In re L.H., 16-0185
| Decision Date | 21 December 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. 16-0185,16-0185 |
| Citation | 890 N.W.2d 333 |
| Parties | In the MATTER OF L.H., Alleged to be Seriously Mentally Impaired, L.H., Respondent-Appellant. |
| Court | Iowa Court of Appeals |
Leslie M. Blair III of Blair & Fitzsimmons, P.C., Dubuque, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Gretchen W. Kraemer, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee State.
Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Tabor, JJ.
L.H. appeals the district associate judge's (DAJ) order of continued outpatient commitment under Iowa Code section 229.14A (2015). While not disputing he suffers from a mental illness, L.H. argues the court's refusal to terminate the commitment was not supported by substantial evidence. We agree the sparse record is insufficient to establish that L.H. continues to lack sufficient judgment to make decisions about his treatment nor does it show any recent overt act indicating he still poses a danger to himself or others. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for termination of L.H.'s commitment.
L.H. has been diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder
, bipolar type, and has been under court-ordered civil commitment for more than three years, generally on an outpatient basis. In August 2013, his mother and stepfather filed an application alleging L.H. had been responding to auditory hallucinations, calling people on the phone to ask where he was, passing cars on the highway and slowing down in front of them, and repeatedly alleging people were "out to get him." According to his mother, L.H. had not taken his medication in four weeks. Following a hearing, the DAJ ordered L.H. to outpatient commitment. The DAJ "withheld" specific findings of fact pending L.H.'s "compliance with outpatient treatment" at Associates for Behavioral Health in Hiawatha.1
In March 2014, the DAJ transferred L.H. to outpatient treatment in Dubuque. L.H.'s periodic report indicated his condition was improving. But five months later, the DAJ entered an emergency hospitalization order, detaining L.H. at Mercy Hospital in Des Moines, after receiving information L.H. was "off medication" and having "paranoid and delusional thoughts
." On September 3, 2014, the DAJ entered an order committing L.H. to outpatient treatment in Dubuque. Again, the order lacked findings of fact or conclusions of law. On September 4, 2014, the Dubuque provider filed a periodic report opining L.H.'s condition remained unchanged.
In January 2015, L.H. filed a self-represented request to change his treating provider to Abbe Center in Manchester. But before the court ruled on his request, L.H.'s mother and stepfather filed another application alleging serious mental impairment
. According to their supporting affidavits, L.H. verbally threatened to harm them and their dog, pushed his mother, and forced his way into their bedroom after they sought refuge from him. The DAJ ordered L.H. to be hospitalized pending hearing on the application. The physician's report filed before the hearing indicated L.H. was "agreeable to taking medications, he has been completely cooperative in the hospital," and "he has shown no violent acts." The physician recommended evaluation on an outpatient basis, reasoning: "If he is not provoked, and continues to take his medication I think he will be safe."
At the February 6, 2015 hearing, L.H. stipulated to the findings and recommendations in the physician's report, and the DAJ ordered L.H. to obtain outpatient treatment at Abbe Center. Over the next ten months, Abbe Center filed four periodic reports indicating L.H.'s condition remained unchanged and recommending continuation of outpatient treatment. The court issued orders continuing L.H.'s commitment following each report.
On December 28, 2015, following the fourth order continuing his commitment, L.H. filed a self-represented motion contesting the court's continued involvement in his medical treatment and requesting termination of his outpatient hospitalization:
The DAJ treated L.H.'s filing as a request for a placement hearing under section 229.14A and scheduled a hearing for January 11, 2016. Three days before the hearing, L.H.'s physician, Dr. Douglas Jones, filed a periodic report checking a box next to the statement, "Respondent is seriously mentally impaired and in need of treatment, and can continue in outpatient treatment" and adding this handwritten notation: "Recommend to continue on commitment for further stabilization." Dr. Jones also stated in the report that "the further length of time the respondent will require outpatient treatment" was "not possible to be determined."
The State offered no testimony or other evidence at the perfunctory January hearing. L.H. provided the court with a letter from his therapist, Carol Ogea, who described L.H. as "medication compliant, stable, and managing his symptoms without conflict or problems in his home, relationships or community," but who did not recommend his commitment be terminated.2
At L.H.'s request, the DAJ tried to contact Ogea by phone but was unable to reach her.
L.H. also asked to have Dr. Jones cross-examined. The State responded it "did not anticipate calling anyone simply because the doctor's recommendation is stated in writing twice within the last two months." The State suggested L.H. could "certainly try to get [the doctor] on the phone" if L.H. wanted to call him as a witness, but the State could not guarantee his availability. The court declined L.H. the opportunity to attempt to contact Dr. Jones by telephone, reasoning: "He just filed a report Friday ... saying that he's not recommending closure at this time."
The DAJ told L.H., At the hearing, L.H. said he would like to appeal. The DAJ told him his appeal would be heard by the district court.
Immediately after the hearing, the DAJ filed a written order stating The DAJ also appointed new counsel for L.H. That same day, L.H. filed a handwritten notice of appeal, again addressed to "whom it may concern," expressing his desire to appeal from the January 11 court hearing. The next day, the district court set a hearing on L.H.'s appeal for January 19.
On January 19, the district judge held a de novo trial—ostensibly under section 229.21(3)(c). The district judge issued an order the same day, affirming the DAJ's order for continued outpatient treatment. L.H. filed a notice of appeal from the district judge's order on January 20, 2016, stating he disagreed with "the decision of the courts" and with the diagnosis from his doctor but was "willing to continue treatment and medications on a self-reliant basis."
On appeal, the State raised this question: whether the district court's appellate jurisdiction includes review of a DAJ's order continuing placement in chapter 229 commitment proceedings.3 After reviewing sections 229.21(3) and 602.6306(2), we concluded the district judge did not have jurisdiction to consider the merits of L.H.'s appeal from the DAJ's ruling. We issued an order finding the district judge's decision was void, and we lacked jurisdiction to entertain L.H.'s challenge to that decision on appeal. But we concluded a challenge to the DAJ's ruling was properly before us. Accordingly, rather than dismissing L.H.'s appeal, we directed the parties to determine what record was available from the proceedings before the DAJ and to submit amended briefs addressing the DAJ's order. Because of the importance of the jurisdictional issue, we recount the analysis that led us to this determination.
Fourteen years ago, our court addressed the question whether a district court could review a DAJ's finding of serious mental impairment
. See In re P.D. , No. 00–1882, 2002 WL 1127908, at *1 . In P.D. , we examined the language of section 229.21(3)(a), which governs appeals to the district court in hospitalization proceedings, and section 602.6306, which discusses DAJ jurisdiction. See id. at *1–2. Compare Iowa Code § 229.21(3)(a) (), with id. § 602.6306(2) (), and id. § 602.6306(4) (). In concluding the district court did not have jurisdiction to hear P.D.'s appeal, we reasoned:
To continue reading
Request your trial