Montana Code Annotated

Mont. Code Ann. § 53-21-126 (2026)

Trial Or Hearing On Petition

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MT-LEGleg.mt.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

TITLE 53. SOCIAL SERVICES AND INSTITUTIONS

CHAPTER 21. MENTALLY ILL

Part 1. Treatment of the Seriously Mentally Ill

Trial Or Hearing On Petition

53-21-126. Trial or hearing on petition. (1) The respondent must be present unless the respondent's presence has been waived as provided in 53-21-119(2), and the respondent must be represented by counsel at all stages of the trial. The trial must be limited to the determination of whether or not the respondent is suffering from a mental disorder and requires commitment. At the trial, the court shall consider all the facts relevant to the issues of whether the respondent is suffering from a mental disorder. If the court determines that the respondent is suffering from a mental disorder, the court shall then determine whether the respondent requires commitment. In determining whether the respondent requires commitment and the appropriate disposition under 53-21-127, the court shall consider the following:

(a) whether the respondent, because of a mental disorder, is substantially unable to provide for the respondent's own basic needs of food, clothing, shelter, health, or safety;

(b) whether the respondent has recently, because of a mental disorder and through an act or an omission, caused self-injury or injury to others;

(c) whether, because of a mental disorder, there is an imminent danger of injury to the respondent or to others because of the respondent's acts or omissions;

(d) (i) whether the respondent's mental disorder, as demonstrated by the respondent's recent acts or omissions, will, if untreated, predictably result in deterioration of the respondent's mental condition to the point at which the respondent will:

(A) become a danger to self or to others; or

(B) be unable to provide for the respondent's own basic needs of food, clothing, shelter, health, or safety.

(ii) Predictability may be established by the respondent's relevant medical history; and

(e) whether an emergency situation as defined in 53-21-102 exists.

(2) The standard of proof in a hearing held pursuant to this section is proof beyond a reasonable doubt with respect to any physical facts or evidence and clear and convincing evidence as to all other matters. However, the respondent's mental disorder must be proved to a reasonable medical certainty. Imminent threat of self-inflicted injury or injury to others must be proved by overt acts or omissions, sufficiently recent in time as to be material and relevant as to the respondent's present condition.

(3) The professional person appointed by the court must be present for the trial and subject to cross-examination. The professional person's presence may be accomplished by the use of two-way electronic audio-video communication. The trial is governed by the Montana Rules of Civil Procedure. However, if the issues are tried by a jury, at least two-thirds of the jurors shall concur on a finding that the respondent is suffering from a mental disorder and requires commitment. The written report of the professional person that indicates the professional person's diagnosis may be attached to the petition, but any matter otherwise inadmissible, such as hearsay matter, is not admissible merely because it is contained in the report. The court may order the trial closed to the public for the protection of the respondent.

(4) The professional person may testify as to the ultimate issue of whether the respondent is suffering from a mental disorder and requires commitment. This testimony is insufficient unless accompanied by evidence from the professional person or others that:

(a) the respondent, because of a mental disorder, is substantially unable to provide for the respondent's own basic needs of food, clothing, shelter, health, or safety;

(b) the respondent has recently, because of a mental disorder and through an act or an omission, caused self-injury or injury to others;

(c) because of a mental disorder, there is an imminent danger of injury to the respondent or to others because of the respondent's acts or omissions;

(d) (i) the respondent's mental disorder:

(A) has resulted in recent acts, omissions, or behaviors that create difficulty in protecting the respondent's life or health;

(B) is treatable, with a reasonable prospect of success;

(C) has resulted in the respondent's refusing or being unable to consent to voluntary admission for treatment; and

(ii) will, if untreated, predictably result in deterioration of the respondent's mental condition to the point at which the respondent will become a danger to self or to others or will be unable to provide for the respondent's own basic needs of food, clothing, shelter, health, or safety. Predictability may be established by the respondent's relevant medical history; or

(e) whether an emergency situation as defined in 53-21-102 exists.

(5) The court, upon the showing of good cause and when it is in the best interests of the respondent, may order a change of venue.

(6) An individual with a primary diagnosis of a mental disorder who also has a co-occurring diagnosis of chemical dependency may satisfy criteria for commitment under this part.

