In Re The Detention Of J.w.b.
83469-0
| Wash. Ct. App. | Mar 14, 2022Background
- J.W.B. has been involuntarily confined since 1988 (after an alleged homicide) and repeatedly recommitted; Western State Hospital petitioned in Dec. 2020 for 180 days more involuntary treatment.
- Dr. Elwyn Hulse diagnosed schizophrenia, testified to persistent psychotic delusions (e.g., implanted "transistors," persecution) and impaired social cognition.
- Evidence of recent loss of control: Hulse testified J.W.B. threatened a female patient, choked her in Nov. 2020, and harassed female staffers sexually.
- Hulse also testified J.W.B. lacks insight, would not continue medication or seek outpatient care if released, and poses risk of serious physical harm if not treated.
- J.W.B. testified he would live at the Y and wash dishes, but repeatedly expressed delusional beliefs and denied being mentally ill.
- Trial court found J.W.B. gravely disabled under RCW 71.05.020(24)(b) and ordered continued hospitalization; J.W.B. appealed arguing insufficient evidence and inadequate findings. Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether clear, cogent, and convincing evidence supports a finding that J.W.B. is gravely disabled under RCW 71.05.020(24)(a) or (b) | Evidence is insufficient to show gravely disabled under either subsection | Testimony shows severe deterioration (loss of cognitive/volitional control) and lack of insight; would not receive essential care if released | Affirmed under subsection (b); court did not decide (a) |
| Whether the trial court's factual findings adequately support the legal conclusion of grave disability | Findings are too vague or unsupported to permit meaningful review | Findings (impaired social cognition, threats/assault, refusal/denial of illness, noncompliance) map to statutory elements | Findings are adequate and support gravely disabled conclusion |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Det. of LaBelle, 107 Wn.2d 196, 728 P.2d 138 (Wash. 1986) (interpreting "gravely disabled" and requiring inability to make rational treatment decisions)
- In re Det. of H.N., 188 Wn. App. 744, 355 P.3d 294 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015) (defining substantial-evidence standard for commitment findings)
- In re Det. of P.R., 18 Wn. App. 2d 633, 492 P.3d 236 (Wash. Ct. App. 2021) (either statutory definition of gravely disabled can support commitment)