In re W.K.

399 Mont. 337

460 P.3d 917

2020 MT 71

In the MATTER OF the Mental Health of: W.K., Respondent and Appellant.

DA 18-0390

Supreme Court of Montana.

Submitted on Briefs: February 12, 2020

Decided: March 31, 2020

For Appellant: Chad Wright, Appellate Defender, Kristen L. Peterson, Assistant Appellate Defender, Helena, Montana

For Appellee: Timothy C. Fox, Montana Attorney General, Damon Martin, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana Eileen Joyce, Silver Bow County Attorney, Michael Clague, Deputy County Attorney, Butte, Montana

Justice Beth Baker delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶1 Appellant W.K. appeals the Order of the Second Judicial District Court involuntarily committing her to the Montana State Hospital ("MSH" or "state mental hospital") for a period not to exceed ninety days. Reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, we conclude that the District Court had sufficient evidence to support its finding that W.K. was substantially unable to provide for her own basic needs, and we affirm its order of involuntary commitment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 At the time of her involuntary commitment, W.K. was a successful business owner in her late fifties. She was married and had a home and supportive family. In early May 2018, W.K. was experiencing sleep deprivation and other changes in behavior. As a result, she made multiple visits to the emergency room to obtain medical attention. Doctors diagnosed W.K. with insomnia and prescribed her sleep medication and a "sleep hygiene protocol." W.K. reported losing twenty pounds, but she otherwise was healthy. She had no history of violence or self-harm. She also reported that she had elected to stop driving due to her insomnia.

¶3 On May 9, 2018, W.K.’s family took her back to the emergency room because of her insomnia and "high energy behaviors." Licensed clinical social worker ("LCSW") Mike Sawicki examined W.K. and concluded that she was experiencing a manic episode. He diagnosed W.K. as suffering from Insomnia Disorder, Persistent type, and Bipolar I Disorder.

¶4 Sawicki filed a report with the County Attorney’s Office, recommending that it petition the District Court for W.K.’s involuntary commitment. The State filed its petition on May 10. The District Court held an initial hearing that same day at which the court appointed a public defender to represent W.K. The court set an evidentiary hearing for the following day and ordered that W.K. be detained overnight at Hays-Morris House, a residential mental health treatment facility in Butte.

¶5 The morning of the commitment hearing, Lynelli Ankelman, a licensed clinical professional counselor, then the clinical director of the Western Montana Mental Health Center in Butte, conducted an in-person mental health evaluation of W.K. She completed a report detailing her observations. The report contained form language asking whether W.K., because of a mental disorder, was substantially unable to provide for her own basic needs of food, clothing, shelter, health, or safety. Ankelman checked the box marked "Unknown."

¶6 Ankelman was the first to testify at the hearing. Based on her observations, her review of W.K.’s medical records, and her discussion with Sawicki, Ankelman opined that W.K. "is experiencing a manic episode with symptomatology associated with bipolar disorder." Ankelman described that she had observed W.K. exhibit "pressured speech; tangential thinking; poor judgment; poor insight; some paranoia; inability to consent to taking medication[.]" When asked on direct examination to elaborate, Ankelman testified:

A lot of the paranoia is associated with medication. [W.K.] spent a lot of time researching with the help of the staff that were with her different medications that were offered and what the side [e]ffects were. And she focused pretty significantly on the side effects versus the positive benefits of those medications, to the point that ... she’s unwilling to take any medication that will help her solve the manic symptom because of the side effects that they could potentially have. She did take Vistaril ... to help with agitation. And it also helps with sleep.

Ankelman testified that the sleep medication did not appear to have any positive effect.

¶7 The State continued its examination, engaging Ankelman in the following colloquy:

Q. Given [W.K.’s] current state, do you think she can meet her basic needs and care for herself?

A. I don’t think that there is enough information at this point in time to indicate that. It seemed really clear to me that she is a very ... accomplished person in the community. She has a business. She has a family that cares for her. But at this point in time she did describe a weight loss of 20 pounds, which could indicate that she’s not eating appropriate nourishment. There’s just not enough information to indicate that at this point.

