Wilson, Matter of
| Decision Date | 15 April 1983 |
| Citation | 431 So.2d 552 |
| Parties | In the matter of: Denise WILSON, a person alleged to be mentally ill. Civ. 3667. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
C. Christopher Clanton, Mobile, for appellant.
This case involves the involuntary commitment of a mentally ill person to the custody of the Alabama State Department of Mental Health.
In September, 1982, a petition to commit the appellant was filed by the mother of appellant in the Probate Court of Mobile County. A hearing was conducted at which the probate court found "probable cause" in that appellant represented a real and present threat of substantial harm to herself based on evidence of neglect and refusal to care for herself. Accordingly, the probate court ordered the appellant confined to the University of South Alabama Medical Center for treatment and evaluation.
Appellant was examined at the mental health center and diagnosed as paranoid schizophrenic with chronic and acute exacerbation. Following a hearing on the merits, the probate court found that appellant was mentally ill, and as a result of that condition, posed a substantial threat of harm to herself. Consequently, the court ordered that appellant be committed to Searcy Hospital for safekeeping and treatment. From that order, appellant through guardian ad litem, appeals.
The appellant, through able counsel, contends on appeal that the evidence does not support the probate court's actions and that the probate court erred regarding certain evidentiary matters. Appellant further contends that § 22-52-15 of the Alabama Code of 1975 is unconstitutional.
Section 22-52-10 sets the standard for the finding of facts in involuntary commitment proceedings. The trier of facts must find that the person sought to be committed is mentally ill and that as a consequence the person poses a real and present threat of substantial harm to herself or others. The threat of substantial harm must be evidenced by a recent, overt act. In addition, it must be found that treatment is available or that confinement is necessary to prevent the person from causing harm. Further, these findings must be based on "clear, unequivocal and convincing evidence." This court finds that the requirements of § 22-52-10 were met in the instant case.
Did the appellant pose a real and present threat of substantial harm to herself and manifest such by a recent overt act?
Evidence was introduced that for approximately one year preceding appellant's commitment she would not talk or respond to any attempts at conversation. She would not leave the house and would sometimes remain motionless in the same spot for as much as twenty-four hours at a time. Appellant would not eat or sleep for as long as thirty-six hours and then when she resumed eating she would consume only very small amounts of food once a day. Appellant's mother testified that appellant had lost approximately fifty pounds within the eight months preceding the commitment hearing. At the time of the hearing, appellant weighed ninety-eight pounds.
This court has previously held that although a person does not threaten actual violence to herself, a person may be properly committed under the standard enunciated above if it can be shown that she is mentally ill, that her mental illness manifests itself in neglect or refusal to care for herself and that such neglect or refusal poses a real and present threat of substantial harm to her well being, and that she is incompetent to determine for herself whether treatment would be desirable. Walker v. Dance, 386 So.2d 475 (Ala.Civ.App.1980).
The clinical psychologist who testified as an expert witness stated that appellant denied that she had any emotional or medical problems and denied the need for treatment. In addition, the psychologist testified that, in his opinion, if appellant was left to her own devises she would continue to withdraw, be seclusive and neglect herself. He further testified that most likely appellant would continue not to eat properly and that she would become increasingly withdrawn and delusional. Clearly, the record demonstrates that appellant poses a real and substantial threat to her own well being. In fact, the appellant's testimony on her own behalf indicates to this court that she is mentally ill and unable or unwilling to help herself.
In regard to the requirement that commitment be the least restrictive...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commitment of J.B. v. Midtown Mental Health Center
...of Gatson (1979), 3 Kan.App.2d 265, 593 P.2d 423 (Individual went out into cold weather wearing no clothes or shoes.); Matter of Wilson (1983), Ala.Civ.App., 431 So.2d 552 (Individual would not eat or sleep for periods of up to 36 hours and lost 50 lbs. in 8 months.); Matter of Samuels (198......
-
Kmart Corp. v. Kyles
...FM Ins. Co. v. Stephens Enterprises, 641 So.2d 780 (Ala.1994); Stroud v. State, 592 So.2d 653 (Ala.Cr.App.1991); Matter of Wilson, 431 So.2d 552 (Ala.Civ.App.1983). See, also, Advisory Committee's Notes to Rule The defendants' counsel was the first to inform the jury that Jones had been a c......
-
E.M. v. State Dept. of Human Resources
...comply" with the federal act. This issue surfaced for the first time on appeal, which precludes us from addressing it. Matter of Wilson, 431 So.2d 552 (Ala.Civ.App.1983). Nevertheless, the United States Supreme Court recently determined that the federal act, requiring a state plan to includ......
-
Involuntary Commitment of Pilgrim, Matter of
...This court will not consider issues, constitutional or otherwise, which were not first raised in the trial court. Matter of Wilson, 431 So.2d 552 (Ala.Civ.App.1983); Liles v. Liles, 380 So.2d 908 Even if Pilgrim had presented this issue to the trial court, he failed to utilize the correct p......