In Re The Detention Of: M.n.
83306-5
| Wash. Ct. App. | Jan 31, 2022Background
- M.N., with a long history of involuntary commitments, was petitioned by Western State Hospital for an additional 180 days of involuntary treatment as gravely disabled.
- A Pierce County superior court commissioner held an ITA hearing; a clinical psychologist testified and the commissioner found M.N. gravely disabled, ordering 180 days and noting LRA eligibility.
- M.N. filed a motion to revise the commissioner’s order under Pierce County Local Rule 7(a)(12), challenging the findings and submitting written arguments.
- A superior court judge denied the motion on the pleadings without oral argument, stating the order was entered based on the filings and COVID-related lack of personal appearances.
- M.N. appealed, arguing the denial of oral argument violated his procedural due process rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether procedural due process requires oral argument on a motion to revise a commissioner’s involuntary commitment order | M.N.: due process guarantees right to present oral argument on the revision motion | State: due process does not require oral argument; court may decide on written submissions | Court: No. Due process requires meaningful opportunity to be heard, not oral argument; written submissions sufficed |
| Whether PCLR 7(a)(12)(A) mandated oral argument despite PCLR 7(a)(10) allowing waiver | M.N.: PCLR 7(a)(12)(A) requires scheduling argument within 30 days | State: PCLR 7(a)(10) allows the court to waive oral argument in its discretion | Court: Waiver permitted; court properly exercised discretion and did not abuse process |
Key Cases Cited
- Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (1979) (civil commitment is a significant deprivation of liberty)
- In re Det. of Stout, 159 Wn.2d 357 (2007) (procedural due process requires notice and meaningful opportunity to be heard)
- In re Welfare of D.E., 196 Wn.2d 92 (2020) (due process review is de novo)
- Rivers v. Washington State Conference of Mason Contractors, 145 Wn.2d 674 (2002) (oral argument on a motion is not a due process right)
- State v. Bandura, 85 Wn. App. 87 (1997) (procedural due process does not mandate oral argument on a written motion)
- State v. Ramer, 151 Wn.2d 106 (2004) (revision court reviews the commissioner’s decision de novo based on the record before the commissioner)
- In re Det. of M.K., 168 Wn. App. 621 (2012) (appeal of involuntary commitment may not be moot despite lapse of commitment)
- Prostov v. State, Dep’t of Licensing, 186 Wn. App. 795 (2015) (state constitution does not afford greater due process protections than federal constitution)