In re MH2014-002674.
No. 1 CA-MH 14-0073.
Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 1.
Sept. 3, 2015.
358 P.3d 609
Maricopa County Legal Defender‘s Office, By Anne Phillips, Phoenix, Counsel for Appellant.
Judge MAURICE PORTLEY delivered the Opinion of the Court, in which Presiding Judge PATRICIA K. NORRIS and Judge PATRICIA A. OROZCO joined.
OPINION
PORTLEY, Judge:
¶ 1 Appellant, who is deaf, challenges the trial court‘s order that she undergo a combination of inpatient and outpatient treatment at a mental health treatment facility. She argues that her statutorily defined due process rights were violated beсause the court-ordered evaluations were conducted through written communications despite her request for an American Sign Language (“ASL“) interpreter. Because a reasonable attempt was made to secure an ASL interpretеr and Appellant effectively communicated with both evaluating doctors during the evaluations, we find no due process violation and affirm the court‘s order.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
¶ 2 After Appellant refused voluntary inpatient treatment to stabilize her condition, her psychiatrist filed a petition for court-ordered evaluation in August 2011 alleging that Appellant was persistently or acutely disabled as a result of a mental disorder. The court granted the petition and, based on Appellant‘s request, also ordered the Court Interpretation and Translation Services office to provide an ASL interpreter.
¶ 3 Appellant renewed her request for an ASL interpreter the next day before she was interviewed by two psychiatrists, Dr. Michael Hughes, who was on her outpatient treatment team, and Dr. Sead Hadziahmetovic. The hospital social worker attempted to get an ASL interpreter, but one was not avail
¶ 4 After the evaluations were completed, Dr. Hughes filed a petition for court-ordered treatment (“COT“) pursuant to
¶ 5 Appellant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing the hospital failed to adhere to statutorily defined due process standards by not providing an ASL interpreter to assist her during the court-ordered evaluations. She argued that because the doctors did not use an ASL interpreter during the interviews, the doctors’ affidavits were legally insufficient under
¶ 6 Dr. Hughes testified that Appellant requested an ASL interpreter and he passed along the request to the social worker to make the arrangements. The social worker contacted the interpreter service provider, but no ASL interpreters were available. As a result, Dr. Hughes сonducted his interview by writing out the questions he wanted Appellant to answer. He also testified that he was able to read Appellant‘s handwriting, Appellant appeared to understand the written questions, and her answers were appropriately rеlated to the written questions.2
¶ 7 After setting a briefing schedule on Appellant‘s motion to dismiss, the court continued the hearing to September 12, 2014. At the hearing, the court denied Appellant‘s motion to dismiss, finding that an attempt had been made to secure an ASL interрreter, but an ASL interpreter was not available during the time the psychiatrists had to evaluate Appellant; and Appellant appeared to be comfortable communicating in writing, especially since “she has done [so] historically and ... thеre were little to no indications that there were communicational problems or impediments because she was communicating in writing in English with both doctors.” Then, based on all of the evidence presented, the court found that Appellant had a mеntal disorder and was persistently or acutely disabled and in need of psychiatric treatment, and ordered her to undergo combined inpatient and outpatient treatment.
