Matter of C.B.
2017 MT 83
| Mont. | 2017Background
- C.B., a 28-year-old with bipolar disorder with psychotic features, has a history of medication noncompliance, repeated short inpatient stays at Billings Clinic, homelessness, and encounters with police for dangerous/disorganized behavior.
- Between April and October 2015 four commitment petitions were filed; three were dismissed after short Clinic stays during which C.B. stabilized on meds but soon relapsed.
- An October 13, 2015 petition led to appointment of Dr. Amy Schuett as the professional person and an evidentiary hearing on October 19, 2015.
- The District Court found by a reasonable degree of medical certainty that C.B. suffered a mental disorder, was unable to care for herself, and that Montana State Hospital (MSH) was the least restrictive option.
- The court authorized involuntary administration of medication at MSH if necessary based on C.B.’s history of refusing meds. C.B. appealed, arguing (1) reliance on hearsay, (2) insufficient evidence she could not provide for basic needs, (3) statutory standard for involuntary meds not met, and (4) ineffective assistance of counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of hearsay in Dr. Schuett’s report/testimony | Dr. Schuett relied on double-hearsay (officers’/passersby statements about walking in traffic); counsel failed to object so error preserved | State: no contemporaneous objection; district court never asked to rule; other admissible records support commitment | Court declined to address hearsay for first time on appeal and found district court’s ruling supported by other evidence |
| Sufficiency of evidence that respondent cannot provide basic needs | C.B.: testimony showed she was housed, obtaining food/clothing, complying with outpatient care; disputed factual basis (walking in street) undercuts commitment | State: multiple Clinic records, repeated hospitalizations, and Dr. Schuett’s evaluations show inability to care for self and predictability of deterioration | Court held substantial admissible evidence supported conclusion that C.B. was unable to care for herself and commitment was proper |
| Authorization for involuntary medication using phrase “may be necessary” under §53‑21‑127(6) | C.B.: phrase is too vague and fails to meet statutory standard that involuntary meds be necessary to protect respondent/public or facilitate treatment | State: history of clear medication noncompliance and repeated relapses shows involuntary meds may be necessary to facilitate effective treatment; court explained choice and relied on medical findings | Court affirmed authorization: given C.B.’s history and statutory safeguards, involuntary meds were authorized as necessary in circumstances where she refuses |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel at commitment hearing | C.B.: counsel failed to object to hearsay and involuntary meds authorization, conducted minimal cross-examination, and did not (on record) seek a second evaluation | State: counsel cross‑examined Dr. Schuett, developed alternative explanations, and the record supported court’s findings regardless of contested points | Court concluded counsel’s performance was not deficient and IAC claim failed because evidence independently supported commitment and medication ruling |
Key Cases Cited
- In re C.V., 385 Mont. 429 (supports reviewing sufficiency of commitment evidence where hearsay issue was not timely raised)
- In re R.H., 385 Mont. 530 (reversed involuntary‑medication order where no history of noncompliance showed necessity)
- In re R.F., 369 Mont. 236 (ineffective‑assistance principles in civil commitment context)
- Grizzly Sec. Armored Express, Inc. v. Bancard Servs., 385 Mont. 307 (appellate courts ordinarily do not address issues raised first on appeal)
- State v. McDonald, 369 Mont. 483 (plain‑error review is discretionary and rarely invoked)