402 P.3d 380
Wash. Ct. App.2017Background
- J.N. was subject to Washington's Involuntary Treatment Act (ITA) proceedings after detention and sought revocation of a less-restrictive order; he was at Navos and earlier at Harborview.
- King County historically transported respondents to the ITA court in person; loss of ambulance contracts prompted temporary emergency video hearings for hospitalized respondents.
- King County Superior Court adopted Local Mental Proceeding Rule (LMPR) 1.8(b), requiring respondents at five hospitals to appear by video unless they move for in-person hearing and show good cause.
- J.N. moved to bar a video hearing and requested an in-person hearing; the trial court denied the motion, conducted the hearing by video, and ordered 90 days inpatient hospitalization.
- The parties agreed the case was moot but asked the court to resolve the statutory question as one of continuing public interest: whether RCW 71.05.310's requirement that a respondent “shall be present at such proceeding” mandates physical presence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether RCW 71.05.310's phrase "shall be present at such proceeding" requires the respondent's physical presence | "Present" means being physically in the courtroom; historical practice and the statute's wording show physical presence was intended | Video presence satisfies "present" because it places the respondent within sight/call and permits meaningful participation | The statute unambiguously requires physical presence; LMPR 1.8(b) conflicted with RCW 71.05.310 and was invalid as applied to require video-only appearances |
| Whether the court should decide despite mootness because of public importance | The issue affects many respondents and raises recurring public-interest questions warranting resolution | State agreed the issue is of continuing public importance | Court exercised discretion to decide the issue and resolved it on statutory grounds (did not reach constitutional claims) |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Det. of LaBelle, 107 Wn.2d 196 (Wash. 1986) (recognizing need to clarify civil commitment statutory scheme)
- Fiore v. PPG Indus., Inc., 169 Wn. App. 325 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012) (issues of statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- Bennett v. Seattle Mental Health, 166 Wn. App. 477 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012) (primary emphasis in statutory interpretation is legislative intent)
- Humphrey v. Cady, 405 U.S. 504 (U.S. 1972) (noting involuntary commitment is a massive curtailment of liberty requiring due process)