In Re MH 2008-001188 – 3/30/2009

March 30, 2009

Finding That a Person Is Unwilling or Unable to Accept Voluntary Treatment, as Required For Court-Ordered Involuntary Mental Health Treatment, Need Not Be Alleged in Physicians’ Affidavits or Stated Verbally by Court if Found in Written Order and Supporte

In Re MH 2008-001188 (3/26/2009): Arizona Court of appeals Division One Holds That Finding That a Person Is Unwilling or Unable to Accept Voluntary Treatment, as Required For Court-Ordered Involuntary Mental Health Treatment, Need Not Be Alleged in Physicians’ Affidavits or Stated Verbally by Court if Found in Written Order and Supported by Substantial Evidence on the Record

Doctors petitioned the superior court to order mental health treatment of a patient who had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder and had a history of substance abuse and recent suicide attempts.  The superior court issued a detention order for treatment and a notice of hearing.  After the hearing, the court ordered involuntary treatment in a combined inpatient-outpatient program for 365 days. 

The patient appealed, arguing (1) that she had demonstrated a willingness to comply with voluntary treatment, (2) that the physicians’ affidavits and addenda supporting the petition did not specifically allege that she was unable or unwilling to accept voluntary treatment, and (3) that the superior court did not state on the record that she was unwilling or unable to accept voluntary treatment. 

Before ordering involuntary treatment, the superior court must find, inter alia, clear and convincing evidence that a patient is either unwilling or unable to accept voluntary treatment.  A.R.S. § 36-540(A).  Although a petition for court-ordered treatment must allege that the patient is unable or unwilling to accept voluntary treatment, id. § 36-533(A)(3), the physicians’ affidavits accompanying the petition need not discuss this issue, id. § 36-533(B). 

In this case, the superior court did not state verbally its finding that the patient was unable or unwilling to accept voluntary treatment.  But a trial judge’s statement, or lack thereof, will not detract from his express finding of statutory grounds in his formal written order.  Because the evaluating physicians’ documentation met statutory requirements, and because the superior court made the necessary findings in its written order, which were backed by substantial evidence, the Court of appeals affirmed.

Judge Downie authored the opinion; Judges Thompson and Kessler concurred.