In re JK

149 Hawai‘i 400

491 P.3d 1179

In the MATTER OF JK

NO. CAAP-17-0000922

Intermediate Court of Appeals of Hawai‘i.

JUNE 10, 2021

On the briefs:

Nolan Chock, Julio C. Herrera, Deputy Attorneys General, State of Hawai‘i, for Petitioner-Appellee State of Hawai‘i Department of Health.

Saisamoa F. Grey Price, Deputy Public Defender, State of Hawai‘i, for Respondent-Appellant JK.

GINOZA, CHIEF JUDGE, HIRAOKA AND NAKASONE, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT BY HIRAOKA, J.

"[C]ivil commitment of the mentally ill for any purpose constitutes a significant deprivation of liberty that requires due process protection." In re Doe, 102 Hawai‘i 528, 543, 78 P.3d 341, 356 (App. 2003) (cleaned up) (quoting Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 425, 99 S.Ct. 1804, 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979) ). In this case, Respondent-Appellant JK was involuntarily hospitalized under Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS ) Chapter 334. He appeals from the "Order Granting Petition for Involuntary Hospitalization" entered by the Family Court of the Third Circuit on December 14, 2017.¹ For the reasons explained below we hold: (1) we have jurisdiction to decide JK's appeal under the collateral consequences exception to the mootness doctrine; and (2) the family court erred when it found there was clear and convincing evidence that JK was imminently dangerous to himself or others within the meaning of HRS §§ 334-1 and 334-60.2. Accordingly, we reverse the Order Granting Petition for Involuntary Hospitalization.

BACKGROUND

On November 21, 2017, JK was examined by Michael McGrath, M.D. (Dr. McGrath ), in the emergency room of the Kona Community Hospital . Dr. McGrath was the attending psychiatrist at the Hospital's Kalani Ola Behavioral Health Unit. JK's family had reported "bizarre and disorganized behavior, ... decreased sleep, pressured speech, ... some paranoid thinking, some grandiose thinking, some poor judgment, some potentially dangerous behaviors that led them to bring [JK] to the emergency department."

Dr. McGrath obtained a history from JK and developed a working diagnosis of bipolar disorder, manic. Dr. McGrath's Certificate of Physician/Psychologist for Involuntary Hospitalization (Certificate ) was dated November 23, 2017, and stated that JK was imminently and substantially dangerous to other persons (not to himself) and that "family is frightened because of impulsive, unpredictable behavior[.]" Dr. McGrath certified that JK was not capable of realizing he needed treatment or of making a rational decision about his treatment. Dr. McGrath had JK involuntarily admitted to the Hospital.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On November 24, 2017, the State of Hawai‘i Department of Health filed a petition to involuntarily hospitalize JK under HRS Chapter 334. HRS § 334-60.2 (Supp. 2016) provides:

§ 334-60.2 Involuntary hospitalization criteria. A person may be committed to a psychiatric facility for involuntary hospitalization, if the court finds:

(1) That the person is mentally ill or suffering from substance abuse;

(2) That the person is imminently dangerous to self or others; and

(3) That the person is in need of care or treatment, or both, and there is no suitable alternative available through existing facilities and programs which would be less restrictive than hospitalization.

The first statutory criterion must be established "beyond a reasonable doubt[,]" while the second and third criteria must be established by "clear and convincing evidence[.]" HRS § 334-60.5(j) (Supp. 2016); see In re Doe, 102 Hawai‘i 528, 529, 78 P.3d 341, 342 (App. 2003).

The following definitions apply:

"Dangerous to others" means likely to do substantial physical or emotional injury on another, as evidenced by a recent act, attempt or threat .

....

"Dangerous to self" means the person recently has:

(1) Threatened or attempted suicide or serious bodily harm ; or

(2) Behaved in such a manner as to indicate that the person is unable, without supervision and the assistance of others, to satisfy the need for nourishment, essential medical care, shelter or self-protection, so that it is probable that death, substantial bodily injury, or serious physical debilitation or disease will result unless adequate treatment is afforded .

....

"Imminently dangerous to self or others" means that, without intervention, the person will likely become dangerous to self or dangerous to others within the next forty-five days .

HRS § 334-1 (2010 & Supp. 2016) (emphasis added).

The State's petition was supported by Dr. McGrath's Certificate. The petition was heard on November 30, 2017. The family court received testimony from Dr. McGrath and JK's spouse. The family court then ruled:

Um, the Court finds beyond a reasonable doubt that [JK] is mentally ill. Uh, his diagnosis is bipolar disorder manic. There -- the doctor provided and [JK's spouse] supported a number of incidences [sic] of, uh, paranoid or grandiose behavior, uh, with delusions, uh, that supports that diagnosis. Uh, even while at the hospital he was argumentative and could not adequately communicate.

