E.J.H., Matter of

• Decision Date: 23 December 1992
• Docket Number: No. 91-1340,91-1340
• Citation: 493 N.W.2d 841
• Parties: In the Matter of the Alleged Substance Abuse of E.J.H., E.J.H., Appellant.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

Page 841

493 N.W.2d 841

In the Matter of the Alleged Substance Abuse of E.J.H. E.J.H., Appellant.

No. 91-1340.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Dec. 23, 1992.

Charles H. Jacobs, Dubuque, for appellant.

Lyle R. Galliart, Asst. County Atty., Dubuque, for appellee State of Iowa.

Considered by HARRIS, P.J., and CARTER, LAVORATO, NEUMAN, and SNELL, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The respondent, E.J.H., appeals from a district court order affirming the decision of a hospitalization referee ordering her to be taken into immediate custody after being discharged from an outpatient treatment program for substance abusers. The respondent contends the referee failed to comply with Iowa Code sections 125.81 and 125.84(3) (1991). We agree.

On February 19, 1991, respondent's husband and sister filed an application under Iowa Code section 125.75 for respondent's involuntary commitment. On that same day, the referee found probable cause to believe the respondent was a chronic substance abuser and likely to injure herself or others if allowed to remain at liberty. See Iowa Code § 125.81. The referee ordered the sheriff to take the respondent into immediate custody. During a hearing on February 22, 1991, the respondent stipulated to being a substance abuser in need of treatment. The referee ordered the respondent into outpatient treatment. On March 19, 1991, the referee entered an order authorizing the respondent to be taken into immediate custody as provided by Iowa Code section 125.81 if she refused to comply with the outpatient treatment program. See Iowa Code § 125.84(3).

On May 28, 1991, the respondent's substance abuse counselor wrote the referee that the respondent had failed to attend two sessions of her treatment program and, as a result, had been discharged from the program. The counselor's communication did not indicate that the respondent was dangerous or had been abusing any substance. The counselor did not request that the respondent be rehospitalized. The respondent did not receive notice of the discharge. In a letter to the referee dated June 10, 1991, the counselor opined that the respondent may benefit from the structure and intensity of an inpatient treatment program.

Based on these communications, the referee found probable cause to believe respondent was a substance abuser and likely to injure herself or others if allowed to remain at liberty. The referee included the following facts:

The respondent was found to be a chronic substance abuser pursuant to prior order for commitment. Respondent has been completely noncompliant with outpatient commitment and is discharged from SASC untreated. Thus, respondent continues to suffer untreated.

The referee then ordered the sheriff to take the respondent into immediate custody and place her in a locked psychiatric unit.

On June 11, 1991, the sheriff took the respondent into custody at her place of employment. A revocation hearing was held three days later. The referee found that, despite the fact the respondent had been noncompliant with previous outpatient treatment plans, she should be released from custody and resume outpatient treatment.

The respondent appealed the immediate custody order to the district court which affirmed the referee's order and dismissed the respondent's appeal. The respondent filed a motion for new trial or for amended conclusions of law and fact which the district court denied. The respondent filed a notice of appeal.

I. Chapter 125 of the Iowa Code addresses the issue of chemical substance abuse. It sets out precise procedures to be followed for the involuntary commitment of a chronic substance abuser.

Iowa Code section 125.84 requires the chief medical officer to evaluate the substance abuser and recommend to the court an alternative placement for the respondent. In this case, the evaluating physician recommended outpatient treatment. Iowa Code section 125.84(3) concerns outpatient treatment and provides that:

The (outpatient treatment) order shall provide that if the respondent fails or refuses to submit to treatment, as directed by the court's order, the court may order that the respondent be taken into immediate custody as provided by section 125.81....

(Emphasis added.)

Iowa Code section 125.81 authorizes immediate custody upon the filing of a verified application by "any interested person" and upon a specific finding by the court "that the respondent is a chronic substance abuser who is likely to injure herself or others if allowed to remain at liberty."

The district court did not interpret section 125.84(3) as requiring the referee to make another finding that the respondent was likely to injure herself or others if allowed to remain at liberty. The district court interpreted section 125.84(3) as authorizing the referee to order the respondent to be taken into immediate custody if the respondent fails or refuses to submit to treatment. The district court found that the "as provided by" language of section 125.84(3) did not require the referee to follow section 125.81's procedural requirements prior to ordering immediate custody. We disagree.

The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that civil commitment for any person constitutes a significant deprivation of liberty that requires due process protection. Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 425, 99 S.Ct. 1804, 1809, 60 L.Ed.2d 323, 330-31 (1979) (...