*1 THE IN RE MATTER OF THE MENTAL
HEALTH OF E.P.B.,
Appellant.
No. DA 06-0428.
August
Submitted Briefs
2007.
September
Decided
BACKGROUND County 30,2006, county attorney in Silver Bow May deputy a On purposes to detain E.P.B. for Court for an order petitioned the District evaluation, hearing to and to conduct an initial a mental health involuntary pursue existed to probable whether cause determine brought E.P.B. petition, police officers According to she May Healthcare on 27 because emergency room of St. James to the staring ahead luggage her standing in the in Butte with street a state. Rick length of time in near catatonic for a considerable and discovered evaluatedE.P.B. Wagner, professional, a mental health College Community Spokane card from she had an identification that had appeared E.P.B. security possession. in her It and a social card that petition The maintained nearby community. gotten off a bus a room, wrote “non- talk, emergency to leave the E.P.B. did not tried The further stated letters.” notes in block sensible needs and to take care of her unable believed E.P.B. was Wagner others, commitment and recommended danger to herself or might be a Wagner from letter A handwritten Hospital. Montana State to the “brief document entitled attorney and a county deputy petition. summary” attached to were contact/consultation May The District Court held an initial 30 and entered setting hearing an order on the of the petition merits May commitment for At that hearing, professional mental health D. Delbert Fischer testified in of the support petition, and E.P.B. testified on her hearing, behalf. Near close of the District county asked the deputy attorney if he had an order prepared, and deputy county attorney replied affirmatively. The District Court read aloud portions the conclusions of law and order contained in the prepared by county written order the deputy attorney, and ordered E.P.B. committed to the Montana State Hospital, authorizing the chief medical officer there to administer medication involuntarily. The court signed and entered the written order. appeals.
STANDARD OF REVIEW ordinarily We findings review a court’s of fact in an whether, commitment case to upon viewing determine evidence in light most favorable to the prevailing party, clearly 100, 12, erroneous. In re 2007 MT 337 Mont. ¶ (citation omitted). 12, 157 P.3d threshold issue in this case, however, is whether the statutory District Court’s meet *3 requirements. cases, In presented such are question law, we with a of and we exercise de novo review to determine whether the court correctly interpreted applied and statutes. relevant See Jacobsen v. Thomas, 212, 13, 2006 MT 323, 13, 859, 333 Mont. 142 P.3d 13 ¶ ¶ ¶ (citations omitted).
DISCUSSION the Did District Court make to support E.P.B.’s commitment? governing commitment, The statutes set forth Title 53, Chapter 21, 1, MCA, critically Part important due the to (citation omitted). “calamitous effect of a commitment.” See 19¶ long See, We have held strictly that these statutes must be followed. e.g., of C.R.C., 389, 13, In re 133, Mental Health 2004 MT 325 Mont. ¶ 13, 104 1065, 13; 46, P.3d In of D.L.T., ¶ re Mental Health 2003 MT ¶ 8, 8, 297, 189, 8, 314 Mont. ¶ 67 P.3d overruled on other grounds ¶ ¶ Wholesale, 43, 21, 336 105, 21, Johnson v. Costco MT 2007 Mont. ¶ ¶ 727, 21; T.J.D., 24, 20, 152 P.3d In re Mental Health 2002 MT ¶ ¶ of 222, 20, 323, 20; of R.M., 40, 308 Mont. 41 P.3d Matter 270 Mont. (1995). 889 P.2d commitment, At a trial or on a suffering respondent is from district court first determines whether so, respondent and, whether the a mental disorder if determines determinin g requires requires respondent commitment. In whether the disposition, trial court must appropriate commitment and the respondent, of a including criteria whether the because consider disorder, provide own substantially unable to for his or her mental whether, food, shelter, safety; and clothing, of health or basic needs disorder, injury threat of to of a mental there is an imminent because or respondent respondent’s to others because of the acts or 53-21-126(1)(a) -126(1)(c), and MCA. omissions. Sections of the burden of petitioner, As the the State Montana bears doubt, the a reasonable any beyond facts or evidence proving physical and certainty, to a medical mental disorder reasonable respondent’s 53-21- convincing evidence. Section any other matters clear 126(2), commitment, the court must make detailed ordering MCA.In respondent which it found the to be upon of the facts statement commitment. Section requiring a mental disorder and suffering from 53-21-127(8)(a), MCA. contains three of fact: committing The order temporarily in person is a transient Respondent, [E.P.B.]