Uh, the Court further finds that, um, [JK] needs care and/or treatment and there is no suitable alternative available which would be less restrictive than hospitalization; uh, to wit, uh, [JK] has stated in very certain terms that he's not gonna take any medication and, uh, at least with regards to [JK's spouse], uh, he would not listen to her.

What is very telling here is that [JK] prior to him being at the hospital had no or very little sleep and, uh, that is quite concerning to the Court. The -- and while at the hospital and taking at least some of the medication, uh, evidence has shown that he is sleep -- he is sleeping which is a good thing.

Uh, but if [JK] follows through with what he stated to others that he's gonna refuse taking medication when he gets out, uh, the Court can surmise that he will revert back to very little or no sleeping at all which is very concerning to the Court.

Uh, the Court agrees with [JK], uh, there's been no evidence presented that, uh, anything that was done with the straight razor, uh, was harmful or dangerous to anyone. Uh, he -- there's no indication that he used it to threaten someone with, uh, or that he actually cut someone or himself with it. Uh, he was simply trying to teach his son how to shave.

....

So the Court can conclude based upon prior action, uh, that, uh, if [JK] continues to not have any or sufficient sleep and nourishment, he's taking Power Bars and nothing else, uh, that if he doesn't have essential medical care, uh, that there is a probability that death or substantial bodily injury or serious physical debilitation will result unless adequate treatment is afforded to him.

So the Court will find that the State has proven by clear and convincing evidence that [JK] is imminently dangerous to himself and others and that he needs care and/or treatment and there is no suitable alternative available which would be less restrictive than hospitalization.

... [T]he petition is granted.

The Order Granting Petition for Involuntary Hospitalization was entered on December 14, 2017. This appeal followed.

JURISDICTION

The State contends JK's appeal is moot because the period of his involuntary hospitalization has expired and he is no longer involuntarily hospitalized. "[M]ootness is an issue of subject matter jurisdiction." Hamilton ex rel. Lethem v. Lethem, 119 Hawai‘i 1, 4, 193 P.3d 839, 842 (2008). Accordingly, before we reach the merits we must analyze whether we have jurisdiction to decide this appeal. Pele Def. Fund v. Puna Geothermal Venture, 77 Hawai‘i 64, 67, 881 P.2d 1210, 1213 (1994) ("[E]very court must ... determine as a threshold matter whether it has jurisdiction to decide the issue presented.") (citation omitted).

The mootness doctrine is said to encompass the circumstances that destroy the justiciability of a suit previously suitable for determination. Put another way, the suit must remain alive throughout the course of litigation to the moment of final appellate disposition. Its chief purpose is to assure that the adversary system, once set in operation, remains properly fueled. The doctrine seems appropriate where events subsequent to the judgment of the trial court have so affected the relations between the parties that the two conditions for justiciability relevant on appeal — adverse interest and effective remedy — have been compromised.

Hamilton, 119 Hawai‘i at 5, 193 P.3d at 843 (quoting Lathrop v. Sakatani, 111 Hawai‘i 307, 312-13, 141 P.3d 480, 485-86 (2006) ) (other citation omitted).

JK contends that the "collateral consequences" exception to the mootness doctrine applies.

To invoke successfully the collateral consequences doctrine, the litigant must show that there is a reasonable possibility that prejudicial collateral consequences will occur. Accordingly, the litigant must establish these consequences by more than mere conjecture, but need not demonstrate that these consequences are more probable than not. This standard provides the necessary limitations on justiciability underlying the mootness doctrine itself. Where there is no direct practical relief available from the reversal of the judgment, as in this case, the collateral consequences doctrine acts as a surrogate, calling for a determination whether a decision in the case can afford the litigant some practical relief in the future.

The array of collateral consequences that will preclude dismissal on mootness grounds is diverse, and includes harm to a defendant's reputation as a result of the judgment at issue.

Hamilton, 119 Hawai‘i at 8, 193 P.3d at 846 (quoting Putman v. Kennedy, 279 Conn. 162, 900 A.2d 1256, 1261-62 (2006) ).

JK does not cite, nor have we found, any reported Hawai‘i appellate decision identifying reasonably possible prejudicial collateral consequences of an order for involuntary hospitalization. In In re PC, No. CAAP-15-0000015, 2017 WL 2602003 (Haw. App. June 15, 2017) (SDO), we applied the collateral consequences doctrine to an appeal from an involuntary...