Q. What about her decision-making ability?

A. I think that is the crux of the discussion here.

Q. So if she is caring for herself, could she make good decisions for caring for herself?

A. I would say at this point in her current state that she cannot. One of the things that she shared this morning is that she ... has been to the emergency room, it appears, four different times in the last week to week and a half seeking help for the current symptoms she’s experiencing. And at one of those sessions she came out with the understanding that her potassium and salt was out of whack. And she reported drinking an exorbitant number of Pedialytes in order to stabilize that, which then made her sick. I think those are the type of poor judgments that are really at play at this point in time.

¶8 On cross-examination, W.K.’s attorney questioned Ankelman further about W.K.’s ability to provide for her own basic needs.

Q. Have there been any instances in the record where she has been a danger to herself? You mentioned the Pedialyte. That was with her family after being in the emergency room?

A. I think that the fact that she’s come to the emergency room on four different occasions that she and her family are seeing considerable—that she’s unhappy, and they are trying to effect a change for her and just haven’t been able to do that at this point with any level of care that’s been provided.

...

Q. As far as you are aware, there have been no issues of her caring for her own basic needs; is that correct? She’s healthy. She says she has lost weight, but there are no issues there?

A. None that were brought to my knowledge overtly.

¶9 Ankelman explained that W.K.’s poor insight and judgment placed her at a higher safety risk and that her symptoms did not result simply from sleep deprivation. She concluded that, "for me the bottom line becomes, is she able to remain safe in the community. And the answer is no for me." She recommended that W.K. be involuntarily committed to MSH and involuntarily medicated.

¶10 W.K. testified on her own behalf, confirming that she had a sleep disorder and an intolerance to anti-psychotic drugs. She further testified that she believed she could take care of her own basic needs. Finally, W.K.’s appointed friend, Mr. Wing, told the court that there was no risk of harm and that W.K. could provide for her own basic needs.

¶11 At the conclusion of the hearing, the District Court orally issued its findings that W.K. suffers from a serious mental illness requiring commitment. Based on Ankelman’s testimony, the Court found that W.K.’s visits to the emergency room and her conduct demonstrated "that she is a danger to herself and possibly others and that there is a question as to whether or not she is unable to provide for her own basic needs and protect her own life and health." The court further found that MSH was the least restrictive placement.

¶12 The court issued a very brief written order the day of the hearing. It issued its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law a week later. The court clarified its finding that "in her current condition, the Respondent does represent a danger to herself and that she is unable to care for her own basic needs. The Respondent is not a danger to others; however, the Court is concerned that if left untreated the Respondent’s condition could predictably deteriorate and consequently be harmful to herself." It concluded that commitment to MSH was the least restrictive alternative necessary to protect W.K. and to effectively treat her mental disorder.

STANDARDS OF REVIEW

¶13 In an involuntary commitment proceeding, the State must prove physical facts or evidence beyond a reasonable doubt and "all other matters" by clear and convincing evidence. Section 53-21-126(2), MCA. "The district court, as the fact finder, evaluates if the [State] has met its burden of presenting clear and convincing evidence regarding all required elements for [the commitment]. ... Upon appeal, ... this Court does not substitute its judgment as to the strength of the evidence for that of the district court." In re B.J.J. , 2019 MT 129, ¶ 10, 396 Mont. 108, 443 P.3d 488. We instead review a district court’s commitment order to determine whether its findings of fact are clearly erroneous and its conclusions of law are correct. In re S.H. , 2016 MT 137, ¶ 8, 383 Mont. 497, 374 P.3d 693.

¶14 A finding of fact is clearly erroneous if it is not supported by substantial evidence, if the district court misapprehended the effect of the evidence, or if, after reviewing the record, we are left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. In re S.H. , ¶ 8. "In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence in a civil commitment case ... we view the evidence in a light most favorable to the prevailing party." In re C.R.C. , 2004 MT 389, ¶ 11, 325 Mont. 133, 104 P.3d 1065.

¶15 An appeal from an order of involuntary commitment is not moot despite the respondent’s release because the issues are capable of repetition and yet otherwise would evade review. In re S.H. , ¶ 9.

DISCUSSION

¶16 Did the District Court err in committing W.K. to...