(7) An individual with a primary diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease, other forms of dementia, or traumatic brain injury may be committed under this part only if the person meets the criteria outlined in subsection (1)(b), (1)(c), or (1)(d)(i)(A).

History: En. 38-1305 by Sec. 5, Ch. 466, L. 1975; amd. Sec. 5, Ch. 546, L. 1977; R.C.M. 1947, 38-1305(part); amd. Sec. 8, Ch. 547, L. 1979; amd. Sec. 9, Ch. 376, L. 1987; amd. Sec. 22, Ch. 490, L. 1997; amd. Sec. 11, Ch. 342, L. 2001; amd. Sec. 2, Ch. 81, L. 2005; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 757, L. 2023; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 777, L. 2023; amd. Sec. 5, Ch. 608, L. 2025.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 135 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1979–2025 · leading case: In Re Mental Health of C.R.C., 2004 MT 389 (Mont. 2004).
In Re Mental Health of C.R.C., 2004 MT 389 (Mont. 2004). · cites it 44× “is that the evidence, including that provided by Greenberg, is insufficient to support the District Court's finding of fact pursuant to §§ 53-21-126, 127, MCA, that she should be involuntarily committed for mental health treatment.”
In Re the Mental Health of A.S.B., 2008 MT 82 (Mont. 2008). · cites it 44× “Is the “deterioration standard” contained in § 53-21-126(1), MCA, unconstitutional? ¶4 2.”
In Re the Mental Health of K.G.F., 2001 MT 140 (Mont. 2001). · cites it 20× “Apparently, in the case at bar, this second mandatory hearing was simply combined with the hearing on the petition, pursuant to § 53-21-126, MCA. ¶ 70 In order to further enhance the due process protections under the foregoing statutory mandates, as Amicus suggests, we adopt…”
In re S.M., 2014 MT 309 (Mont. 2014). · cites it 33× “Section 53-21-127(2), MCA The first criterion that justifies commitment is that “the respondent, because of a mental disorder, is substantially unable to provide for the respondent’s own basic needs of food, clothing, shelter, health or safety.”
In re J.S., 401 P.3d 197 (Mont. 2017). · cites it 26× “’s counsel explained, prior to the court having made any findings pursuant to § 53-21-126, MCA, that the most restrictive placement which may be ordered pursuant to a finding under § 53-21-126(1)(d), MCA, is a commitment to a community facility or program.”
In re C.K., 391 P.3d 735 (Mont. 2017). · cites it 25× “To safeguard against the “calamitous effect” of an erroneous deprivation of liberty and damage to a person’s reputation, courts must strictly adhere to the statutory standards of proof, procedural requirements, and substantive criteria specified by §§ 53-21-126 and -127, MCA. In…”
In re R.F., 2013 MT 59 (Mont. 2013). · cites it 36× “Section 53-21-126(1), MCA. R.F. does not contest the District Court’s finding that he suffers from a mental disorder.”
Matter of Mental Health of T.J.D., 2002 MT 24 (Mont. 2002). · cites it 21× “” Section 53-21-126(1), MCA. If the court finds that the person is suffering from a mental disorder, it must then consider whether commitment is necessary.”
In re S.H., 2016 MT 137 (Mont. 2016). · cites it 33× “Section 53-21-126(1), MCA. S.H. does not contest the District Court’s finding that she suffers from a mental disorder.”
In Re the Mental Health of E.T., 2008 MT 299 (Mont. 2008). · cites it 30× “pending the § 53-21-126, MCA hearing on the merits of the petition (the “53-21-126, MCA hearing”).”
In re B.D., 2015 MT 339 (Mont. 2015). · cites it 21× “See § 53-21-126(1), MCA; In re D.M.S., 2009 MT 41, ¶ 15 , 349 Mont.”
In re B.O.T., 2015 MT 40 (Mont. 2015). · cites it 22× “Upon finding that a person suffers from a mental disorder, the court must then determine whether the respondent requires commitment by considering several criteria set forth in § 53-21-126(1), MCA, including “whether the respondent, because of a mental disorder, is substantially…”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 53-21-126(1) — 72 cases
