In the Matter of B.B., Alleged to Be Seriously Mentally Impaired, B.B.
2013 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 1
| Iowa | 2013Background
- Police took B.B. to hospital after he entered a restricted air-base area in an agitated state; emergency hospitalization ordered under Iowa Code 229.22(3).
- An application under Iowa Code 229.6 alleged serious mental impairment; affidavits from Sorensen and Hoffman described disturbing conduct and threats.
- Dr. Ejiro Idahosa diagnosed psychosis and stated lack of sufficient judgment and need for inpatient treatment; recommended outpatient follow-up.
- A December 20 hearing admitted the affidavits and Dr. Idahosa’s report; the district court found clear and convincing evidence of serious mental impairment and lack of judgment.
- B.B. appealed; during the appeal he was released to outpatient treatment; the district court later terminated proceedings and discharged him.
- This was not B.B.’s first involuntary commitment; he testified to a prior 14-year-ago commitment for depression with psychotic features.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness of appeal after release and termination | B.B. argues mootness should apply but collateral consequences justify review. | State contends mootness applies; stigma collateral consequences are insufficient to preserve review. | Appeal not moot; collateral consequences presumed and merits reviewed. |
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove serious mental impairment | B.B. challenges the district court’s reliance on Idahosa and related evidence. | State contends Dr. Idahosa’s testimony and corroborating evidence establish lack of judgment and danger. | District court’s finding supported by substantial evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (Supreme Court 1979) (recognizes stigma and its impact on liberty in involuntary commitment)
- In re M.T., 625 N.W.2d 702 (Iowa 2001) (mootness presumed but merits reviewed under public-interest and collateral-consequences frameworks)
- In re Ballay, 482 F.2d 648 (D.C. Cir. 1973) (collateral consequences and stigma of commitment noted)
- In re Joan K., 273 P.3d 594 (Alaska 2012) (presumption of collateral consequences; case-by-case analysis discussed)
- Alfred H.H., 233 Ill.2d 345 (Illinois 2009) (case-by-case consideration of collateral-consequence mootness)
- In re Lodge, 608 S.W.2d 910 (Texas/App. 1980) (collateral consequences and mootness discussions in commitment context)
- J.S., 817 A.2d 53 (Vt. 2002) (collateral-consequence considerations in involuntary commitment)
- Westlake v. State, 440 So.2d 74 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983) (mootness doctrine analysis recognizing legal consequences over stigma alone)