In Re the Necessity for the Hospitalization of Joan K.
2012 Alas. LEXIS 51
| Alaska | 2012Background
- Joan K., an adult with bipolar disorder, was involuntarily hospitalized after a February 2010 episode involving confusion and illegal drug use.
- FMH practitioners obtained an ex parte order for a 30-day mental-health evaluation, and the superior court held a 30-day commitment hearing.
- Dr. Bell (psychiatrist) and Dr. Parker (psychologist) observed Joan but did not contact her prior treating providers or family.
- The superior court found mental illness, a likelihood of harm to self via drug use, likelihood of harm to others, and that API was the least restrictive appropriate placement.
- Joan challenged the 30-day order as unsupported by sufficient evidence, and the court addressed mootness and collateral consequences before addressing merits.
- The Alaska Supreme Court ultimately affirmed the commitment; it adopted a collateral consequences mootness exception for first involuntary commitment appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeal is moot and, if so, whether collateral consequences apply | Joan argues collateral consequences make the appeal live | State contends mootness doctrine to dismiss; no collateral consequences shown | Collateral consequences exception adopted; merits review allowed |
| Whether there was clear and convincing evidence of harm to self and least restrictive placement | Joan contends evidence was speculative; no clear intent to harm and no viable less-restrictive option | State asserts evidence showed risk and no lesser alternative would suffice | Evidence supported Harm to self and API as least restrictive placement; order affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Wetherhorn v. Alaska Psychiatric Institute, 156 P.3d 371 (Alaska 2007) (mootness framework for commitment appeals; collateral consequences discussed later)
- E.P. v. Alaska Psychiatric Inst., 205 P.3d 1101 (Alaska 2009) (defined mental illness and threshold for continued risk; similar reasoning on harm)
- In re Tracy C., 249 P.3d 1085 (Alaska 2011) (standard of review for involuntary commitment findings)
- In re Johnstone, 2 P.3d 1226 (Alaska 2000) (clear and convincing standard; evidence quality)
- AS 47.30.735(c), - (Alaska statute) (requires clear and convincing evidence of mental illness causing harm or grave disability)