N.M. Stat. § 43-1-15 (2026)

A. No psychotropic medication, psychosurgery, convulsive therapy, experimental
treatment or behavior modification program involving aversive stimuli or substantial
deprivations shall be administered to a client without proper consent. If the client is
capable of understanding the proposed nature of treatment and its consequences and is
capable of informed consent, the client's consent shall be obtained before the treatment
is performed. A client shall not be presumed to be incapable of giving consent for
administration of psychotropic medications solely because the client has been
involuntarily committed to a treatment facility or is awaiting a hearing on whether the
client should be involuntarily committed to a treatment facility.

   B. If the mental health or developmental disabilities professional or physician who is
proposing this or any other course of treatment or any other interested person believes
that the client is incapable of informed consent, the mental health or developmental
disabilities professional or physician or other interested person may petition the court for
the appointment of a treatment guardian to make a substitute decision for the client.

    C. This original petition shall be served on the client and the client's attorney. A
hearing on the petition shall be held within three court days. At the hearing, the client
shall be represented by counsel and shall have the right to be present, to present
witnesses and to cross-examine opposing witnesses.

   D. When appointing a treatment guardian for an adult, the court shall give priority to
a court-appointed guardian or, if no guardian has been appointed by a court, to an
agent designated or nominated by the client when the client had capacity.

   E. If after the hearing the court finds by clear convincing evidence that the client is
not capable of making the client's own treatment decisions, the court may order the
appointment of a treatment guardian.

    F. The treatment guardian shall make a decision on behalf of the client whether to
accept treatment, depending on whether the treatment appears to be in the client's best
interest and is the least drastic means for accomplishing the treatment objective. In
making a decision, the treatment guardian shall consult with the client and consider the
client's expressed opinions, if any, even if those opinions do not constitute valid consent
or rejection of treatment. The treatment guardian shall give consideration to previous
decisions made by the client in similar circumstances when the client was able to make
treatment decisions.

    G. If a client, who is not a resident of a medical facility and for whom a treatment
guardian has been appointed, refuses to comply with the decision of the treatment
guardian, the treatment guardian may apply to the court for an enforcement order. Such
an order may authorize a peace officer to take the client into custody and to transport
the client to an evaluation facility and may authorize the facility forcibly to administer
treatment.

    H. The treatment guardian shall consult with the physician or other professional who
is proposing treatment, the client's attorney and interested friends, relatives or other
agents or guardians of the client to the extent reasonably practical in making a decision.

    I. If the client, physician or other professional wishes to appeal the decision of the
treatment guardian, the client, physician or other professional may do so, filing an
appeal with the court within three calendar days of receiving notice of the treatment
guardian's decision. In such a decision, the client shall be represented by counsel. The
court may overrule the treatment guardian's decision if it finds that decision to be
against the best interest of the client.

    J. When the court appoints a treatment guardian, it shall specify the length of time
during which the treatment guardian may exercise the treatment guardian's powers, up
to a maximum period of one year. If at the end of the guardianship period the treatment
guardian believes that the client is still incapable of making the client's own treatment
decisions, the treatment guardian shall petition the court for reappointment or for
appointment of a new treatment guardian. The petition shall be served on the client, the
client's attorney and the previously appointed treatment guardian if filed by another
party. The guardianship shall be extended or a new guardian shall be appointed only if
the court finds the client is, at the time of the hearing, incapable of understanding and
expressing an opinion regarding treatment decisions. The client shall be represented by
counsel and shall have the right to be present and present evidence at all such
hearings.

    K. If during a period of a treatment guardian's power, the treatment guardian, the
client, the treatment provider, a member of the client's family or the client's attorney or
another person believes that the client has regained competence to make the client's
own treatment decisions, that person shall petition the court for a termination of the
treatment guardianship. If the court finds the client is capable of making the client's own
treatment decisions, it shall terminate the power of the treatment guardian and restore
to the client the power to make the client's own treatment decisions.

    L. A treatment guardian shall only have those powers enumerated in the code,
unless the treatment guardian has also been appointed a guardian under the Uniform
Probate Code [Chapter 45 NMSA 1978] pursuant to provisions of Section 45-5-303
NMSA 1978. A person carrying out the duties of a treatment guardian as provided in
this section shall not be liable in any civil or criminal action so long as the treatment
guardian is not acting in bad faith or with malicious purpose.

