Matter of D.L.B.
2017 MT 106
| Mont. | 2017Background
- Respondent D.L.B., age 76, has chronic paranoid schizophrenia with repeated involuntary hospitalizations and medication noncompliance leading to decompensation.
- Transferred from Montana State Hospital (MSH) to the Montana Mental Health Nursing Care Center (Nursing Care Center) on March 24, 2015; first 6‑month extension affirmed by this Court in D.L.B. I.
- Petitioner (certified mental health professional Susan Stevens) sought a second extended commitment on Dec. 18, 2015; contested hearing held Jan. 22, 2016.
- Professionals testified D.L.B. remains psychotic, refuses medication, cannot meet basic needs in community placements, and does not require acute care at MSH; nursing home placement was ruled out due to active psychosis and inability to administer involuntary medication there.
- District Court orally found the Nursing Care Center was the least restrictive placement and ordered recommitment up to one year; its written order contained only conclusory findings that commitment was necessary and the Nursing Care Center was the most appropriate placement.
- The State argued the implied‑findings doctrine and mootness; the Court found the issue capable of repetition and concluded the written findings failed to satisfy statutory specificity, remanding for an amended order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court made statutorily required findings about alternative placements when extending commitment | D.L.B.: written findings are deficient under §§ 53‑21‑127 and 53‑21‑128(1)(d); remand needed for specific findings | State: bench findings and hearing record (implied findings) suffice; appeal may be moot | Court: Written findings are insufficient; remand for amended order with specified findings required |
| Whether implied‑findings doctrine can supply omitted statutory findings in involuntary commitment orders | D.L.B.: court must strictly comply with statutory text; cannot rely on implication to supply required findings | State: doctrine can fill gaps where record and bench findings support required findings | Court: doctrine limited; cannot be stretched to substitute for express statutory findings absent clear, supportive express findings |
| Mootness of appeal | D.L.B.: exception (capable of repetition yet evading review) applies | State: commitment expired; appeal moot | Court: exception applies; review appropriate |
| Whether involuntary medication and Nursing Care Center admission requirements were adequately addressed | D.L.B.: challenges sufficiency of findings about alternatives and nursing center admission authorization | State: asserted evidence and bench findings support these determinations | Court: findings lacked required specifics (e.g., alternatives investigated, why unsuitable, Nursing Care Center admission criteria and written superintendent authorization); remand ordered |
Key Cases Cited
- In re S.M., 377 Mont. 133 (2014) (standard of review for commitment findings)
- In re G.M., 337 Mont. 116 (2007) (reviewing evidence in light most favorable to prevailing party)
- In re Mental Health of E.P.B., 339 Mont. 107 (2007) (statutory‑findings review)
- In re Mental Health of D.S., 327 Mont. 391 (2005) (remand required where findings omitted required details)
- In re Mental Health of S.C., 303 Mont. 444 (2000) (detailed findings supported involuntary medication order)
- In re L.L.A., 362 Mont. 464 (2011) (conclusory findings insufficient)
- In re C.C., 384 Mont. 135 (2016) (‘‘bare‑bones’’ findings inadequate)
- In re B.D., 381 Mont. 505 (2015) (strict compliance with commitment statute required)
- In re D.L.B. I, 386 Mont. 180 (2017) (prior appeal addressing related commitment issues)
- S.G.R. v. State, 383 Mont. 74 (2016) (discussion of implied findings doctrine)