Summary
The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed an order continuing J.S.'s hospitalization at the North Dakota State Hospital for one year. The court held that hospitalization was the least restrictive treatment alternative because J.S. would not take medication voluntarily and, without treatment, posed substantial risks to himself and others.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court erred by continuing J.S.'s hospitalization for one year rather than ordering a less restrictive treatment alternative.
- Whether clear and convincing evidence established that alternative treatment was inadequate to meet J.S.'s treatment needs or to prevent harm to himself or others.
Holdings
- The district court did not err in finding that continued hospitalization was the least restrictive treatment alternative because J.S. would not voluntarily take medication or cooperate with less restrictive treatment and would pose a danger to himself and others if untreated.
- A continuing treatment order is reviewed under a more probing clearly erroneous standard, and the order will be affirmed unless it reflects an erroneous view of the law or lacks clear and convincing evidentiary support.
Key quotations
“A person in need of treatment is entitled to the least restrictive treatment that will meet the person’s treatment needs.” (¶ 6)
“The court must find by clear and convincing evidence that alternative treatment is not adequate or hospitalization is the least restrictive alternative.” (¶ 6)
“The evidence presented at the hearing reflects that if J.S. will not take medication on his own, then he cannot safely be released into any less restrictive treatment.” (¶ 10)
Factual background
J.S., a 69-year-old man with chronic paranoid schizophrenia, diabetes, hypertension, arthritis, and tardive dyskinesia, had been a State Hospital patient since 1989. He accepted antipsychotic and other medications at the hospital but testified that he did not believe he was ill and would not take medication if released. A State Hospital psychiatrist testified that without treatment J.S. was likely to relapse into delusional and violent behavior, fail to treat his diabetes, and potentially enter a life-threatening diabetic coma.
Procedural history
Dr. Daisy Van Valkenburg petitioned to continue J.S.'s hospitalization for one year. After a hearing, the district court found that J.S. was a danger to himself and others and that no alternative to hospitalization was available. J.S. appealed to the North Dakota Supreme Court, which affirmed.