    M. If a licensed physician believes that the administration of psychotropic medication
is necessary to protect the client from serious harm that would occur while the
provisions of Subsection B of this section are being satisfied, the licensed physician
may administer the medication on an emergency basis. When medication is
administered to a client on an emergency basis, the treating physician shall prepare and
place in the client's medical records a report explaining the nature of the emergency and
the reason that no treatment less drastic than administration of psychotropic medication
without proper consent would have protected the client from serious harm. Upon the
sworn application of the treating physician, the court may issue an order permitting the
treating physician to continue to administer psychotropic medication until a treatment
guardian is appointed, if the requirements of Subsection B of this section for
appointment of a treatment guardian are in the process of being satisfied in a timely
manner.
History: 1953 Comp., § 34-2A-14, enacted by Laws 1977, ch. 279, § 14; 1978, ch. 161,
§ 9; 1979, ch. 140, § 1; 1989, ch. 128, § 8; 1993, ch. 240, § 8; 1993, ch. 249, § 8; 1999,
ch. 239, § 1; 2009, ch. 159, § 18.

                                    ANNOTATIONS

Compiler's notes. — For the meaning of "code", see 43-1-3C and 43-1-2 NMSA 1978.

The 2009 amendment, effective June 19, 2009, in Subsection B, added "the mental
health or developmental disabilities professional or physician or other interested
person"; added Subsection D; in Subsection E, added "by clear convincing evidence"; in
Subsection E, at the beginning of the third sentence, added "The treatment guardian"; in
Subsection H, added "or other agents or guardians" and deleted "as he deems
appropriate", and added "to the extent reasonably practical"; in Subsection I, added "the
client, physician or other professional"; and in Subsection J, added the third sentence.

The 1999 amendment, effective April 7, 1999, in Subsection A inserted "psychotropic
medication" in the first sentence and added the third sentence, and added the third
sentence in Subsection F.

The 1993 amendment, effective June 18, 1993, added the second sentence of
Subsection E. Laws 1993, ch. 240, § 8 and Laws 1993, ch. 249, § 8 enacted identical
amendments to this section. The section was set out as amended by Laws 1993, ch.
249, § 8. See 12-1-8 NMSA 1978.

The 1989 amendment, effective June 16, 1989, in Subsection A substituted "informed
consent" for "expressing a decision regarding its acceptance or refusal" in the second
sentence; in Subsection B substituted "client" for "patient" in the second sentence,
deleted "to be represented by counsel" following "present," in the fourth sentence, and
added the present ninth and tenth sentences; substituted "client" for "patient" in
Subsection D; substituted "the code" for "this code" in Subsection E; and made minor
stylistic changes throughout the section.

Burden of proof. — The burden of proof in cases seeking to appoint a treatment
guardian is on the party seeking to have the guardianship approved, and the moving
party must establish such need by clear and convincing evidence. In re Sanders, 1989-
NMCA-025, 108 N.M. 434, 773 P.2d 1241.

Subsection D (now J) requires that the petitioner make a prima facie showing that he is
capable of making informed treatment decisions in any action initiated by him seeking to
terminate the appointment of a treatment guardianship during the period of the existing
guardianship. To establish a prima facie case petitioner is required to establish that he
is capable of understanding the proposed treatment and its consequences and capable
of expressing a decision thereon. In re Sanders, 1989-NMCA-025, 108 N.M. 434, 773
P.2d 1241.
Hearing postponement permissible. — Where a patient's hearing on the petition for a
treatment guardian was delayed one week due to the judge's illness, the computed
delay of five days did not substantially interfere with the patient's right to prompt
treatment; good cause existed, and the patient's liberty interest was not implicated. N.M.
Dep't of Health v. Compton, 2001-NMSC-032, 131 N.M. 204, 34 P.3d 593.

Hearing deadline violation remedy. — In light of the urgent need for treatment in civil
commitment cases, the potentially harmful consequences to either the individual or to
others for an improper release, the express provision of a statutory remedy, the
legislature did not intend dismissal of the petition as a proper remedy for a violation of
the time requirements in this section. N.M. Dep't of Health v. Compton, 2001-NMSC-
032, 131 N.M. 204, 34 P.3d 593.

Law reviews. — For article, "Treating Children Under the New Mexico Mental Health
and Developmental Disabilities Code," see 10 N.M.L. Rev. 279 (1980).

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — Nonconsensual treatment of
involuntarily committed mentally ill persons with neuroleptic or antipsychotic drugs as
violative of state constitutional guaranty, 74 A.L.R.4th 1099.