Interest of T.E.
, 2008 ND 86,
748 N.W.2d 677
A district court must to make all four factual findings in an involuntary medication order, whether the involuntary medication order is included as part of the larger commitment order or when a medication order is issued separately.
Interest of B.D.K.
, 2007 ND 186,
742 N.W.2d 41
A court is not required to order a less restrictive treatment than hospitalization when a mentally ill person requiring treatment under N.D.C.C. 25-03.1-07 makes the bare assertion that he will hire his own psychiatrist, because such assertion does
not constitute a viable alternative to hospitalization.
Interest of T. E.
, 2007 ND 166,
740 N.W.2d 100
A State Hospital patient can be subject to more than one 90-day forced medication order.
The refusal-of-medication requirement of N.D.C.C. 25-03.1-18.1(1)(a)(2) can be met when a patient who is not literally refusing medication but is taking medication only because of a prior forced medication order indicates he would not take further
medication unless ordered to do so by a court.
Interest of J.H.
, 2007 ND 1,
729 N.W.2d 334
Mental health orders summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7).
Interest of R.F.
, 2006 ND 258,
725 N.W.2d 588
Mental health appeal summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).
Interest of R.S.
, 2006 ND 253,
725 N.W.2d 193
For mental health commitment, the law allows a court to act on warnings and does not require actual violence or expressed threats.
A mentally ill person, convinced that snipers are out to get him, who, armed with a gun, walks directly into a police station without stopping at the front reception desk may pose a serious risk of harm to others.
Interest of C.L.
, 2006 ND 252,
725 N.W.2d 588
Mental health continuing treatment order summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).
Interest of B.L.S.
, 2006 ND 218,
723 N.W.2d 395
After a request to treat with medication has been made, an independent physician or psychiatrist must certify that the proposed treatment is clinically appropriate and necessary, that the patient was offered the treatment and refused it, that the
prescribed medication is the least restrictive form necessary to meet the patient's needs, and that the benefits of treatment outweigh the known risks.
Mental health respondents are entitled to adequate notice and the opportunity to prepare to address the involuntary treatment with medication.
A district court cannot order medications which have not been noticed in the request to treat with medication and have not been certified as clinically appropriate and necessary by a second physician or psychiatrist.
The involuntary treatment with medication is not limited to psychotropic medications used to treat mental illness.
Interest of B.L.S.
, 2006 ND 188,
721 N.W.2d 50
A district court cannot allow a respondent in a mental health proceeding to waive the right to counsel without first establishing, on the record, that the respondent is competent to waive counsel and that the waiver is knowingly, intelligently, and
voluntarily made.
To establish a valid waiver of counsel in a mental health proceeding, the district court must engage in a colloquy on the record that mirrors the required colloquy for the waiver of counsel in a criminal proceeding.
Interest of J.S.
, 2006 ND 143,
717 N.W.2d 598
Mentally ill persons who require treatment are entitled to the least restrictive treatment that will meet their treatment needs.
When deciding whether alternative treatment to hospitalization is adequate, the district court is required to make a two-part inquiry: (1) whether a treatment program other than hospitalization is adequate to meet the individual's treatment needs;
and (2) whether an alternative treatment program is sufficient to prevent harm or injuries that an individual may inflict on himself or others.
When available alternative treatment programs are insufficient to prevent harm or injures that an individual may inflict on himself or others, less restrictive treatment cannot be ordered.
Interest of K.G.
, 2006 ND 130,
719 N.W.2d 759
Order for continuing mental health treatment summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).
Interest of K.L.
, 2006 ND 103,
713 N.W.2d 537
Mentally ill persons who require treatment are entitled to the least restrictive treatment that will meet their treatment needs.
When deciding whether alternative treatment to hospitalization is adequate, the district court is required to make a two-part inquiry: (1) whether a treatment program other than hospitalization is adequate to meet the individual's treatment needs,
and (2) whether an alternative treatment program is sufficient to prevent harm or injuries that an individual may inflict on himself or others.
While family involvement may be crucial in the recovery of mentally ill persons, it alone cannot defeat a district court finding that a person is dangerous and requires hospitalization if the record supports that finding.
