In Re: Jason W. v. In Re: Jason W.

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT
KENNEBEC, ss. CIVIL ACTION
DOCKET NO. AP-23-28

IN RE: JASON W. DECISION AND ORDER

Nee ee ere eee ree ee”

Petitioner Jason W. appeals an involuntary commitment order issued by the
District Court (Montgomery, J.). For the following reasons, the District Court’s
order is affirmed.

BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURE

On May 30, 2023, a judge endorsed an application for the emergency
involuntary hospitalization of Petitioner. See 34-B M.R.S. § 3863. On June 1, 2013,
the Superintendent Designee of Riverview Psychiatric Center (“RPC”) filed an
application for Petitioner’s involuntary hospitalization. See id. § 3863(5-A). The
court set a hearing date, appointed counsel for Petitioner, and ordered that he be
examined by Dr. Robert Gallon. See id. § 3864(4)(A).

At a hearing held on June 14, 2023, the court heard testimony from Dr.
Michael Rondon, Petitioner’s treating psychiatrist at RPC, that Petitioner had
significant diagnosed mental illness and had engaged in dangerous behavior, and

that a 90-day period of inpatient hospitalization was necessary to keep Petitioner
and the community safe. Tr. 9-10, 15, 18-19.! Dr. Gallon, who had conducted an
independent evaluation, concurred with these conclusions. Tr. 29-31. Petitioner also
testified, at times in a rambling and non-responsive manner. Tr. 35-51.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the court entered an order finding by clear
and convincing evidence that Petitioner was mentally ill; that his recent actions and
behavior indicated that his illness posed a likelihood of serious harm; that adequate
community resources for care and treatment of his mental illness were unavailable;
and that a period of inpatient hospitalization not to exceed 90 days was the best
available means for treatment of Petitioner. See 34-B M.R.S. § 3864(6).

Petitioner filed a notice of appeal on June 28, 2023. A new attorney was
appointed to represent him for the purposes of the appeal. On September 14, 2023,
appointed counsel filed a brief stating that upon review of the case file, he had not
identified any arguable issues of merit for this appeal. On September 15, 2023, the
court issued an order giving Petitioner 30 days to file a supplemental brief.
Petitioner did not file anything. RPC has filed a brief defending the District Court’s
order.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

An appeal from a commitment to a psychiatric hospital is on questions of law
only. 34-B M.R.S. § 3864(11)(A). The District Court’s findings of fact may not be set
aside unless they are clearly erroneous. Id. § 3864(11)(B); In re Marcial O., 1999 ME

64, { 21, 728 A.2d 158. A reviewing court will “uphold the findings so long as any

1 The transcript of the June 14, 2023, hearing is cited herein as “Tr. [page #].”
competent record evidence supports them.” In re Commitment of M., 2020 ME 99,
{| 26, 237 A.38d 190 (quotation marks omitted).

DISCUSSION

It is now more than 90 days since the date of Petitioner’s commitment on
June 14, 2023. By the terms of the commitment order, Petitioner’s involuntary
hospitalization could not exceed 90 days without hearing, and the order has
accordingly expired. The court finds that the appeal is not moot, however, given the
potential collateral consequences of an involuntary hospitalization commitment. See
In re Water R., 2004 ME 77, § 10, 850 A.2d 346.

Petitioner has not identified any errors of law for appeal. The court has also
conducted an independent review of the record and has determined that the District
Court’s findings are supported by competent record evidence. In re Commitment of
M., 2020 ME 99, § 26, 237 A.3d 190.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the District Court’s order is affirmed.
The clerk is directed to incorporate this order on the docket by reference

pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 79(a).

DATED: {| 2b]o4 LU (n-_~
Julia M. Lipez ( )
Justice, Superior C