involuntary treatment hearing in North Dakota

2006In an effort to steer a middle course, we have said that, in an involuntary treatment hearing, our courts must take "great care to assure the public, and particularly the respondent, of due process and that the procedures are in accordance with the principles of law and justice." In re Ebertz, 333 N.W.2d at 789 . [¶ 11] Our Court has recognized the conceptual difficulty that can arise when a court must consider both whether a respondent is competent to waive counsel and also whether the respondent's mental condition necessitates involuntary treatment.

2006In an effort to steer a middle course, we have said that, in an involuntary treatment hearing, our courts must take “great care to assure the public, and particularly the respondent, of due process and that the procedures are in accordance with the principles of law and justice.” In re Ebertz, 333 N.W.2d at 789 . [¶ 11] Our Court has recognized the conceptual difficulty that can arise when a court must consider both whether a respondent is competent to waive counsel and also whether the respondent’s mental condition necessitates involuntary treatment.

2007In re D.P., 2001 ND 203, ¶ 9 , 636 N.W.2d 921 . [¶ 17] An individual who is a “person requiring treatment” has a right to be submitted to the least restrictive treatment option under N.D.C.C. § 25-03.1-21(1), which provides: Before making its decision in an involuntary treatment hearing, the court shall review a report assessing the availability and appropriateness for the respondent of treatment programs other than hospitalization which has been prepared and submitted by the state hospital or treatment facility.

2007In re D.P., 2001 ND 203, ¶ 9 , 636 N.W.2d 921 . [¶ 17] An individual who is a “person requiring treatment” has a right to be submitted to the least restrictive treatment option under N.D.C.C. § 25-03.1-21(1), which provides: Before making its decision in an involuntary treatment hearing, the court shall review a report assessing the availability and appropriateness for the respondent of treatment programs other than hospitalization which has been prepared and submitted by the state hospital or treatment facility.

2005Interest of H.G., 2001 ND 142, ¶ 3 , 632 N.W.2d 458 . [¶ 5] N.D.C.C. § 25-03.1-21(1) provides: Before making its decision in an involuntary treatment hearing, the court shall review a report assessing the availability and appropriateness for the respondent of treatment programs other than hospitalization which has been prepared and submitted by the state hospital or treatment facility.

2005Interest of H.G., 2001 ND 142, ¶ 3 , 632 N.W.2d 458 . [¶ 5] N.D.C.C. § 25-03.1-21(1) provides: Before making its decision in an involuntary treatment hearing, the court shall review a report assessing the availability and appropriateness for the respondent of treatment programs other than hospitalization which has been prepared and submitted by the state hospital or treatment facility.

2006We have said: "[I]t appears inherently contradictory to find a respondent severely mentally ill, yet able to knowingly and intelligently `waive' his right to counsel." Interest of R.Z., 415 N.W.2d at 488 ; see also In the Matter of Condition of S.Y., 162 Wis.2d 320 , 469 N.W.2d 836, 842 (1991) (stating: "There undoubtedly is a logical tension between a finding of competence [to waive counsel] . . . and the ultimate finding of the very proceeding in which the defendant goes it alone when the final decision . . . is mental illness."). [¶ 12] A trial court must be mindful that our statutes preven

2006We have said: “[I]t appears inherently contradictory to find a respondent severely mentally ill, yet able to knowingly and intelligently ‘waive’ his right to counsel.” Interest of R.Z., 415 N.W.2d at 488 ; see also In the Matter of Condition of S.Y., 162 Wis.2d 320 , 469 N.W.2d 836, 842 (1991) (stating: “There undoubtedly is a logical tension between a finding of competence [to waive counsel] ... and the ultimate finding of the very proceeding in which the defendant goes it alone when the final decision ... is mental illness.”). [¶ 12] A trial court must be mindful that our statutes prevent a

1996Thus, the petitioner must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the patient continues to be "a person requiring treatment." K.J.L., 541 N.W.2d at 700 .

1996Thus, the petitioner must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the patient continues to be “a person requiring treatment.” K.J.L., 541 N.W.2d at 700 .

1996The trial court's schedule was "a legitimate factor for ... good cause to continue an involuntary treatment hearing," the Hospital urges, citing In Interest of Nyflot, 340 N.W.2d 178 (N.D.1983) and In Interest of Ebertz, 333 N.W.2d 786 (N.D.1983), because "[t]he purpose of the statute is for the benefit of the [patient] and the determination as to the [patient's] need for treatment." Even if there was "insufficient cause" here, the Hospital argues, the delay was not serious enough to abandon the treatment ordered after a completed hearing.

1996The trial court’s schedule was “a legitimate factor for ... good cause to continue an involuntary treatment hearing,” the Hospital urges, citing In Interest of Nyflot, 340 N.W.2d 178 (N.D.1983) and In Interest of Ebertz, 333 N.W.2d 786 (N.D.1983), because “[t]he purpose of the statute is for the benefit of the [patient] and the determination as to the [patient’s] need for treatment.” Even if there was “insufficient cause” here, the Hospital argues, the delay was not serious enough to abandon the treatment ordered after a completed hearing.

2005Interest of D.P., 2001 ND 208, ¶3 , 636 N.W.2d 921 . [¶ 5] R.F. argues the State Hospital failed to comply with N.D.C.C. § 25-03.1-21(1), which states: Before making its decision in an involuntary treatment hearing, the court shall review a report assessing the availability and appropriateness for the respondent of treatment programs other than hospitalization which has been prepared and submitted by the state hospital or treatment facility.

1998IV, 545 N.W.2d at 148 (quoting N.D.C.C. § 25-03.1-31(1)). *94 [¶ 15] In his brief, J.S. "does not contest he is mentally ill or in need of treatment." J.S. argues, however, he has the right, under N.D.C.C. § 25-03.1-40(2), to the least restrictive treatment alternative, and outpatient treatment is the least restrictive alternative.