Interest of C.S.
, 2006 ND 104,
713 N.W.2d 542
A respondent in an involuntary commitment proceeding has a due process right to counsel.
A respondent's waiver of counsel in a mental health proceeding must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.
In an involuntary commitment proceeding, the trial court must determine the competence of the respondent to make a knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to counsel before permitting the respondent to proceed without counsel.
A presumption of incompetence does not arise simply due to the fact that mental health proceedings are being undertaken against the respondent.
For the record to disclose a valid waiver of right to counsel in a mental health proceeding, it must mirror the record of a valid waiver in a criminal proceeding.
In a mental health proceeding where the respondent wishes to represent himself, the trial court must make the respondent aware of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation.
The trial court must assess the validity of a waiver of counsel and competence to make that waiver before each proceeding during which the respondent wishes to represent himself.
Courts should indulge every reasonable presumption against a waiver of counsel.
Interest of M.M.
, 2005 ND 219,
707 N.W.2d 78
A district court's finding that a person is mentally ill and requires treatment will not be reversed unless it is clearly erroneous.
A district court's finding that no less restrictive treatment programs other than hospitalization are appropriate, will not be reversed unless clearly erroneous.
A district court's order for involuntary hospitalization must be based on clear and convincing evidence that there is a serious risk the individual will harm himself, others, or property if not hospitalized.
To authorize involuntary treatment with medication, the district court must find by clear and convincing evidence that the prescribed medication is clinically appropriate and necessary, that the patient was offered the treatment and refused it, that
the prescribed medication is the least restrictive form necessary to meet the patient's needs, and that the benefits of the treatment outweigh known risks.
Interest of P.B.
, 2005 ND 201,
706 N.W.2d 78
An individual committed to a mental health facility does not enjoy the same level of freedom and rights as an uncommitted individual.
Once a decision of hospitalization is made, it is not the province of this Court to micro-manage the State Hospital.
Interest of K.G.
, 2005 ND 156,
703 N.W.2d 660
A district court's finding, that no less restrictive treatment programs other than hospitalization are appropriate, will not be reversed unless it is clearly erroneous.
Interest of C.H.
, 2005 ND 130,
699 N.W.2d 849
A district court's order for involuntary hospitalization must be based on clear and convincing evidence that there is a serious risk the individual will harm himself, others, or property if not hospitalized.
Interest of D.A.
, 2005 ND 116,
698 N.W.2d 474
An mental health forced treatment order must be supported by evidence that forced medication is clinically appropriate and necessary, that the patient was offered the treatment and refused it, that the prescribed medication is the least restrictive
form necessary to meet the individual patient's needs, and that the benefits of the treatment outweigh known risks.
Interest of R.F.
, 2005 ND 102,
697 N.W.2d 311
In some situations it may be reasonable for a doctor to conclude that less restrictive alternatives to hospitalization do not exist.
The State Hospital or treatment facility is not required to look outside North Dakota for treatment options other than hospitalization.
Interest of R.F.
, 2005 ND 54,
692 N.W.2d 905
An individual found to be a person requiring mental-health treatment has the right to the least restrictive conditions necessary to achieve the purposes of treatment.
Orders for in-patient hospitalization and treatment are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard. A district court's finding that alternative treatment is inadequate or that hospitalization is the least restrictive alternative will not be set
aside unless clearly erroneous.
An order for in-patient hospitalization is not clearly erroneous where a doctor testifies that a mentally ill individual's dementia, which has yet to be fully diagnosed or treated, likely triggered a prescription-drug overdose, and asserts that the
hospital's structure and supervision are temporarily needed to help avoid future self-medication accidents.
Interest of K.G.
, 2004 ND 182,
690 N.W.2d 429
A district court order revoking alternative treatment and requiring treatment at the State Hospital is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).
Interest of R.R.
, 2004 ND 183,
690 N.W.2d 429
A district court is required only to determine whether treatment other than hospitalization is appropriate, not which unit in the hospital is appropriate.
A district court order requiring treatment at the State Hospital is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).
Interest of J.S.
, 2004 ND 159,
684 N.W.2d 657
In an appeal from a continuing treatment order, our review is limited to a review of the procedures, findings, and conclusions of the lower court.
