing	S.D.: court must hold a hearing to determine knowingly/intentionally waived rights; waiver by signed paper is insufficient	State: the record (written waiver, counsel's certification, evaluator's report) shows an intentional, knowing waiver; no hearing required	The court may accept a respondent's written waiver and commit without a hearing if the record supports an intentional and knowing waiver under § 53‑21‑119(1), MCA; affirmed
Whether the court was required to assess waiver capacity in open court	S.D.: capacity must be assessed at a hearing and on the record; statutory protections require in‑court inquiry	State: the court can rely on respondent’s written statements and counsel’s representations as part of the record	Held: no statutory requirement that waiver occur in open court; the substantive determination may be supported by written or oral record; here the record sufficed
Applicability of § 53‑21‑119(2) (waiver of physical presence) when respondent is absent or not present at a hearing	S.D.: subsection (2) requires explicit findings when respondent is not physically present; the subsection was not followed here	State: subsection (2) governs waiving presence at a hearing but does not bar waiver of other rights by written waiver when respondent is capable	Held: subsection (2) did not bar acceptance of S.D.'s written waiver here; the court need not follow a separate hearing if the record otherwise supports a knowing waiver
Due process sufficiency of relying on written waiver and counsel's certification	S.D.: relying on paperwork undermines due process and statutory protections for involuntary commitment	State: due process satisfied because the record shows respondent understood and intentionally waived rights; statutory scheme permits waiver except for counsel and treatment	Held: due process not violated; record (written waiver, counsel’s attestation, evaluator’s report, court order) met statutory and due‑process requirements

Key Cases Cited

In re N.A., 376 Mont. 379, 334 P.3d 915 (Mont. 2014) (plenary review of due process in commitment cases)
In re R.W.K., 369 Mont. 193, 297 P.3d 318 (Mont. 2013) (court may rely on counsel’s on‑the‑record representations about respondent’s waiver)
In re A.M., 376 Mont. 226, 332 P.3d 263 (Mont. 2014) (district court must make affirmative on‑the‑record determination that waiver is knowing and intentional)
In re P.A.C., 369 Mont. 407, 298 P.3d 1166 (Mont. 2013) (reversed where record did not show respondent capable of intentional, knowing waiver)
In re L.K., 353 Mont. 246, 219 P.3d 1263 (Mont. 2009) (strict compliance with § 53‑21‑119(2) required when respondent leaves or is absent)
In re L.K.-S., 359 Mont. 191, 247 P.3d 1100 (Mont. 2011) (reversed where record lacked appointed friend’s concurrence in waiver)
In re S.M., 389 Mont. 28, 403 P.3d 324 (Mont. 2017) (statutory safeguards and due‑process standards in civil commitment)
Dist. Attorney's Office v. Osborne, 557 U.S. 52 (U.S. 2009) (caution about extending constitutional protections beyond considered legislative responses)