Matter of Lindholm
24CA0805
| Colo. Ct. App. | Aug 15, 2024Background
- Laura Catherine Lindholm’s parents petitioned the district court to deprive her of the legal rights to choose her residence and make medical decisions, citing her diagnosis of schizophrenia, refusal of medication, and symptoms of paranoia and delusions.
- The district court issued a temporary order of legal disability; Lindholm was placed in an inpatient treatment facility.
- After a hearing (where Lindholm, her psychiatrist, mother, counselor, and employer testified), the court found her to have a mental health disorder, be a danger to herself or others, and "gravely disabled.”
- Lindholm’s treating psychiatrist later advised that inpatient care was no longer required, recommending placement with her parents as the least restrictive alternative.
- The court modified the order: Lindholm was to live with her parents, engage in outpatient therapy, take prescribed medication, not travel to Nebraska without her parents, and comply with her treatment plan.
- Lindholm appealed, arguing the order was unsupported by the record and unlawfully restricted her rights.
Issues
| Issue | Lindholm's Argument | Petitioners' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for legal disability and deprivation | No adequate evidence of danger to self/others; psychiatrist disagreed | Substantial evidence of grave disability and danger | Court's findings supported by the evidence |
| Legality of restrictions on residence, travel, and autonomy | Court lacked authority to impose such restrictions | Statutory authority under § 27-65-127 | Authority properly exercised under statute |
| Constitutionality of restrictions | Restrictions violate constitutional rights | No argument addressed (not raised below) | Constitutional claims unpreserved; not addressed |
| Duplicative/inconsistent conditions | Conditions duplicative and confusing for care providers | No specific response noted | Undeveloped argument; not considered |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Marquardt, 2016 CO 4 (Colo. 2016) (standard of appellate review for sufficiency of evidence)
- People in Interest of A.J.L., 243 P.3d 244 (Colo. 2010) (deference to trial court factual findings if supported by evidence)
- Lombard v. Colo. Outdoor Educ. Ctr., Inc., 187 P.3d 565 (Colo. 2008) (statutory interpretation of 'or')
- People v. Pflugbeil, 834 P.2d 843 (Colo. App. 1992) (authority to petition for deprivation of legal rights under mental health statutes)
- Cagle v. People, 751 P.2d 614 (Colo. 1988) (constitutional issues must be preserved for appeal)
- Colgan v. State, Dep’t of Revenue, 623 P.2d 871 (Colo. 1981) (same)