1. The Bow, Butte, Silver State of Montana. City County of of Fischer, M.Ed., person who professional 2. Delbert D. to a opinion in his testified that Respondent, evaluated from a certainty, Respondent suffers medical reasonable commitment, specifically psychotic requiring mental disorder presently the Respondent testified that disorder. Fischer herself and unable danger to was an imminent constituted safety. Fischer needs of health for her own basic provide was amenable Respondent’s mental disorder testified that any voluntary course treatment, refused but that the Respondent, in her testified that the treatment. Fischer also condition, unable to make informed decisions mental present taking necessity and the mental health care concerning her Accordingly, Fischer recommended medications. appropriate *4 hospital on an to the state the Court commit and that the care and treatment involuntary appropriate for basis the Respondent of to medications provision authorize the basis, necessary. if on an testimony
3. Fischer’s was consistent with initial report of LCSW, Wagner, qualified evaluation done Richard P. another professional person. conclusions,
The order also contains four including that E.P.B. suffers from a “presently requiring commitment, serious mental illness as certainty by testimony evidenced to a reasonable medical of [Fischer], qualified a professional,” mental health and E.P.B. “in her present mental condition danger constitutes an imminent to her own life and health and is provide unable to for her own basic needs of safety.” health and On appeal, the State contends it presented sufficient evidence to 53-21-126(1),
warrant E.P.B.’s commitment under MCA.Because we § legally conclude the District Court findings entered insufficient and duties, failed to discharge statutory its we do not address the sufficiency of the evidence in this case. above, noted county As the record the deputy attorney reflects
prepared the order signed Court, and-given the District deputy county attorney’s production ofthe order before the ended hearing and any lack of reference testimony-it relatively to E.P.B.’s clear the order prepared before the hearing commenced. Involuntary commitment statutes the respondent afford numerous rights, including rights to due process law, any of to be present at evidence, to hearing, offer and to present and cross-examine witnesses. -115(2) 53-21-101(4), -115(4), See §§ MCA. As these and other clear, statutes make a on a merely pro commitment is not requirement, but an forma opportunity for parties-both petitioner and the respondent-to present upon evidence which required the trial court can make findings and enter appropriate case, orders. In a adoption different petitioner’s proposed might appropriate conclusions be in light presented, of the evidence very but district courts must-at the least-ensure that such “prepared” comply statutory orders with See, e.g., C.R.C., mandates. In re committing cry the order are a far from the
“detailed statement of the facts” a pursuant trial court must make 53-21-127(8)(a), MCA, in ordering Merely reciting § commitment. testimony witness Fischer’s stating it was consistent with another professional person’s way evaluation is in no equivalent making findings of applicable proof-that fact-based on the standards person is suffering from a mental condition and requires conclusory Nor do statutory statements of criteria and broad *5 at testimony-such as those in the conclusions witness’ references to a statutory mandate of compliance with the strict issue here-constitute 53-21-127(8)(a), See In re MCA. § failing make hold the District Court erred We support E.P.B.’s
sufficient to enter an order with instructions Reversed remanded order.
vacating the commitment NELSON, COTTER, LEAPHART, WARNER JUSTICES MORRIS concur. RICE dissents.
JUSTICE argues State that explains Court that the In commitment, but because to warrant E.P.B.’s presented was evidence legally District Court’s concludes that Court sufficiency of the evidence. insufficient, not address the it will because that sufficiency of the evidence addressed the State entirety contends that the “E.P.B. Appellant: was raised issue to the whole, did not and does not rise testimony, as a of the taken adversely substantially impacts that of a mental disorder level [Tjhe ... District functions. cognitive and volitional Opening Appellant’s ....” the effect of the evidence misapprehended sufficiency of the legal address the Brief, 14-15. The State did not pp. reversing, because upon which the Court findings, ground issue Given that the Appellant. appeal was not raised issue it. The State did not address raised, why it is wonder not small which argument question on the to offer opportunity State thus had no dispositive. concludes is the Court brought have been upon the issues which I decide the case would
before us.