Opinion
1 CA-MH 12-0085-A
05-09-2013
IN RE MH2012-002886
illiam G. Montgomery, Maricopa County Attorney By Anne C. Longo, Deputy County Attorney Attorneys for Appellee Marty Lieberman, Maricopa County Legal Defender By Cynthia D. Beck, Deputy Legal Defender Attorneys for Appellant
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED
EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES.
See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c);
Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24
MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not for Publication -
Rule 28, Arizona Rules of
Civil Appellate Procedure)
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
Cause No. MH2012-002886
The Honorable Susan G. White, Judge Pro Tempore
AFFIRMED
William G. Montgomery, Maricopa County Attorney
By Anne C. Longo, Deputy County Attorney
Attorneys for Appellee
Phoenix Marty Lieberman, Maricopa County Legal Defender
By Cynthia D. Beck, Deputy Legal Defender
Attorneys for Appellant
Phoenix CATTANI, Judge ¶1 Patient appeals the superior court's order committing her to involuntary treatment for a period not to exceed 365 days, with inpatient treatment not to exceed 180 days. Patient argues the order should be vacated because the acquaintance witnesses who testified at the hearing were not acquainted with her "at the time of the alleged mental disorder" as required by statute. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
¶2 A doctor filed a Petition for Court-Ordered Evaluation, stating that there was reasonable cause to believe Patient had a mental disorder that caused her to be a danger to herself and to others. An Application for Involuntary Evaluation and an Application for Emergency Admission for Evaluation, both filed by Patient's sister, were attached to the petition. The trial court granted the petition, and, after evaluations by Dr. K. and Dr. O., Dr. K. filed a Petition for Court-Ordered Treatment alleging that Patient was persistently or acutely disabled and requesting that the court order her to undergo combined inpatient and outpatient treatment. The petition was supported by affidavits from Dr. K. and Dr. O. ¶3 Dr. K. diagnosed Patient as suffering from "(Probable Diagnosis) Bipolar Disorder, Manic with Psychosis." Dr. K. stated that Patient's "thought process was quite tangential" and she "expressed some delusional themes that tended to be paranoid in nature." Dr. K. also noted that Patient had a history of bipolar disorder, including multiple hospitalizations in the past, and that, one month before the evaluation, Patient had stopped taking her psychiatric medications when her previous court-ordered treatment terminated. Dr. K. opined that Patient's symptoms exacerbate without her medications, "she has reduced capacity to recognize reality and is experiencing delusions that are causing her to behave in an unsafe way." Accordingly, Dr. K. concluded that Patient needed further inpatient and follow-up outpatient psychiatric care. ¶4 Dr. O. diagnosed Patient as suffering from "(Probable Diagnosis)(1) Bipolar Mood Disorder, Type I, Current Episode Manic with Psychosis." Dr. O. described Patient's thought process as "tangential and circumstantial" and noted Patient's "paranoid beliefs, for example, a belief that a former friend [Judy M.] has been replaced." Dr. O. described Patient's history of psychiatric hospitalizations and refusal to take psychiatric medications, which Patient believed to be poisoned. Dr. O. recommended inpatient treatment to stabilize Patient, followed by ongoing outpatient treatment once Patient's judgment had improved. ¶5 At the hearing on the petition, the parties stipulated to admission of Dr. K.'s and Dr. O.'s affidavits. Two of Patient's acquaintances testified: her ex-husband Jeff H. and her friend Judy M. Jeff, who has custody of their children, testified that he had stopped Patient's visitation four months before due to safety concerns when Patient became grandiose, speaking with the children "like she has all the answers" or claiming she had reduced her price to $150 from "$400 an hour to heal people on a website." Jeff also described text messages from Patient sent before she was admitted for psychiatric evaluation. Just three or four days before being hospitalized, Patient sent one such text message demanding money for "spousal support, 40 or $50,000 will be fine," even though the divorce decree did not include spousal maintenance for Patient. ¶6 Patient's friend Judy testified about Patient's demeanor. Judy had last seen Patient in person over one month before the hearing, at which time Patient became angry with Judy and claimed Judy "[was] not the same person"; Patient then "continued to mumble and talk to [herself]." Judy also described more recent voicemails from Patient. One such voicemail was a "very violent message," in which Patient claimed Judy "was a murderer, also [an] incest person." Judy stated Patient had confirmed that she had stopped taking her medication at least three months prior to being hospitalized. ¶7 Patient moved to dismiss the petition for court-ordered treatment and argued in closing that the acquaintance witnesses' testimony was insufficient to support the petition. The court denied the motion. After Patient testified, the court, having considered all the evidence presented, found by clear and convincing evidence that Patient was persistently or acutely disabled, in need of psychiatric treatment, and unwilling or unable to accept treatment voluntarily. The court ordered Patient to undergo combined inpatient and outpatient treatment for a period not to exceed 365 days, with inpatient treatment not to exceed 180 days. ¶8 Patient timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") sections 12-2101(A)(10) and 36-546.01.