In Re Mental Health of C.R.C., 2004 MT 389 (Mont. 2004). “is that the evidence, including that provided by Greenberg, is insufficient to support the District Court's finding of fact pursuant to §§ 53-21-126, 127, MCA, that she should be involuntarily committed for mental health treatment.”
In Re the Mental Health of O.R.B., 2008 MT 301 (Mont. 2008).
Matter of Mental Health of T.J.D., 2002 MT 24 (Mont. 2002). “” Section 53-21-126(1), MCA. If the court finds that the person is suffering from a mental disorder, it must then consider whether commitment is necessary.”
In re R.F., 2013 MT 59 (Mont. 2013). “Section 53-21-126(1), MCA. R.F. does not contest the District Court’s finding that he suffers from a mental disorder.”
In re B.D., 2015 MT 339 (Mont. 2015). “See § 53-21-126(1), MCA; In re D.M.S., 2009 MT 41, ¶ 15 , 349 Mont.”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 53-21-126(1)(a) — 32 cases
Matter of R.F., 2013 MT 59 (Mont. 2013).
Matter of W.K., 2020 MT 71 (Mont. 2020).
In Re the Mental Health of E.P.B., 2007 MT 224 (Mont. 2007).
In re J.S., 401 P.3d 197 (Mont. 2017). “’s counsel explained, prior to the court having made any findings pursuant to § 53-21-126, MCA, that the most restrictive placement which may be ordered pursuant to a finding under § 53-21-126(1)(d), MCA, is a commitment to a community facility or program.”
In re A.K., 2006 MT 166 (Mont. 2006).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 53-21-126(1)(b) — 1 case
In the Matter of DMS, 2009 MT 41 (Mont. 2009).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 53-21-126(1)(c) — 23 cases
In Re the Mental Health of A.S.B., 2008 MT 82 (Mont. 2008). “Is the “deterioration standard” contained in § 53-21-126(1), MCA, unconstitutional? ¶4 2.”
In Re Mental Health of C.R.C., 2004 MT 389 (Mont. 2004). “is that the evidence, including that provided by Greenberg, is insufficient to support the District Court's finding of fact pursuant to §§ 53-21-126, 127, MCA, that she should be involuntarily committed for mental health treatment.”
Matter of Mental Health of T.J.D., 2002 MT 24 (Mont. 2002). “” Section 53-21-126(1), MCA. If the court finds that the person is suffering from a mental disorder, it must then consider whether commitment is necessary.”
In re S.M., 2014 MT 309 (Mont. 2014). “Section 53-21-127(2), MCA The first criterion that justifies commitment is that “the respondent, because of a mental disorder, is substantially unable to provide for the respondent’s own basic needs of food, clothing, shelter, health or safety.”
Matter of B.D., 2015 MT 339 (Mont. 2015).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 53-21-126(1)(d) — 14 cases
In Re the Mental Health of A.S.B., 2008 MT 82 (Mont. 2008). “Is the “deterioration standard” contained in § 53-21-126(1), MCA, unconstitutional? ¶4 2.”
In re J.S., 401 P.3d 197 (Mont. 2017). “’s counsel explained, prior to the court having made any findings pursuant to § 53-21-126, MCA, that the most restrictive placement which may be ordered pursuant to a finding under § 53-21-126(1)(d), MCA, is a commitment to a community facility or program.”
In Re Mental Health of C.R.C., 2004 MT 389 (Mont. 2004). “is that the evidence, including that provided by Greenberg, is insufficient to support the District Court's finding of fact pursuant to §§ 53-21-126, 127, MCA, that she should be involuntarily committed for mental health treatment.”
Matter of J.S., 2017 MT 214 (Mont. 2017).
In re C.K., 391 P.3d 735 (Mont. 2017). “To safeguard against the “calamitous effect” of an erroneous deprivation of liberty and damage to a person’s reputation, courts must strictly adhere to the statutory standards of proof, procedural requirements, and substantive criteria specified by §§ 53-21-126 and -127, MCA. In…”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 53-21-126(11) — 1 case
Mental Health of L.R., 2010 MT 76 (Mont. 2010).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 53-21-126(2) — 90 cases
In Re the Mental Health of K.G.F., 2001 MT 140 (Mont. 2001). “Apparently, in the case at bar, this second mandatory hearing was simply combined with the hearing on the petition, pursuant to § 53-21-126, MCA. ¶ 70 In order to further enhance the due process protections under the foregoing statutory mandates, as Amicus suggests, we adopt…”