District court's order based upon finding that less restrictive alternative treatment was not appropriate is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).
Interest of K.P.
, 2004 ND 52,
676 N.W.2d 744
The party moving for a change of venue must establish that the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted by the change.
To modify an alternative treatment order and require hospitalization, the district court must find noncompliance with the terms of the order or find the order is insufficient to prevent the individual under the order from inflicting harm or injuries
upon the individual or others.
Any amount of noncompliance with an alternative treatment order is cause for modification.
Interest of W.O.
, 2004 ND 8,
673 N.W.2d 264
An appeal of a district court's amended order revoking less restrictive treatment is rendered moot once the patient is released from the hospital and is placed on an identical order for less restrictive treatment.
Interest of L.D.
, 2003 ND 182,
671 N.W.2d 791
A petition for involuntary treatment must be supported by clear and convincing evidence.
The trial court's determination of clear and convincing evidence that a person requires treatment is a finding of fact subject to a more probing, clearly erroneous standard of review.
If other evidence presented at a treatment hearing supports the underlying allegations of the petition, the petitioner does not have to be present to testify regarding all the allegations in the petition.
Interest of R.F.
, 2003 ND 162,
670 N.W.2d 499
At a mental health hearing on a petition for discharge, the burden of proof is the same as at an involuntary treatment hearing.
The petitioner must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent is a person requiring mental health treatment.
A person requiring treatment has the right to the least restrictive means of treatment.
Interest of J.S.
, 2003 ND 138,
667 N.W.2d 641
A person requiring mental health treatment has the right to the least restrictive conditions necessary to achieve the purposes of the treatment.
Interest of K.P.
, 2003 ND 114,
665 N.W.2d 65
To modify an alternative treatment order, a trial court must find by clear and convincing evidence: (1) the respondent is not complying with the alternative treatment order; or (2) the alternative treatment is not sufficient to prevent the respondent
from harming the respondent or others.
Interest of I.K.
, 2003 ND 101,
663 N.W.2d 197
Before a court may order an extension of a continuing alternative treatment order, it must find from specific evidence that the patient is mentally ill and that there is a reasonable expectation that if the individual went untreated, there exists a
serious risk of harm to the patient, to others, or to property.
Statutory mandates must be followed before a court can order an individual requiring treatment to take prescribed medication.
Interest of G.H.
, 2002 ND 199,
655 N.W.2d 84
A district court order requiring treatment at the State Hospital is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).
Interest of R.O.
, 2002 ND 154,
652 N.W.2d 327
Less than 24 hours notice before an involuntary commitment hearing is inadequate notice to permit preparation for the hearing.
Interest of D.Z.
, 2002 ND 132,
649 N.W.2d 231
To show a respondent is a person requiring treatment, the petitioner must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the person is mentally ill and there is a reasonable risk that, if the person is not treated, he poses a serious risk of harm to
himself, others, or property.
A person who is found to require involuntary treatment has the right to the least restrictive conditions necessary to achieve the purposes of the treatment.
Interest of N.S.
, 2002 ND 123,
651 N.W.2d 692
The district court order for continuing mental health treatment is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).
Interest of J.D.
, 2002 ND 0050,
640 N.W.2d 733
The statute requires evidence that less restrictive conditions were considered to affirm a district court's commitment order as the least restrictive course of treatment appropriate for an individual.
The statute requires other forms of intervention be considered before a district court orders forced medication as the least restrictive form of intervention necessary to meet an individual's treatment needs.
Without explanation, mere conclusory statements by the treating psychiatrist and other physician are not helpful in determining whether a district court should authorize involuntary treatment with prescribed medications.
Interest of J.S.
, 2002 ND 7,
638 N.W.2d 45
Before a court may order the extension of a continuing-treatment order it must find the patient is mentally ill, and there is a reasonable expectation that, if not treated, there exists a serious risk of harm to the patient, others, or property.
In some cases, a reporting doctor may reasonably conclude that less restrictive alternatives to hospitalization simply do not exist.
Interest of D.P.
