Whelan v. A.O.
793 N.W.2d 471
| N.D. | 2011Background
- A.O. was found sexually dangerous in 2006 and committed to DHS’s care; ongoing commitment continued after successive reviews through 2009.
- North Dakota State Hospital (NDSH) treatment and a clinical letter supported by assessments were presented to justify placement.
- A.O. sought discharge in 2009 with an independent expert appointed; Dr. Riedel evaluated him in 2009.
- Trial court held a full discharge hearing in April 2010 and issued findings June 9, 2010 affirming continued commitment.
- The court concluded NDSH provided the least restrictive appropriate treatment given A.O.’s mild mental retardation and cognitive level.
- A.O. appeals, challenging the court’s treatment-placement determination as exceeding the court’s role under ND law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court may review the treatment placement for least restrictiveness | A.O. contends DHS decision on least restrictive option should be reviewed. | DHS argues the executive director selects the facility; court has limited review. | Court conducts limited review; findings supported; affirmed. |
| Whether A.O.’s substantive due process rights were violated | A.O. claims due process violation from continued commitment and treatment. | State argues issues not adequately briefed; no substantial claim shown. | Issue waived; not addressed on the merits. |
| Standard of review for the denial of discharge and support for findings | A.O. challenges weight/credibility of expert testimony. | State urges deference to trial-court credibility and evidence. | Appeal reviews for clear and convincing evidence; affirm if not clearly erroneous. |
Key Cases Cited
- Matter of Midgett, 2010 ND 98 (ND 2010) (modified clearly erroneous standard; discharge review requires clear and convincing evidence)
- Matter of Rush, 2009 ND 102 (ND 2009) (credibility and weighting of expert testimony given deference)
- Matter of G.R.H., 2006 ND 56 (ND 2006) (executive director determines least restrictive program; initial commitment not by court)
- Interest of B.V., 2006 ND 22 (ND 2006) (statutory scheme places treatment decisions with DHS, not trial court)
- Olson v. Workforce Safety & Ins., 2008 ND 59 (ND 2008) (need for persuasive authority and reasoned analysis on constitutional claims)