In re J.B.
| Decision Date | 19 April 2022 |
| Docket Number | 38551-5-III |
| Parties | In the Matter of the Detention of: J.B. |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
We affirm the superior court's involuntary commitment of appellant J.B. based on a grave disability. In doing so, we reject J.B.'s legal contention, under RCW 71.05.020(24)(b), that a petitioner for involuntary commitment must show deterioration of the commitee's mental health from some earlier condition.
This petition for involuntary commitment began with an alleged assault on law enforcement officers by J.B. Before this confrontation, J.B. had incurred ten criminal convictions.
On seeing two law enforcement officers, J.B. exited his vehicle approached the officers, and spoke with them while recording the interaction with his cell phone. After reviewing a database, the officers learned that J.B. had multiple outstanding charges and a suspended driver's license. When the officers arrested him, J.B. allegedly resisted and spat at the officers.
The State of Washington charged J.B. with two felony counts of assault in the third degree. The superior court found J.B incompetent to assist in his own defense as a result of a mental disease or defect. The court dismissed the criminal charges and ordered seventy-two hours' detainment for evaluation of a potential civil commitment of J.B. Following a mental status evaluation, Western State Hospital staff diagnosed J.B. with "Other Specified Schizophrenia Spectrum and Other Psychotic Disorder." Clerk's Papers (CP) at 10.
Drs Daniel Paredes and Wendi Wachsmuth of Western State Hospital petitioned the superior court to detain J.B. for involuntary treatment beyond the seventy-two hours. The petition alleged that J.B. suffered a grave disability and he presented a substantial likelihood of repeating violent acts as a result of a behavioral health disorder.
In a declaration supporting the commitment petition, Drs. Daniel Paredes and Wendi Wachsmuth averred that J.B. had a history of mental illness and treatment beginning in 2007. The declaration reported that J.B. maintained a disordered thought process, disclosed only vague information, and encountered difficulty remaining focused on conversations. J.B. paused for extended periods of time before answering questions. Although J.B. successfully communicated his needs his speech pattern lagged. He answered questions with tangential and disorganized responses. J.B. expressed grandiose personal goals and experiences with religious and philosophical themes. When speaking to treatment providers, J.B. turned and looked out of the windows behind himself and peered the background for others. J.B. responded favorably to antipsychotic medications when he willingly accepted the medication or when a court order forced administration of drugs, but J.B. refused medications and other treatment on commitment. J.B. denied any mental illness and functional impairment.
Daniel Paredes and Wendi Wachsmuth avowed, in their joint declaration, that Western State Hospital staff had noted, during J.B.'s earlier visits, behaviors similar to the recent assault on law enforcement officers. J.B. assaulted staff members. The joint declaration of the mental health treatment providers concluded:
Due to his [J.B.'s] proven history of assaultive behavior without such psychiatric and psychosocial interventions, it is recommended he remains in the secure setting of Western State Hospital for continuing treatment. In his current state, it is substantially likely he would reoffend in a manner similar to that described in the arresting officers' reports if he was discharged to the community without further treatment.
A superior court commissioner conducted a hearing on the petition for commitment. At the evidentiary hearing, the State, through the petitioners Daniel Paredes and Wendi Wachsmuth elected to limit the commitment request solely on a grave disability.
During the hearing testimony, Dr. Wendi Wachsmuth described J.B. assaulting other patients without provocation. J.B., according to Wachsmuth, spoke loudly, rapidly, and incoherently to staff members. J.B. frequently peered over his shoulder even when in a secure room. This paranoia contributed to his aggressive behavior.
Dr. Wendi Wachsmuth testified that J.B. did not recognize the need for medication and refused to take any psychoactive drugs. J.B. likely would not seek treatment if discharged from the hospital. He lacked volitional control of his aggressive behavior without medication. Wachsmuth concluded that J.B. would be unable to meet his basic health and safety needs in the community.
J.B.'s great-grandmother testified on his behalf. She testified that she had spoken with an alternative treatment facility, Navos that would provide housing and care for J.B.
J.B. testified that he previously resided and engaged in services at Navos. He avowed that other patients assaulted him at Western State Hospital, but that staff unfairly accused him of being the aggressor because staff only witnessed the ending of the fights. On cross-examination, J.B. addressed his insight into his condition and aptitude for treatment:
CP at 55-56 (some alterations in original).
The superior court commissioner ordered ninety days involuntary commitment because of a grave disability. In findings of fact, the commissioner wrote:
CP at 22. J.B. requested that a superior court judge revise the commissioner's decision. The superior court denied J.B.'s motion and adopted the commissioner's findings and conclusions.
On appeal, J.B. assigns factual and legal error. He first contends that the superior court applied an erroneous test when assessing whether he suffered from a grave disability. He maintains that the superior court should have required a showing by the petitioners of deterioration from an earlier status. Second, he argues that, even under the test applied by the superior court, the State failed to present sufficient facts for involuntary commitment.
The Involuntary Treatment Act (ITA), chapter 71.05 RCW, governs civil commitments of persons suffering from behavioral health disorders. In accordance with the act, the State holds a legitimate interest in protecting the community from the dangerously mentally ill and in providing care to those who are unable to care for themselves. In re Detention of LaBelle, 107 Wn.2d 196, 201, 728 P.2d 138 (1986).
Involuntary commitment administers "a massive curtailment of liberty." Humphrey v. Cady, 405 U.S. 504, 509 92 S.Ct. 1048, 31 L.Ed.2d 394 (1972). Accordingly substantive due process of law will not permit the State to commit an individual solely on the basis of mental illness. In re Detention of LaBelle, 107 Wn.2d 196, 201 (1986). A State cannot constitutionally confine without more an individual who can survive safely in freedom by himself or with the help of willing and responsible family members or friends. O'Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563, 576, 95 S.Ct. 2486, 45 L.Ed.2d 396 (1975).
Under Washington's ITA, mental health treatment providers may commit a person for involuntary treatment if "[s]uch person is gravely disabled." RCW 71.05.280(4). A person may be "gravely disabled" under two alternative tests:
"Gravely disabled" means a condition in which...
To continue reading
Request your trial