, 2001 ND 203,
636 N.W.2d 921
For hospitalization in a mental health case, the district court must find by clear and convincing evidence that alternative treatment is not adequate or hospitalization is the least restrictive alternative.
Interest of H.G.
, 2001 ND 142,
632 N.W.2d 458
A district court's involuntary commitment order is reviewed under a more probing clearly erroneous standard.
Even though mentally ill, engaging in imprudent business practices is not enough to find a respondent presents a substantial likelihood of dangerousness to property and is, therefore, a person requiring treatment.
Interest of J.S.
, 2001 ND 25,
625 N.W.2d 264
Expedited appeals under the mental health law are limited to the procedures, findings, and conclusions of the lower court. Because of this limited review, detailed findings are necessary.
A mental health patient has the right to the least restrictive conditions necessary to achieve the treatment purposes.
Interest of J.S.
, 2001 ND 10,
621 N.W.2d 582
Expedited appeals under the mental health law are limited to the procedures, findings, and conclusions of the lower court. Because of this limited review, detailed findings are necessary.
A mental health patient has the right to the least restrictive conditions necessary to achieve the treatment purposes.
Interest of E.T.
, 2000 ND 174,
617 N.W.2d 470
An appeal of a trial court's involuntary medication order is rendered moot once the patient is released from the hospital and is no longer in need of medication.
Interest of J.K.
, 1999 ND 182,
599 N.W.2d 337
A district court's finding respondent is a mentally ill person requiring treatment is not clearly erroneous when based on unrefuted testimony.
A district court's finding of no less restrictive alternative for treatment must be satisfactorily explained and based on specific facts why alternative treatment is not appropriate.
Interest of D.S.A.
, 1999 ND 100,
598 N.W.2d 860
Order requiring treatment at the North Dakota State Hospital summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).
Interest of M.S.
, 1999 ND 117,
594 N.W.2d 924
The district court may decide which mental health expert testimony is more credible.
Interest of J.S.
, 1998 ND 92,
578 N.W.2d 91
Under N.D.R.App.P. 4(a), a trial court may extend the time for
filing the notice of appeal in an action under N.D.C.C. ch.
25-03.1.
A trial court may order continuing treatment based on patient's
past behavior, when coupled with current and uncontroverted
expert opinion patient's behavior would revert if prescribed
treatment did not continue.
Interest of M.B.
, 1998 ND 44,
576 N.W.2d 524
Order requiring treatment at St. Alexius Medical Center summarily
affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).
Interest of R.N.
, 1997 ND 246,
572 N.W.2d 820
An order under NDCC 25-03.1-18.1 must be supported by evidence
that forced
medication is clinically appropriate and necessary.
Allegations in an involuntary commitment petition must be proven
and cannot,
by themselves, serve as proof that a mentally ill person requires
treatment.
Interest of M.G.
, 1997 ND 12,
565 N.W.2d 505
Order continuing treatment at the State Hospital summarily
affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).
Interest of P.L.P.
,
556 N.W.2d 657 (N.D. 1996)
A trial court's decision that respondent was chemically
dependent on pain medication was supported by
evidence, and its scheduling problems justified brief
delay in the treatment hearing.
Interest of R.M.
,
555 N.W.2d 798 (N.D. 1996)
The trial court's finding that without continuing
treatment there is a substantial likelihood the respondent's
mental health will deteriorate and result in the respondent
being a danger to himself or others was not clearly
erroneous. Because a psychiatrist recommended placement in
an environment less restrictive than the State Hospital, the
case was remanded for further proceedings to consider the
appropriateness of alternative treatment.
Interest of R.A.J.
,
554 N.W.2d 809 (N.D. 1996)
A forced medication order may conditionally authorize
more than one combination of medicines depending upon a later
refusal by the patient to take the least restrictive combination
of medication. When uncontradicted expert testimony shows the
only appropriate treatment combines two types of medicine and
the patient only consents to one of them, the patient has
refused treatment.
Interest of C.W.
,
552 N.W.2d 382 (N.D. 1996)
In an involuntary commitment proceeding, the evidence
clearly and convincingly supported the trial court's
conclusion the respondent was a person requiring treatment
and there was a reasonable expectation the respondent posed a
serious risk of harm if untreated. The evidence clearly
and convincingly supported the trial court's authorization of
forced medication for the respondent, and the prescribed
medication was the least restrictive form of intervention
necessary to meet the respondent's current medical needs.
