Matter of J.S.

Summary

The Montana Supreme Court reviewed J.S.’s challenge to her involuntary commitment to the Montana State Hospital, focusing on whether she received effective assistance of counsel. The Court reaffirmed that respondents in civil commitment proceedings have a statutory and constitutional right to effective counsel, but overruled the formalistic effectiveness standard adopted in an earlier case and returned to a due-process inquiry informed by Strickland. The Court affirmed the commitment order.

Holdings

1. A respondent in a Montana involuntary civil commitment proceeding has a statutory right to counsel and a right to effective assistance of counsel grounded in the federal Due Process Clause and Montana Constitution Article II, Sections 4, 10, and 17. The Sixth Amendment and Montana Constitution Article II, Section 24 do not independently apply because the proceeding is civil rather than criminal.
2. Strickland v. Washington supplies the standard for evaluating ineffective-assistance claims in Montana civil commitment proceedings. The respondent must establish deficient performance and prejudice, and counsel's performance is assessed for reasonableness under prevailing professional norms with a strong presumption of reasonable professional assistance.
3. J.S. did not establish ineffective assistance of counsel. Counsel reasonably sought dismissal, held the State to its burden of proving the need for commitment, challenged the least-restrictive-placement determination, cross-examined the State's witness, obtained an independent evaluation, and had no obligation to present community-placement alternatives that the evidence showed were inappropriate.
4. In Montana civil commitment proceedings, physical facts must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, while other matters must be proved by clear and convincing evidence; the respondent's mental disorder must be proved to a reasonable medical certainty.

Questions Presented

1. What standard governs an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim in a Montana civil involuntary-commitment proceeding?
2. Whether J.S. was denied effective assistance of counsel because counsel allegedly failed to investigate or present community-placement alternatives, failed to object to hearsay, and failed to protect J.S.'s right to testify and remain silent.
3. Whether the district court properly ordered J.S.'s commitment to the Montana State Hospital.

Disposition

affirmed