Matter of M.F.W. , 2013 Mont. LEXIS 349 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                       September 10 2013
    DA 12-0694
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
    2013 MT 260N
    IN THE MATTER OF
    M.F.W.,
    Respondent and Appellant.
    APPEAL FROM:       District Court of the Fourth Judicial District,
    In and For the County of Missoula, Cause No. DI-08-102
    Honorable Ed McLean, Presiding Judge
    COUNSEL OF RECORD:
    For Appellant:
    Wade Zolynski, Chief Appellate Defender; Koan Mercer, Assistant
    Appellate Defender; Helena, Montana
    For Appellee:
    Timothy C. Fox, Montana Attorney General; Pamela P. Collins, Assistant
    Attorney General; Helena, Montana
    Fred Van Valkenburg, Missoula County Attorney; Cathleen Sohlberg,
    Deputy County Attorney; Missoula, Montana
    Submitted on Briefs: August 21, 2013
    Decided: September 10, 2013
    Filed:
    __________________________________________
    Clerk
    Justice Laurie McKinnon delivered the Opinion of the Court.
    ¶1     Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d), Montana Supreme Court Internal Operating
    Rules, this case is decided by memorandum opinion and shall not be cited and does not
    serve as precedent. Its case title, cause number, and disposition shall be included in this
    Court’s quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana
    Reports.
    ¶2     M.F.W. appeals from an Involuntary Mental Health Commitment Order (“Order”)
    entered in the Fourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County, which committed him to
    community-based mental health treatment. We affirm.
    ¶3     M.F.W. is a 54-year-old male with a long history of mental illness. He has been
    diagnosed with schizophrenia, paranoid type, and has a history of mental health
    commitments. M.F.W. was criminally committed to involuntary mental health treatment
    after being charged with robbery alleged to have occurred on July 1, 1998. M.F.W. was
    later found to be suffering from a mental disease or defect that caused him to present a
    substantial risk of physical injury to others. He was committed to the Department of
    Public Health and Human Services and placed at the Montana State Hospital (MSH) from
    1998 until his conditional release in 2003. Upon conditional release into the community,
    M.F.W. was ordered to comply with aftercare treatment and to take his medications. He
    remained on conditional release until 2008.
    ¶4     Since 2008, M.F.W. has been intermittently compliant with treatment and taking
    his medications.   M.F.W. has had several other involuntary commitments since his
    conditional release and prior to these proceedings.      His history indicates that when
    2
    M.F.W. is not compliant with taking his antipsychotic medications, his mental health
    condition deteriorates and he becomes disorganized, often experiencing paranoid
    delusions that cause him to be suspicious and guarded. M.F.W.’s prior civil commitment
    order has expired and he subsequently stopped taking his medications in the spring of
    2012.    M.F.W. receives injectable antipsychotics in order to insure he takes his
    medication. He missed his medication appointment in July 2012.
    ¶5      Based upon numerous complaints received from law enforcement that M.F.W.
    was intimidating females in the Seeley Lake area, a petition for M.F.W.’s involuntary
    commitment was filed on September 10, 2012. The District Court conducted a hearing
    on October 15, 2012, and entered its written order committing M.F.W. and requiring that
    M.F.W. comply with community-based treatment.
    ¶6      At the hearing, Missoula County Sheriff’s Deputies Robert Parcell and Heath
    Hanson testified that since July they had received over twenty calls from residents in the
    Seeley Lake area with complaints that M.F.W. was demonstrating inappropriate behavior
    towards women in the community.          There were several reports that M.F.W. was
    approaching females at local businesses and was handing out cards soliciting women to
    call him. On one occasion, M.F.W. followed an elderly woman to her home after she left
    church. The Valley Market, the Moose River Bar and most recently Rovero’s have
    banned M.F.W. from their premises. Both Deputy Parcell and Deputy Hanson testified
    that when they approached M.F.W. to inform him he could no longer go to area
    businesses, M.F.W.’s behavior quickly escalated and he became agitated. M.F.W.’s
    thoughts centered around government conspiracies that he believed were aimed at
    3
    violating his rights. Residents in Seeley Lake reported feeling threatened and intimidated
    by M.F.W.’s behavior.
    ¶7    Timothy C. Myers, LCSW, testified M.F.W. refused to participate in the
    court-ordered evaluation prior to hearing. Myers reviewed M.F.W.’s treatment records
    including those from MSH and the Western Montana Mental Health Center (WMMHC).
    Myers testified that M.F.W. suffers from schizophrenia, paranoid type. Since his release
    from MSH in 2003, M.F.W. has been on court-ordered supervision for his mental health,
    in one form or another.       M.F.W. was receiving case management services with
    WMMHC, including medication management and the utilization of injectable
    medications. It was Myers’ opinion that M.F.W. would not comply with treatment absent
    a court order. Myers further opined that court-ordered treatment was essential to help
    M.F.W. achieve and maintain stability in a community setting.
