In re M.W., 15-2213
| Decision Date | 05 May 2017 |
| Docket Number | No. 15-2213,15-2213 |
| Citation | 894 N.W.2d 526 |
| Parties | In the MATTER OF M.W., Alleged to be Seriously Mentally Impaired, M.W., Appellant. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Gretchen Witte Kraemer, Assistant Attorney General, for appellant State.
Willie E. Townsend, Coralville, for appellee.
The State seeks further review following the court of appeals decision vacating the judicial hospitalization referee's involuntary hospitalization order. See Iowa Code ch. 229 (2015). The State challenges the court of appeals' conclusion that it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal. We vacate the decision of the court of appeals and dismiss the appeal because neither the referee's order issued on December 8, 2015, nor the district court's order issued on December 9 are appealable as a matter of right pursuant to Iowa Rules of Appellate Procedure 6.103.
M.W. is an adult who has a history of mental illness. Beginning in July 2014, M.W.'s guardian had him hospitalized for over a year at the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics (UIHC). In 2015, M.W.'s guardian placed him in Chatham Oaks, an Iowa City residential care facility. On December 4, M.W. attempted to return to the UIHC by walking approximately three miles through freezing temperatures while dressed unsuitably for the weather. After arriving at the UIHC, M.W. refused medications. A doctor at the UIHC, who was familiar with M.W. from the previous hospitalization, began involuntary commitment proceedings in order to compel treatment.
The court scheduled a hearing for December 8. M.W. was served with a notice for the hearing but his guardian was not. The hearing was held on December 8. M.W.'s attorney moved to continue the hearing because the guardian had not been notified and was not present. The judicial hospitalization referee denied the motion, found M.W. was seriously mentally impaired, and ordered M.W. committed to the UIHC.
M.W.'s attorney appealed to the district court from the denial of his motion to continue. On December 9, the district court held a brief hearing on the appeal and issued a ruling that same day. The district court determined that the referee did not abuse her discretion in denying M.W.'s motion to continue and declined to remand the case to the referee for another hearing. The district court further concluded Iowa Code chapter 229 does not require a guardian be served with a notice before the hearing, explaining such a notice would be contrary to the purpose of the time requirement in chapter 229 and delay a respondent's return to either liberty or essential mental health treatment. Finally, the court noted M.W. had the right to challenge the ruling, as well as all of the other rulings of the referee at a de novo hearing on the record before the district court. Accordingly, the district court scheduled a de novo hearing for December 22.
On December 18, however, the UIHC requested M.W.'s release from involuntary hospitalization. The UIHC stated M.W. was compliant with his medications, and his guardian agreed with the new treatment plan. The district court thus dismissed the case. On December 21, M.W.'s attorney filed a withdrawal of appeal, stating, "[T]here is no reason to continue the legal process at the district court level, but will continue at the appellate court level." The court did not cancel the December 22 hearing, and when the parties did not appear, the district court entered an order stating that "the hearing in this matter [was] not pursued before the district court," and therefore, the court would take no further action in the matter.
On December 23, M.W. filed a notice of appeal to the supreme court indicating he was appealing the December 8 referee order and the December 9 district court order. On our own motion, we ordered the parties to file statements on jurisdiction. We explained that we were "concerned as to whether [we have] jurisdiction over the respondent's appeal" because M.W. filed a withdrawal of appeal to the district court on December 21, and no one appeared at the December 22 hearing.
After receiving the parties' statements, we ordered the appeal proceed to briefing, but directed the parties to further develop their arguments on jurisdiction and mootness. We then transferred the case to the court of appeals. The court of appeals held that it had jurisdiction over the appeal because the referee's order of commitment was a final appealable order. The court of appeals also held that, although the case was moot because the district court had already dismissed the commitment proceedings against M.W., it found exceptions to the mootness doctrine. Finally, the court of appeals held M.W.'s guardian was entitled to notice of the commitment proceedings and thus vacated the referee's order.
The State applied for further review, which we granted.
M.W. raises several issues on appeal. Our first duty is to determine whether we have jurisdiction to consider and decide the appeal on its merits. Lloyd v. State , 251 N.W.2d 551, 558 (Iowa 1977). We find that jurisdiction is dispositive of this appeal, and therefore, we do not reach the merits.
M.W. appeals two separate rulings made in the trial court. First, he appeals the referee's order of December 8, denying the motion to continue and committing M.W. to the UIHC after finding he was seriously mentally impaired. Second, he appeals the district court's order of December 9, affirming the denial of the continuance.
The State contends appellate jurisdiction is lacking because M.W. abandoned appellate review when he withdrew his appeal to the district court on December 21 and failed to appear at the hearing on December 22. The State argues that the referee's order is not a final appealable order because Iowa Code section 229.21(3) provides that respondents are to appeal such orders to the district court. The State also argues that the district court ruling of December 9 is not a final or interlocutory order for the purpose of appellate review.
A. The Referee's December 8 Order. M.W. asked the referee to continue the hearing on December 8 because no one served M.W.'s guardian with notice of the hearing. The referee denied the continuance, concluding there was no requirement the guardian be served before the hearing. The referee then decided the merits and committed M.W. to the UIHC after finding he was seriously mentally impaired. M.W. is appealing this order directly to the supreme court.
Under our appellate rules, we have jurisdiction to review "[a]ll final orders and judgments of the district court involving the merits or materially affecting the final decision." Iowa R. App. P. 6.103 ; see also In re Melodie L. , 591 N.W.2d 4, 7 (Iowa 1999). Thus, our task is to determine whether the denial of the continuance and the commitment order by the referee constituted a final judgment of the district court for the purpose of bringing an appeal to this court.
Iowa Code section 229.21 prescribes the general procedures for an involuntary hospitalization hearing before a judicial hospitalization referee.
When an application for involuntary hospitalization ... is filed with the clerk of the district court in any county for which a judicial hospitalization referee has been appointed, and no district judge, district associate judge, or magistrate who is admitted to the practice of law in this state is accessible, ... [t]he referee shall discharge all of the duties imposed upon the court by sections 229.7 to 229.22 ... in the proceeding so initiated. Subject to the provisions of subsection 4, orders issued by a referee, in discharge of duties imposed under this section, shall have the same force and effect as if ordered by a district judge.
Iowa Code § 229.21(2).
Iowa Code section 229.21(3) governs the process for requesting an appeal to the district court.
Any respondent with respect to whom the magistrate or judicial hospitalization referee has found the contention that the respondent is seriously mentally impaired ... may appeal from the magistrate's or referee's finding to a judge of the district court by giving the clerk notice in writing, within ten days after the magistrate's or referee's finding is made, that an appeal is taken.
Id. § 229.21(3)(a ).
Id. § 229.21(3)(b ). Id. § 229.21(3)(c ). The Code further provides that in addition to a referee's order finding a "respondent is seriously mentally impaired" pursuant to section 229.21(3)(a ), "[a]ny respondent with respect to whom the magistrate or judicial hospitalization referee has held a placement hearing and has entered a placement order may appeal the order to a judge of the district court." Id . at § 229.21(3)(d ).
M.W. contends he was not required to appeal to the district court before seeking review from our court, relying in part on our decision in Melodie L. , 591 N.W.2d 4. In MelodieL. , we considered the authority of a hospital referee to dismiss a proceeding in response to a request by a patient. Melodie L. , 591 N.W.2d at 7.
The hospital referee found Melodie L. to be seriously mentally impaired after a hearing. Id. at 5. After being...
To continue reading
Request your trial