Court of Appeals of Arizona, First Division, Department B
Not for Publication – Rule 28, Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure
Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County Cause No. S8015MH201200041 The Honorable Lee F. Jantzen, Judge
Matthew J. Smith, Mohave County Attorney, Dolores H. Milkie, Civil Deputy County Attorney Attorneys for Appellee
Jill L. Evans, Mohave County Appellate Defender, Diane S. McCoy, Deputy Appellate Defender Attorneys for Appellant
RANDALL M. HOWE, Presiding Judge
¶1 Ivy Y. appeals from the superior court's order committing her to a mental health facility because she is persistently or acutely disabled and needs treatment. For the following reasons, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2 On December 20, 2012, Dr. Z petitioned for a court-ordered evaluation of Ivy. The petition stated that Ivy had a history of mental illness and that she refused to take her medications. Four days later, Dr. S petitioned for court-ordered treatment of Ivy, finding that she was persistently or acutely disabled and in need of treatment.
¶3 A notice of hearing was served on Ivy, informing her that a petition for court-ordered treatment had been filed and advising her that she had a right to appear and to be represented by an attorney to reply to the allegations on January 2, 2013. The parties appeared for a hearing on the petition on that date. Ivy stated that she wanted an Independent Medical Evaluation ("IME") and objected to the hearing going forward that day. The trial court continued the hearing until January 9, 2013, to allow time for the IME to be completed. At the January 9 hearing, Ivy and her counsel were present. The court stated that additional time was needed to complete the IME, and it continued the hearing to January 17.
¶4 The court held the mental health review hearing on January 17, 2013. Ivy's husband testified that her mental health deteriorated in May 2012 when she began to address people who were not present and became concerned with things that did not exist. He also testified that Ivy started two stove fires in the home and purposely threw away his heart medication. He testified that Ivy would not voluntarily take her medication.
¶5 Dr. S testified that, based upon his observations of Ivy, he believed that she suffered from bipolar disorder and was not able to properly function in society. He testified that he believed that Ivy was persistently or acutely disabled because she had a history of entering into manic or depressive states and had very poor judgment. He stated that if Ivy was not treated, she would likely continue to suffer severe and abnormal mental, emotional or physical harm that would significantly impair her judgment, reason, behavior or capacity to recognize reality. He believed that Ivy required treatment and had a reasonable chance of recovery with a combination of inpatient and outpatient treatment. Dr. S testified that Ivy's poor insight and judgment made her unable to make an informed decision regarding her treatment and placement.
¶6 The court ordered Ivy to participate in involuntary treatment, finding clear and convincing evidence that she was persistently or acutely disabled, needed treatment, and was unwilling or unable to accept voluntary treatment. Ivy timely appeals. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") sections 36-546.01 and 12-2101(A)(1).
¶7 Ivy argues that the court's civil commitment order must be vacated because she was not properly served with the notice of hearing. She also argues that the evidence presented at the hearing was insufficient to find that she was persistently or acutely disabled and that the trial court erred in finding that she was ...