Interest of R.A.
,
551 N.W.2d 800 (N.D. 1996)
An order for involuntary commitment which is supported
by clear and convincing evidence cannot be impeached by a
collateral attack on a prior order committing the respondent
for treatment.
Interest of J.S.
,
545 N.W.2d 145 (N.D. 1996)
Interest of K.J.L.
,
541 N.W.2d 698 (N.D. 1996)
Interest of J.S.
,
530 N.W.2d 331 (N.D. 1995)
Interest of J.S.
,
528 N.W.2d 367 (N.D. 1995)
Interest of R.N.
,
513 N.W.2d 370 (N.D. 1994)
Interest of B.D.
,
510 N.W.2d 629 (N.D. 1994)
Interest of D.H.
,
507 N.W.2d 314 (N.D. 1993)
Interest of J.S.
,
499 N.W.2d 604 (N.D. 1993)
Interest of R.N.
,
492 N.W.2d 582 (N.D. 1992)
Interest of S. S.
,
491 N.W.2d 721 (N.D. 1992)
Interest of J.A.D.
,
492 N.W.2d 82 (N.D. 1992)
Interest of T.H.
,
482 N.W.2d 615 (N.D. 1992)
Interest of L.L.
,
482 N.W.2d 854 (N.D. 1992)
Interest of T. J.
,
482 N.W.2d 850 (N.D. 1992)
Interest of R. R.
,
479 N.W.2d 138 (N.D. 1992)
Interest of M. H.
,
475 N.W.2d 552 (N.D. 1991)
Interest of T.A.
,
472 N.W.2d 226 (N.D. 1991)
Interest of M.B.
,
467 N.W.2d 902 (N.D. 1991)
Interest of M.S.H.
,
466 N.W.2d 151 (N.D. 1991)
Interest of R.N.
,
453 N.W.2d 819 (N.D. 1990)
Interest of C.W.
,
453 N.W.2d 806 (N.D. 1990)
Interest of L.B.
,
452 N.W.2d 75 (N.D. 1990)
Interest of R.N.
,
450 N.W.2d 758 (N.D. 1990)
Interest of L.B.
,
447 N.W.2d 326 (N.D. 1989)
Interest of U. A. M.
,
446 N.W.2d 23 (N.D. 1989)
Interest of A.O.
,
443 N.W.2d 624 (N.D. 1989)
Interest of R. Z.
,
415 N.W.2d 486 (N.D. 1987)
Rashid v. Bartlow
,
410 N.W.2d 530 (N.D. 1987)
Interest of Gust
,
392 N.W.2d 824 (N.D. 1986)
Interest of Rosenthal
,
392 N.W.2d 796 (N.D. 1986)
Interest of Cuypers
,
389 N.W.2d 812 (N.D. 1986)
Interest of Abbott
,
369 N.W.2d 116 (N.D. 1985)
Interest of Goodwin
,
366 N.W.2d 809 (N.D. 1985)
Interest of Palmer
,
363 N.W.2d 401 (N.D. 1985)
Interest of Riedel
,
353 N.W.2d 773 (N.D. 1984)
Matter of Iglehart
,
349 N.W.2d 392 (N.D. 1984)
Interest of T.G.
,
345 N.W.2d 42 (N.D. 1984)
Interest of M.S.M.
,
345 N.W.2d 46 (N.D. 1984)
Interest of Nyflot
,
340 N.W.2d 178 (N.D. 1983)
Interest of Ebertz
,
333 N.W.2d 786 (N.D. 1983)
Interest of Daugherty
,
332 N.W.2d 217 (N.D. 1983)
Interest of Rambousek
,
331 N.W.2d 548 (N.D. 1983)
Interest of D.K.
,
331 N.W.2d 22 (N.D. 1983)
Hospital Services, Inc. v. Dumas
,
297 N.W.2d 320 (N.D. 1980)
Hospital Services, Inc. v. Brackey
,
283 N.W.2d 174 (N.D. 1979)