In the Matter of M.S., Alleged to Be Seriously Mentally Impaired, M.S., 15-1270

M.S., involuntarily hospitalized and placed in a residential care facility, sought release and a less-restrictive placement.
The district court held a hearing styled as a placement hearing and denied his request for a less-restrictive placement.
M.S. appealed, arguing the hearing should have been treated as a writ of habeas corpus (invoking additional constitutional safeguards), that the court considered unrebutted evidence, and that evidence was insufficient to show he was seriously mentally impaired.
The State argued (a) the placement order was not appealable, (b) the parties had stipulated to a placement hearing, and (c) a subsequent habeas hearing during the appeal rendered the appeal moot.
The court treated the placement order as an application for a writ of habeas corpus, rejected the mootness argument (finding the later habeas hearing was a new proceeding), and held M.S. had stipulated to admission of written reports he later faulted.
On sufficiency review, the court found substantial evidence (diagnosis of major neurocognitive disorder, lack of self-care and judgment, history of aggression and threats, clinicians’ opinions that close supervision was required) supporting the finding of serious mental impairment and affirmed the denial of less-restrictive placement.

Issue	M.S.'s Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the placement hearing must be treated as a habeas corpus hearing and whether procedural protections were denied	Hearing was treated as placement, not habeas; constitutional safeguards were denied	Parties and court treated it as placement; parties stipulated to that procedure	Court treated the order as habeas for review and rejected procedural-error claim because M.S. had stipulated to admission of reports
Whether the appeal is moot because a habeas hearing occurred after the appeal was filed	The first hearing remained justiciable; later hearing did not cure errors in the first	Later habeas hearing rendered any defect in the earlier hearing moot	Court held the later habeas hearing did not render the earlier appeal moot — they were distinct proceedings
Whether the district court improperly considered written reports whose authors were unavailable for cross-examination	Reports admission denied fair opportunity to rebut	M.S. stipulated to admission of the reports	Court declined error: M.S. stipulated to report admission
Whether evidence was sufficient to find M.S. "seriously mentally impaired" under Iowa law	Argued insufficient evidence to satisfy elements (mental illness, impaired judgment, dangerousness)	Court relied on diagnoses, history of aggression, clinicians’ opinions about need for 24-hour supervision	Court found substantial evidence supporting the three statutory elements and affirmed denial of less-restrictive placement

In re B.B., 826 N.W.2d 425 (Iowa 2013) (discusses standards for habeas relief and mootness in civil commitment context)
In re Oseing, 296 N.W.2d 797 (Iowa 1980) (defines elements of "seriously mentally impaired")
In re B.T.G., 784 N.W.2d 792 (Iowa Ct. App. 2010) (placement hearings may be treated as habeas corpus petitions)
In re L.H., 480 N.W.2d 43 (Iowa 1992) (permitting reliance on facts outside the record for certain jurisdictional or mootness arguments)