In re R.W.

Summary

The Sixth District Court of Appeals of Ohio affirmed a probate court’s determination that R.W. was a mentally ill person subject to court order under R.C. 5122.01(B). The court held that the evidence, including testimony and recordings of R.W.’s behavior, supported the determination by clear and convincing evidence and that outpatient treatment was the least restrictive alternative.

Holdings

1. An affidavit under R.C. 5122.11 need not include a medical or mental-health-provider certification when it contains specific factual allegations supporting probable cause and, where the person refuses examination, the statutory alternative written statement concerning that refusal may be used. The absence of a certification did not prevent the probate court from exercising jurisdiction.
2. Clear and convincing evidence supported the probate court's determination that R.W. was a mentally ill person subject to court order under R.C. 5122.01(B)(1), (2), and (4).
3. The probate court properly selected outpatient services and ordered a diagnostic assessment and recommended services for ninety days as the least restrictive alternative consistent with treatment goals.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the father's affidavit under R.C. 5122.11 was sufficient to invoke the probate court's jurisdiction without a medical or mental-health-provider certification.
2. Whether clear and convincing evidence supported the probate court's determination that R.W. was a mentally ill person subject to court order under R.C. 5122.01(B)(1), (2), and (4).
3. Whether outpatient treatment was the least restrictive alternative consistent with treatment goals.

Disposition

affirmed