State Ex Rel. Dw, 359 S.W.3d 383

DW was involuntarily brought to evaluate for mental health treatment after reporting kidnapping and torture; doctors diagnosed psychotic disorder NOS.
Trial court granted temporary inpatient commitment and order to administer psychoactive meds based on statutory criteria and evidence.
DW challenged the commitment and medication order as legally and factually insufficient.
Evidence included expert testimony that DW is mentally ill and likely to harm herself or others; she held paranoid delusions and irrational beliefs.
DW testified about delusions and religious beliefs opposing medication; court found evidence supported the three commitment criteria and medication capacity findings.
Appellate review applied clear and convincing evidence standard to both commitment and medication orders; courts upheld both judgments.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for commitment	DW contends evidence is legally and factually insufficient to prove three criteria.	State asserts evidence supports mental illness and likelihood of serious harm or inability to make treatment decisions.	Evidence sufficient to support commitment
Lack of capacity and best interest for medication	DW contends she lacked capacity to decide and medication not in her best interest.	DW lacks capacity and treatment with medication is in her best interest; alternatives are more intrusive.	Evidence sufficient to prove lack of capacity and best interest for medication

A.S. v. State, 286 S.W.3d 69 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2009) (applies clear and convincing standard to both orders)
State v. Addington, 588 S.W.2d 569 (Tex. 1979) (defines clear and convincing evidence standard)
In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex.2002) (heightened review for commitment orders)
In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex.2002) (reasonable fact-finder may rely on entire record for conviction)
T.G. v. State, 7 S.W.3d 248 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1999) (requires overt act or pattern of behavior tied to criteria)