In the Interest of E.T.

• Decision Date: 03 October 2000
• Docket Number: 20000248
• Citation: 617 N.W.2d 470,2000 ND 174
• Parties: In the Interest of E.T. Patrick B. Goodman, M.D., Petitioner and Appellee v. E.T., Respondent and Appellant2000 ND 174 IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA Filed
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

In the Interest of E.T. Patrick B. Goodman, M.D., Petitioner and Appellee v E.T., Respondent and Appellant

No. 20000248

2000 ND 174

IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

Filed 10/3/00 by Clerk of Supreme Court

Appeal from the District Court of Morton County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable Thomas J. Schneider, Judge.

DISMISSED.

Opinion of the Court by Maring, Justice.

Gregory I. Runge, 418 E. Rosser Avenue, Suite A, Bismarck, N.D. 58501, for respondent and appellant.

Brian D. Grosinger, Assistant State's Attorney, 210 2nd Avenue NW, Mandan, N.D. 58554, for petitioner and appellee.

Maring, Justice.

[1] E.T. appeals an involuntary medication order, authorizing hospital physicians to treat E.T. with a feeding tube for the purpose of providing her with nourishment. We conclude this appeal is moot and dismiss.

[2] On August 4, 2000, a petition was filed for the involuntary commitment of E.T. due to her alleged mental illness. On August 8, 2000, the trial court ordered E.T. hospitalized and treated. On August 10, 2000, the State filed a motion for an order to treat E.T. with medication. Following a hearing on the matter, the trial court issued its order permitting involuntary treatment with medication on August 14, 2000. Neither of these two orders are the subject of this appeal.

[3] On August 28, 2000, the State filed a second motion for an order to treat E.T. with medication. The motion was made under N.D.C.C. 25-03.1-18.1.¹ The request was to involuntarily tube feed E.T. with a nutritional supplement, known as Jevity Plus. Upon conclusion of the evidence at the hearing on August 31, 2000, the trial court granted the State's motion for involuntary medication.

[4] On September 11, 2000, the State filed a motion with this Court to dismiss the case. In its motion, the State indicated that E.T. had been released from the hospital and that due to recent improvements in E.T.'s health, a feeding tube was no longer necessary. E.T. filed a response to the State's motion to dismiss, arguing the case should not be dismissed because the issue presented "is capable of repetition, yet evading review."

[5] We have long held that this Court will not render advisory opinions. See Nord v. Herman, 1998 ND 91, 12, 577 N.W.2d 782. An appeal will be dismissed if the issues become moot or academic such that no actual controversy is left to be determined. See Ashley Education Ass'n v. Ashley Public School District, 556 N.W.2d 666, 668 (N.D. 1996). The principle purpose behind the prohibition of advisory opinions is that "there must be an 'actual controversy to be determined' before a court can properly adjudicate." Bies v. Obregon, 1997 ND 18, 9, 558 N.W.2d 855 (citation omitted). An actual controversy no longer exists when the issue has been rendered moot by a lapse of time, or the occurrence of related events which make it impossible for a court to grant effective relief. See Nord, 1998 ND 91, 12, 577 N.W.2d 782. However, issues characterized as moot will nonetheless be heard by this Court if the controversy is capable of repetition, yet evading review, or if the controversy is one of great public interest and involves the power and authority of public officials. Id.

[6] The issue E.T. has raised on appeal is moot. As indicated by the State and conceded by E.T.'s counsel at oral argument, E.T. has been released from the hospital and is no longer being fed by a feeding tube. Therefore, this Court is unable to provide any meaningful relief by deciding whether or not the involuntary medication order was appropriate under N.D.C.C. 25-03.1-18.1.

[7] Although the issue presented is one which is capable of repetition, it can be reviewed at such time. We have stated that the fact that a issue may arise in the future "does not empower us to render a purely advisory opinion." Gosbee v. Bendish, 512 N.W.2d 450, 454 (N.D. 1994). Furthermore, the issue presented here is not one to be likely repeated without a meaningful opportunity for judicial review. See Ashley Education Ass'n, 556 N.W.2d at 668. If the trial court subjects E.T. to involuntary medication in the future, she will not be prevented from appealing such an order.

[8] E.T. never argued that the issue presented was of great public interest. We have stated that "public interest" means

"'More than mere curiosity; it means something in which the public, the community at large, has some pecuniary interest, or some...