Summary
The Montana Supreme Court reviews the involuntary recommitment of G.M., a developmentally disabled adult, to the Montana Development Center. The court considers whether the evidence clearly and convincingly established that G.M. posed an imminent risk of serious harm and could not be safely and effectively habilitated in community-based services. The opinion addresses evidentiary issues and the clearly erroneous standard of review, including the reliability and interpretation of incident reports.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the District Court clearly erred in finding that G.M. exhibited behaviors posing an imminent risk of serious harm to himself or others.
- Whether the District Court clearly erred in finding that G.M. could not be safely and effectively habilitated in community-based services.
- Whether reports attached to the recommitment petition were properly considered despite their alleged hearsay character.
- Whether a qualified mental-health professional, licensed psychiatrist, or licensed psychologist was required to testify to sustain a developmental-disability recommitment petition.
- Whether the Montana Constitution required a bifurcated beyond-a-reasonable-doubt and clear-and-convincing-evidence standard in this proceeding.
Holdings
- The District Court clearly erred in finding that G.M. posed an imminent risk of serious harm to himself or others and could not be safely and effectively habilitated in community-based services.
- The reports attached to the recommitment petition and the RFST report were properly considered by the District Court.
- Montana law does not require testimony from a qualified mental-health professional, licensed psychiatrist, or licensed psychologist in a developmental-disability recommitment proceeding.
Key quotations
“After a thorough review of the record before the District Court, this Court is firmly convinced that a mistake has been made.” (100)
“Thus, the District Court’s conclusion of law that G.M. is seriously developmentally disabled as defined in § 53-20-102(15)(c), MCA (2005), is incorrect.” (100)
Factual background
G.M., a developmentally disabled adult who had spent nearly seventeen years at the Montana Development Center, also had diagnosed mental-health conditions and a history of behavioral outbursts. The State relied primarily on facility reports summarizing incidents of aggression and testimony from an RFST chairperson, while G.M. presented expert testimony that the institutional environment contributed to his behavior, that the incident summaries exaggerated his aggression, and that he could be safely habilitated in a smaller community setting. The Supreme Court found that the underlying incident reports were inconsistent and showed that G.M. was frequently the target rather than the aggressor, and that the district court failed to explain how it resolved the conflicting evidence.
Procedural history
The Lewis and Clark County Attorney's Office filed a recommitment petition under § 53-20-128, MCA (2005), after the Residential Facility Screening Team recommended recommitment. Following an evidentiary hearing, the District Court found by clear and convincing evidence that G.M. was seriously developmentally disabled because he posed an imminent risk of serious harm and could not be safely and effectively habilitated in community-based services. The Montana Supreme Court reversed and remanded with instructions to vacate the recommitment order.
Remand instructions
Vacate the recommitment order.