In Re Mental Health of C.R.C., 2004 MT 389 (Mont. 2004). “is that the evidence, including that provided by Greenberg, is insufficient to support the District Court's finding of fact pursuant to §§ 53-21-126, 127, MCA, that she should be involuntarily committed for mental health treatment.”
Matter of Mental Health of D.S., 2005 MT 152 (Mont. 2005).
In Re the Mental Health of E. M., 875 P.2d 355 (Mont. 1994).
In Re the Mental Health of A.S.B., 2008 MT 82 (Mont. 2008). “Is the “deterioration standard” contained in § 53-21-126(1), MCA, unconstitutional? ¶4 2.”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 53-21-126(3) — 17 cases
Matter of Mental Health of T.J.D., 2002 MT 24 (Mont. 2002). “” Section 53-21-126(1), MCA. If the court finds that the person is suffering from a mental disorder, it must then consider whether commitment is necessary.”
In Re the Mental Health of K.G.F., 2001 MT 140 (Mont. 2001). “Apparently, in the case at bar, this second mandatory hearing was simply combined with the hearing on the petition, pursuant to § 53-21-126, MCA. ¶ 70 In order to further enhance the due process protections under the foregoing statutory mandates, as Amicus suggests, we adopt…”
In re C.K., 391 P.3d 735 (Mont. 2017). “To safeguard against the “calamitous effect” of an erroneous deprivation of liberty and damage to a person’s reputation, courts must strictly adhere to the statutory standards of proof, procedural requirements, and substantive criteria specified by §§ 53-21-126 and -127, MCA. In…”
In Re Mental Health of C.R.C., 2004 MT 389 (Mont. 2004). “is that the evidence, including that provided by Greenberg, is insufficient to support the District Court's finding of fact pursuant to §§ 53-21-126, 127, MCA, that she should be involuntarily committed for mental health treatment.”
Matter of N.A., 2021 MT 228 (Mont. 2021).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 53-21-126(4) — 21 cases
In re C.K., 391 P.3d 735 (Mont. 2017). “To safeguard against the “calamitous effect” of an erroneous deprivation of liberty and damage to a person’s reputation, courts must strictly adhere to the statutory standards of proof, procedural requirements, and substantive criteria specified by §§ 53-21-126 and -127, MCA. In…”
In re the Mental Health of R.J.W., 736 P.2d 110 (Mont. 1987).
In re R.F., 2013 MT 59 (Mont. 2013). “Section 53-21-126(1), MCA. R.F. does not contest the District Court’s finding that he suffers from a mental disorder.”
Matter of R.F., 2013 MT 59 (Mont. 2013).
In re the Mental Health of D.L.T., 2003 MT 46 (Mont. 2003).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 53-21-126(4)(a) — 8 cases
In re B.O.T., 2015 MT 40 (Mont. 2015). “Upon finding that a person suffers from a mental disorder, the court must then determine whether the respondent requires commitment by considering several criteria set forth in § 53-21-126(1), MCA, including “whether the respondent, because of a mental disorder, is substantially…”
In re the Mental Health of R.J.W., 736 P.2d 110 (Mont. 1987).
In re R.F., 2013 MT 59 (Mont. 2013). “Section 53-21-126(1), MCA. R.F. does not contest the District Court’s finding that he suffers from a mental disorder.”
Matter of R.F., 2013 MT 59 (Mont. 2013).
In re the Mental Health of G.S., 698 P.2d 406 (Mont. 1985).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 53-21-126(4)(b) — 1 case
Matter of RJW, 736 P.2d 110 (Mont. 1987).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 53-21-126(4)(c) — 3 cases
In re R.F., 2013 MT 59 (Mont. 2013). “Section 53-21-126(1), MCA. R.F. does not contest the District Court’s finding that he suffers from a mental disorder.”
Matter of R.F., 2013 MT 59 (Mont. 2013).
Matter of P.Y., 2020 MT 241N (Mont. 2020).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 53-21-126(a) — 4 cases
In re S.H., 2016 MT 137 (Mont. 2016). “Section 53-21-126(1), MCA. S.H. does not contest the District Court’s finding that she suffers from a mental disorder.”
In re D.L.B., 394 P.3d 169 (Mont. 2017).
Matter of S.H., 2016 MT 137 (Mont. 2016).