¶ 8 Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. We have jurisdictiоn pursuant to
DISCUSSION
¶ 9 We will not disturb an order for treatment unless it is “clearly erroneous or unsupported by any credible evidence.” In re Mental Health Case No. MH 94-00592, 182 Ariz. 440, 443, 897 P.2d 742, 745 (App. 1995) (citing In re Coconino Cty. No. MH 1425, 176 Ariz. 525, 528, 862 P.2d 898, 901 (App. 1993)). In reviewing the record to determine whether the order is supported by substantial evidence, see Pima County Mental Health Service Action No. MH-1140-6-93, 176 Ariz. 565, 566, 863 P.2d 284, 285 (App. 1993) (citing Commitment of an Alleged Mentally Disordered Person MH 91-00558, 175 Ariz. 221, 224, 854 P.2d 1207, 1210 (App. 1993)), “[w]e view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the trial court‘s judgment.” Cimarron Foothills Cmty. Ass‘n v. Kippen, 206 Ariz. 455, 457, ¶ 2, 79 P.3d 1214, 1216 (App. 2003) (quoting Sw. Soil Remediation, Inc. v. City of Tucson, 201 Ariz. 438, 440, ¶ 2, 36 P.3d 1208, 1210 (App. 2001)) (internal quotation marks omitted). We review the application and interpretation of statutes
¶ 10 Appellant argues that her due process rights were violatеd because the hospital failed to secure an ASL interpreter to assist during her interviews with the evaluating psychiatrists. Relying on
¶ 11 Due process requires courts to adhere strictly to statutes pertaining to court-ordered treatment. In re MH 2007-001264, 218 Ariz. 538, 539, ¶ 6, 189 P.3d 1111, 1112 (App. 2008); see also
¶ 12 The statutory framework provides that a petition for involuntary treatment “shall be accompanied by the affidavits of the two physicians who participated in the evaluation,”
¶ 13 Section
¶ 14 The doctors had, by statute, “less than seventy-two hours” to evaluate Appellant and submit their reports after learning that the court had ordered her evaluation.
¶ 15 Moreover, there was no evidence indicating that there was a more reasonable option available or that further efforts to secure an ASL interpreter from another source would have been successful. And although communicating in writing was not Appellant‘s preferred method of communication, she does not complain about, and the record does not show, any communication
¶ 16 Appellant alsо argues that the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA“) and federal case law support her argument. The ADA provides that “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.”
Although in some circumstances a notepad and written materials be sufficient to permit effective communication, in other circumstances they may not be sufficient. For example, a qualified interpreter may be necessary when the information being communicated is complex, or is exchanged for a lengthy period of time. Generally, factors to be considered in determining whether an interpreter is requirеd include the context in which the communication is taking place, the number of people involved, and the importance of the communication.
¶ 17 Appellant also relies on Randolph v. Rodgers, 170 F.3d 850 (8th Cir. 1999) and Tucker v. Tennessee, 539 F.3d 526 (6th Cir. 2008) to support her argument. In Randolph, a deaf inmate secured a permanent injunction in federal district court arguing that the Missouri Department of Corrections had violated Missouri Statute § 476.753(1)(4) by failing to provide him with an ASL interpreter during disciplinary proceedings. 170 F.3d at 854-55. On appeal, the circuit court vacated the injunction оn other grounds, and in doing so noted that the plain language of the Missouri statute required that “a designated responsible authority shall provide” a qualified interpreter at certain proceedings. Id. at 859 (emphasis added). Here, and unlike the mandatory language of the Missouri statute that the responsible authority “shall provide,” the Arizona statute only requires that “every reasonable attempt” be made to provide an interpreter. Compare
¶ 18 In Tucker, the police responded to a domestic dispute and after learning that the family members suffered from hearing and speech impediments, communicated in writing. 539 F.3d at 528. The police arrested a number of family members for assault, disorderly conduct and resisting arrest. Id. at 528-29. The arrestees, and their deaf mother, subsequently sued the city and county for civil rights violations, alleging in part that the city‘s failure to provide an interpreter when the police responded to the domestic disturbance call, as well as during their arrest, post-arrest detention, initial appeal and dispositional hearing violated the ADA. Id. at 530. The federal district court granted summary judgment for the city and county, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed after finding there was no intentional discrimination and that the police officers were able to communicate effectively with all parties in writing. Id. at 535-36. Consequently, in looking at the evidence, the court fоund that even if an ASL interpreter had been requested for certain court hearings, the individuals properly proceeded without one, and affirmed the summary judgment. Id. at 540-42.
¶ 19 Here, like the litigants in Randolph and Tucker, Appellant communicated with the psychiatrists in writing after reasonable efforts to loсate an ASL interpreter proved unsuccessful. Therefore, based on the record, the trial court did not err by denying Appellant‘s motion to dismiss for violating her due process rights.
CONCLUSION
¶ 20 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the court‘s order.