    ¶8    Myers further testified that he reviewed a letter M.F.W. submitted to the court. It
    was Myers’ opinion that, based on the letter and the recent reports about M.F.W.’s
    behaviors towards women in Seeley Lake, M.F.W. was showing signs of
    decompensation.     Myers testified that when not taking medication, M.F.W. has
    decompensated to a point where he is unable to meet his basic needs, resulting in
    long-term hospitalization. M.F.W.’s current persecutory delusions are centered around
    the government and are consistent with those that he was experiencing just prior to his
    commission of a felony (robbery) and his forensic commitment to MSH in 2003.
    ¶9    The District Court found that M.F.W.’s treatment providers are concerned that his
    recent behavior may at some point place him or others in a dangerous situation. Myers
    4
    testified that M.F.W.’s mental illness is currently preventing him from accessing his
    medication. Without treatment, Myers believes M.F.W.’s symptoms of schizophrenia
    will continue to increase to a point that would require hospitalization. Myers testified
    that M.F.W.’s mental health condition is treatable with a reasonable prospect of success
    and he recommended that M.F.W. be court-ordered to participate in a community-based
    treatment program to include medication and case management services.
    ¶10   M.F.W. testified and denied any mental illness or the need to take medication.
    ¶11   The District Court concluded that the least restrictive treatment alternative
    necessary to protect M.F.W. and the public and to permit effective treatment was for
    M.F.W. to comply with community-based treatment. The District Court ordered M.F.W.
    to follow all recommendations of his treatment providers; take all medications as
    prescribed, including injectable medications if recommended; and, if necessary,
    M.F.W.’s treatment team would have authority to admit M.F.W. to St. Patrick Hospital or
    another appropriate treatment facility. The order of commitment was for a period of six
    months, to expire on April 15, 2013.
    ¶12   M.F.W. maintains that the District Court improperly violated his right to testify by
    interrupting M.F.W. while he was testifying and threatening M.F.W. with inpatient
    commitment at MSH if he did not agree to a community-based commitment. As no
    objection was made by M.F.W.’s trial counsel, M.F.W. contends plain error review is
    warranted.
    ¶13   This Court reviews a district court civil commitment order to determine whether
    the court’s findings are clearly erroneous and its conclusions of law are correct. In re
    5
    R.W.K., 
    2013 MT 54
    , ¶ 14, 
    369 Mont. 193
    , 
    297 P.3d 318
    . The Court’s review is
    discretionary when an individual requests review of issues pursuant to the plain error
    doctrine regarding issues not objected to in the trial court.        A mere assertion that
    constitutional rights are implicated, or that failure to review the claimed error may result
    in a manifest miscarriage of justice, is insufficient to implicate the plain error doctrine.
    In re J.S.W., 
    2013 MT 34
    , ¶¶ 15-17, 
    369 Mont. 12
    , 
    303 P.3d 741
    ; State v. Wilson, 
    2011 MT 277
    , ¶¶ 16, 28, 
    362 Mont. 416
    , 
    264 P.3d 1146
    .
    ¶14    A review of the record in the instant proceedings, in its totality, clearly establishes
    that M.F.W. was not denied his constitutional right to testify. Due process is flexible and
    calls for procedural protections based upon the particular circumstances of the case. In re
    L.K., 
    2008 MT 169
    , ¶ 27, 
    343 Mont. 366
    , 
    184 P.3d 353
    . Whether due process of law has
    been denied depends upon an appraisal of the totality of facts in any given case. State v.
    West, 
    2008 MT 338
    , ¶ 32, 
    346 Mont. 244
    , 
    194 P.3d 683
    . The District Court allowed
    M.F.W. to testify without interruption for a significant amount of time. M.F.W. began to
    ramble without being prompted or questioned by his trial counsel. The District Court
    properly redirected the questioning and inquiry and took control of the proceeding as it is
    required to do.
    ¶15    A review of the record further indicates that, at the point the court began its
    discussion with M.F.W., the District Court’s efforts were directed towards making the
    inevitable forthcoming events of community-based treatment as easy as possible for
    M.F.W. The District Court was very familiar with M.F.W., having presided over several
    prior commitment proceedings. The record establishes that, had M.F.W. not complied
    6
    with community-based treatment, the more restrictive alternative of MSH would become
    necessary. Far from denying M.F.W. due process, the District Court was being as fair as
    possible with M.F.W. in explaining to him his treatment options.
    ¶16    We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d) of
    our Internal Operating Rules, which provides for noncitable memorandum opinions. The
    District Court’s findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence and the legal issues
    are controlled by settled Montana law, which the District Court correctly interpreted.
    ¶17    Affirmed.
    /S/ LAURIE McKINNON
    We Concur:
    /S/ MIKE McGRATH
    /S/ BETH BAKER
    /S/ PATRICIA COTTER
    /S/ JIM RICE
    7
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 12-0694

Citation Numbers: 2013 MT 260N, 2013 WL 4817719, 2013 Mont. LEXIS 349

Filed Date: 9/10/2013

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014