Matter of D.L.B., 2017 MT 106 (Mont. 2017).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 53-21-126(l)(a) — 10 cases
In re S.H., 2016 MT 137 (Mont. 2016). “Section 53-21-126(1), MCA. S.H. does not contest the District Court’s finding that she suffers from a mental disorder.”
In re R.F., 2013 MT 59 (Mont. 2013). “Section 53-21-126(1), MCA. R.F. does not contest the District Court’s finding that he suffers from a mental disorder.”
In re S.M., 2014 MT 309 (Mont. 2014). “Section 53-21-127(2), MCA The first criterion that justifies commitment is that “the respondent, because of a mental disorder, is substantially unable to provide for the respondent’s own basic needs of food, clothing, shelter, health or safety.”
In Re the Mental Health of O.R.B., 2008 MT 301 (Mont. 2008).
In re B.O.T., 2015 MT 40 (Mont. 2015). “Upon finding that a person suffers from a mental disorder, the court must then determine whether the respondent requires commitment by considering several criteria set forth in § 53-21-126(1), MCA, including “whether the respondent, because of a mental disorder, is substantially…”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 53-21-126(l)(b) — 1 case
In re D.M.S., 2009 MT 41 (Mont. 2009).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 53-21-126(l)(c) — 10 cases
In re B.D., 2015 MT 339 (Mont. 2015). “See § 53-21-126(1), MCA; In re D.M.S., 2009 MT 41, ¶ 15 , 349 Mont.”
In re S.H., 2016 MT 137 (Mont. 2016). “Section 53-21-126(1), MCA. S.H. does not contest the District Court’s finding that she suffers from a mental disorder.”
In Re Mental Health of C.R.C., 2004 MT 389 (Mont. 2004). “is that the evidence, including that provided by Greenberg, is insufficient to support the District Court's finding of fact pursuant to §§ 53-21-126, 127, MCA, that she should be involuntarily committed for mental health treatment.”
In re R.F., 2013 MT 59 (Mont. 2013). “Section 53-21-126(1), MCA. R.F. does not contest the District Court’s finding that he suffers from a mental disorder.”
In re M.P.-L., 2015 MT 338 (Mont. 2015).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 53-21-126(l)(d) — 6 cases
In re S.M., 2014 MT 309 (Mont. 2014). “Section 53-21-127(2), MCA The first criterion that justifies commitment is that “the respondent, because of a mental disorder, is substantially unable to provide for the respondent’s own basic needs of food, clothing, shelter, health or safety.”
In Re the Mental Health of A.S.B., 2008 MT 82 (Mont. 2008). “Is the “deterioration standard” contained in § 53-21-126(1), MCA, unconstitutional? ¶4 2.”
In Re Mental Health of C.R.C., 2004 MT 389 (Mont. 2004). “is that the evidence, including that provided by Greenberg, is insufficient to support the District Court's finding of fact pursuant to §§ 53-21-126, 127, MCA, that she should be involuntarily committed for mental health treatment.”
In re S.G.R., 2016 MT 70 (Mont. 2016).
In re D. L. B., 389 P.3d 227 (Mont. 2017).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 53-21-126(lXa) — 1 case
In re S.M., 2014 MT 309 (Mont. 2014). “Section 53-21-127(2), MCA The first criterion that justifies commitment is that “the respondent, because of a mental disorder, is substantially unable to provide for the respondent’s own basic needs of food, clothing, shelter, health or safety.”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 53-21-126(lXc) — 1 case
In re S.M., 2014 MT 309 (Mont. 2014). “Section 53-21-127(2), MCA The first criterion that justifies commitment is that “the respondent, because of a mental disorder, is substantially unable to provide for the respondent’s own basic needs of food, clothing, shelter, health or safety.”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 53-21-126(lXd) — 1 case
In re S.M., 2014 MT 309 (Mont. 2014). “Section 53-21-127(2), MCA The first criterion that justifies commitment is that “the respondent, because of a mental disorder, is substantially unable to provide for the respondent’s own basic needs of food, clothing, shelter, health or safety.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.