Matter of N.A., 495 P.3d 45

N.A., diagnosed with schizophrenia, reported suicidal thoughts and was voluntarily hospitalized; after discharge she stated she would slit her wrists, prompting the State to petition for involuntary commitment.
A hearing on the petition was held within the statutorily required five-day period; the State planned to call Ashley Post, a licensed clinical social worker and the court-appointed professional person.
The State proposed that Post testify by Vision Net (two-way audio-video); N.A. objected to remote testimony; the District Court overruled the objection and allowed Post to testify remotely.
Post testified about her contemporaneous evaluation and concluded N.A. remained an imminent risk and required involuntary medication; the District Court relied heavily on that testimony and ordered involuntary commitment to Montana State Hospital for up to 90 days.
The Montana Supreme Court reversed, holding § 53-21-140(5), MCA, prohibits use of two-way electronic audio-video communications when the respondent (or counsel) objects, and the error was not harmless because Post was the key professional witness whose physical presence was statutorily required.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court erred by allowing the court-appointed professional to testify via two-way video over respondent's objection	N.A.: remote testimony violated statutory protections and Confrontation rights; objection was timely	State: any error was harmless; objection was waived or continuance could have been sought	Court: Reversed — § 53-21-140(5) bars videoconference testimony over respondent's objection; error not harmless because Post was the key professional witness
Whether N.A. waived the objection or should have requested a continuance	N.A.: objection was sufficient and she had no duty to request a continuance given statutory timelines	State: N.A. acquiesced by not seeking a continuance; error, if any, was harmless	Court: Objection was adequate and not waived; respondent was not required to seek continuance; statutory prohibition controlled

Van Der Hule v. Mukasey, 349 Mont. 88 (construction that statutory phrase "may not" is mandatory)
In re L.L.A., 362 Mont. 464 (reversal where court failed to follow specific statutory mandates for commitment)
In re Mental Health of T.J.D., 308 Mont. 222 (refusal to apply harmless error where commitment relied on inadmissible evidence)
In re J.S., 388 Mont. 397 (commitment reversed for failure to strictly adhere to statutory requirements)
State v. Johns, 398 Mont. 152 (an objection is sufficient if it specifies the reason for disagreement)