 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re L.D.12/2/2003
tion that were hearsay. Id. at 315-16. The petition alleged D.H. was a danger to himself because he had been walking down the middle of the street, jumping out in front of cars, and stated he would open himself up with a knife. This Court held,
In the absence of evidence that the underlying allegations are true, the basis for [the psychiatrist's] opinion is weak, if not nonexistent, rather than clear and convincing. That [the psychiatrist] assumes the allegations to be true is not sufficient. The commitment petition does not serve as proof that D.H. must be committed.
Id. at 316 (footnotes omitted).
[ ] In R.N., this Court reviewed the testimony of a doctor, who was the only witness at the hearing, when evaluating whether there was clear and convincing evidence of a substantial likelihood R.N.'s health would substantially deteriorate if she was not hospitalized. 1997 ND 246, 13, 572 N.W.2d 820. We concluded the doctor based his testimony on the assumption all the allegations in the petition were true and held " nder the North Dakota Rules of Evidence . . . a doctor may consider [allegations in a petition] when forming an expert opinion. N.D.R.Ev. 703. However, ` he commitment petition does not serve as proof that [the respondent] must be committed.' Instead, the allegations must be proven by evidence." Id. (quoting D.H., 507 N.W.2d at 316).
[ ] The present case is distinguishable from D.H. and R.N. In those cases, the allegations in the petition were necessary to establish D.H. and R.N. were persons requiring treatment. Here, Ms. Knutson determined L.D. was chemically dependent and required treatment from information she gleaned from his medical records and his own statements. Her testimony was not based solely upon the allegations in the petition, rather she confirmed the allegations through independent sources. The trial court properly relied on Ms. Knutson's testimony regarding L.D.'s medical records and her assessment of L.D. It was not clearly erroneous for the trial court to find her testimony provided clear and convincing evidence to support the allegations in the petition as required under N.D.C.C. * 25-03.1-19.
[ ] The order requiring L.D. to undergo treatment is affirmed.
[ ]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.
Carol Ronning Kapsner
Mary Muehlen Maring
William A. Neumann
Dale V. Sandstrom
|