Johnson v. Bronson, 2013 ND 78

S.R.B. is subject of a petition for involuntary commitment filed by his father alleging mental illness and risk of harm if untreated.
Trial court ordered emergency treatment and hospitalization at Sanford Health for up to 14 days at preliminary hearing, followed by a 90-day hospitalization and treatment order at the North Dakota State Hospital after a later hearing.
Treating psychiatrist diagnosed schizophrenia, undifferentiated type, and testified there is substantial likelihood of deterioration if medication is not taken.
Dr. Pryatel later sought authorization for prescribed psychotropic medication; the court granted an ex parte order authorizing medication.
S.R.B. appeals the hospitalization/treatment order and the medication order on procedural and statutory grounds, arguing inadequate findings and failure to consider least restrictive treatment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are the trial court’s findings sufficient to support hospitalization and treatment?	S.R.B. argues the court failed to make explicit, required findings under Rule 52(a) and related statutes.	Beane contends the record supports the court’s conclusions and the statutory criteria for treatment.	Remanded for expedited, specific findings; reversal of medication order.
Did the court properly consider the least restrictive treatment option?	S.R.B. contends hospitalization was not shown to be the least restrictive alternative.	Beane asserts hospitalization is necessary given medication refusal and risk factors.	Remanded to make explicit findings on least restrictive alternative.
Was proper notice and hearing provided for the medication order under N.D.C.C. § 25-03.1-18.1?	S.R.B. argues notice and a hearing were required for the court to authorize prescribed medication.	Beane contends the court appropriately authorized treatment based on certifications.	Medication order reversed for lack of notice and insufficient statutory findings.
Did the court rely on valid evidentiary basis (e.g., Dr. Shrestha’s report) for its hospitalization conclusion?	S.R.B. challenges reliance on evidence not expressly tied to explicit findings.	Beane maintains the evidence supports treatment necessity.	Remand to articulate evidentiary basis for conclusions.

Interest of J.S., 2001 ND 10 (ND) (requires detailed findings; supports review of procedures and limits)
Interest of Riedel, 353 N.W.2d 773 (ND) (Rule 52(a) findings must be specific and disclose evidentiary basis)
In re D.Z., 2002 ND 132, 649 N.W.2d 231 (ND) (clear and convincing standard for treatment orders; review standard)
Interest of J.S., 2001 ND 10, 621 N.W.2d 582 (ND) (emphasizes need for explicit findings and statutory compliance)
In re K.L., 2006 ND 103, 713 N.W.2d 537 (ND) (least restrictive treatment requirement; need to consider alternatives)
Interest of B.L.S., 2006 ND 218, 723 N.W.2d 395 (ND) (notice and hearing requirements for medication orders)
Interest of R.A.S., 2008 ND 185, 756 N.W.2d 771 (ND) (remand with instructions when underpinning findings are missing)
L.C.V. v. D.E.G., 2005 ND 180, 705 N.W.2d 257 (ND) (principles for evaluating factual findings under Rule 52(a))