Absent material revisions after the relevant date, we cite a statute's current version.
DISCUSSION
¶9 On appeal, Patient does not challenge the physicians' affidavits or conclusions. Patient argues only that the involuntary treatment order should be vacated because the testifying acquaintance witnesses were not acquainted with Patient "at the time of the alleged mental disorder." ¶10 We review the facts in the light most favorable to upholding the superior court's judgment and will not set aside the court's findings unless clearly erroneous. In re MH 2008-002596, 223 Ariz. 32, 35, ¶ 12, 219 P.3d 242, 245 (App. 2009). We review issues of statutory interpretation de novo. In re MH 2001-001139, 203 Ariz. 351, 353, ¶ 8, 54 P.3d 380, 382 (App. 2002). Because involuntary treatment strongly implicates the patient's liberty interests, "statutory requirements must be strictly construed and followed." MH 2008-002596, 223 Ariz, at 35, ¶ 12, 219 P.3d at 245. ¶11 Under A.R.S. § 36-539(B), evidence presented at the treatment hearing "shall include the testimony of two or more witnesses acquainted with the patient at the time of the alleged mental disorder." The acquaintance witness requirement is designed to supplement the psychiatric evaluations with an "informal, day-to-day observation of [the patient]," to "give the court a perspective of the patient different from that of the professionals who examined the patient as part of the commitment evaluation process." MH 2001-001139, 203 Ariz. at 355, ¶¶ 24-25, 54 P.3d at 384. The only temporal requirement for acquaintance witnesses is that they be "acquainted with the patient at the time of the alleged mental disorder." A.R.S. § 36-539(B); MH 2008-002596, 223 Ariz. at 36, ¶ 16, 219 P.3d at 246. ¶12 Although Judy had last seen Patient over one month before Patient's hospitalization, and Jeff had last seen Patient one to two months before that, Patient continued to communicate with both witnesses leading up to the time of her hospitalization. Judy's testimony related to interactions -- in person and, more recently, by voicemail -- reflecting Patient's demeanor. Judy's statements that Patient felt Judy "[was] not the same person" and "was a murderer, also [an] incest person" supplements the physicians' diagnosis of bipolar disorder with paranoid beliefs. Similarly, Jeff's testimony regarding Patient's grandiose and delusional actions -- for instance, her demand for $40,000 to $50,000 of never-awarded spousal maintenance -- supplemented Dr. K.'s report describing Patient's expression of "delusional themes" and "reduced capacity to recognize reality." Both Judy and Jeff gave the court additional information on Patient's behavior and conduct at the time of her mental disorder, adding a different perspective to the physicians' reports. See MH 2001-001139, 203 Ariz. at 355, ¶¶ 24-25, 54 P.3d at 384. ¶13 Additionally, the relevant "alleged mental disorder" was Patient's ongoing bipolar disorder, exacerbated by her refusal to take psychiatric medication. Accordingly, Judy's testimony that, more than three months before hospitalization, Patient confirmed she had stopped taking her medication was relevant to Patient's ongoing bipolar disorder. See MH 2008-002596, 223 Ariz. at 36, ¶ 16, 219 P.3d at 246. The superior court thus did not err by relying on testimony from Jeff and Judy as acquaintance witnesses under A.R.S. § 36-539(B).
CONCLUSION
¶14 For the foregoing reasons, and because the involuntary treatment order was supported by sufficient evidence, the order is affirmed.
__________________________
KENT E. CATTANI, Judge
CONCURRING: __________________________
PATRICIA A. OROZCO, Presiding Judge
__________________________
PETER B. SWANN, Judge