 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re L.D.12/2/2003
AFFIRMED.
[ ] L.D. appealed a district court order requiring him to undergo treatment for chemical dependence. We affirm.
I.
[ ] L.D.'s mother ("Petitioner") petitioned the district court to have L.D. involuntarily treated because he was chemically dependent and posed a serious risk of harm to himself. The petition stated L.D. had previously been in treatment for alcohol abuse, had been drinking daily to intoxication, and had not been taking his medication for diabetes and Wernicke's Syndrome. Petitioner was worried L.D. would "die or go into a diabetic coma" without treatment.
[ ] On October 8, 2003, an emergency treatment order was issued requiring L.D. to be detained at St. Alexius Medical Center until his treatment hearing on October 14, 2003. When L.D. was admitted to St. Alexius, he had a blood alcohol level of .430 and his blood tested positive for cannabis. Sheri Knutson, a licensed addiction counselor, examined L.D. at St. Alexius. She interviewed L.D., and he admitted to a binge drinking problem-consuming eighteen beers over a three-day period-but Ms. Knutson determined he minimized or withheld information concerning his alcohol use.
[ ] At the treatment hearing, Ms. Knutson was the only witness. Based on L.D.'s own statements and collateral sources, she recommended L.D. undergo inpatient treatment at the West Central Human Service Center ("WCHSC"). She based her conclusion on L.D.'s history of alcohol abuse and its effect on his physical ailments. The district court found L.D. was chemically dependent and there was a substantial likelihood of substantial deterioration in his physical health if he did not undergo treatment. The court ordered L.D. to undergo treatment at WCHSC for a period not to exceed ninety days.
II.
[ ] Appellate review of an involuntary treatment order is governed by N.D.C.C. * 25-03.1-29 and is "limited to a review of the procedures, findings, and conclusions of the lower court." In Interest of R.N., 1997 ND 246, 9, 572 N.W.2d 820. A petition for involuntary treatment must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. N.D.C.C. * 25-03.1-19. Whether clear and convincing evidence was presented in support of the petition is a question of fact and will not be reversed unless it is clearly erroneous. R.N., at 9. "We will affirm an order for involuntary treatment unless it is induced by an erroneous view of the law or if we are firmly convinced it is not supported by clear and convincing evidence." Id.
Whether a person requires treatment needs a two-step analysis. First, the court must find the person is mentally ill [or chemically dependent], and second, the court must find there is a reasonable expectation that, if the person is not hospitalized, there exists a serious risk of harm to himself, others, or property.
R.N., at 11. It is not enough that a person would benefit from treatment, the person must require treatment. See In Interest of M.B., 467 N.W.2d 902, 904 (N.D. 1991).
[ ] Chapter 25-03.1, N.D.C.C., governs commitment procedures for mental illness or chemical dependence, N.D.C.C. * 25-03.1-01(1), and case law relating to commitment of a person with a mental illness is relevant in cases involving commitment of a person for chemical dependence. Section 25-03.1-02(12), N.D.C.C., defines a "person requiring treatment" as a person who is mentally ill or chemically dependent, and there is a reasonable expectation that if the person is not treated there exists a serious risk of harm to that person, others, or property. "Serious risk of harm" means a substantial likelihood of:
c. Substantial deterioration in physical health, or s
Page 1 2 3 North Dakota DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|