Case Title: In re M.B.

Citation: 177 Vt. 481, 2004 VT 58, 857 A.2d 772

Docket Number: 2003-305

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2004-06-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
In re M.B. (2003-305); 177 Vt. 481; 857 A.2d 772

2004 VT 58

[Filed 15-Jun-2004]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2004 VT 58

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2003-305

                              MARCH TERM, 2004

  In re M.B.	                       }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
                                       }	Washington Superior Court
                                       }	
                               	       }
                                       }	DOCKET NO. 304-6-03 Wncv

                                                Trial Judge: Stephen B. Martin

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       ¶  1.  M.B. appeals a Washington Superior Court order denying his
  petition for a writ of habeas corpus seeking release from Vermont State
  Hospital (VSH).  M.B. claims the court erred when it held that the State
  substantially complied with the emergency examination statutes even though
  M.B. was taken into police custody before the application authorizing his
  detention was completed.  We find that any defect in M.B.'s initial custody
  had no bearing on the legal basis for his restraint at the time he
  petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus.  We affirm.

       ¶  2.  On May 23, 2003, at the request of his mother, M.B. met with
  his treating psychiatrist, Dr. Donna Kiley, at her office at Northeast
  Kingdom Human Services (NKHS).  During the appointment, M.B. became
  increasingly angry and repeatedly stated his refusal to take the
  medications prescribed for his bipolar disorder.  Dr. Kiley then determined
  that M.B. needed to be hospitalized and recommended that he check himself
  into VSH.  When he vehemently refused, Dr. Kiley decided M.B. met the
  criteria for an emergency examination pursuant to 18 V.S.A. § 7504.  Dr.
  Kiley then called the state police to transport M.B. to the hospital, but
  as soon as M.B. heard mention of the police, he fled.  Less than a mile
  from Dr. Kiley's office, M.B. flagged down the police that were sent to
  apprehend him.  The officer took M.B. into temporary custody and
  transported him back to NKHS.
   
       ¶  3.  Once back at the office, M.B. saw Dr. Kiley briefly and then
  was interviewed at some length by Kimberly Roberge, a qualified mental
  health professional, who acted as the statutorily required "interested
  person" and completed the application for emergency examination.  See 18
  V.S.A. § 7504(a).  During the interview, M.B. was crying, screaming,
  spitting, and refusing any further treatment, all of which Roberge
  documented to support M.B.'s emergency examination application.  Once the
  application and physician's certificate were completed, M.B. was
  transported by police to Fletcher Allen Health Care Center.  He stayed
  there only a short time before being transferred to VSH for his emergency
  examination. 

       ¶  4.  At VSH, Dr. Richard Munson completed an emergency psychiatric
  examination of M.B. and determined that he was a "person in need of
  treatment" pursuant to 18 V.S.A. § 7508.  The State then filed an
  application for involuntary treatment in the Washington Family Court on May
  26, 2003.  

       ¶  5.  While the application for involuntary treatment was still
  pending in family court, M.B. filed this petition for a writ of habeas
  corpus in Washington Superior Court seeking release from VSH.  The superior
  court held a summary hearing on M.B.'s petition on June 9, 2003.  After
  hearing argument from the parties and testimony from M.B., the court denied
  the petition finding that Dr. Kiley had already made the decision to
  complete the application for emergency examination before M.B. was placed
  in police custody and therefore the State had substantially complied with
  the spirit and intent of the statutes governing the emergency examination
  process.  M.B. appealed.  In the meantime and just prior to the family
  court hearing on the involuntary treatment application, the parties agreed
  to a ninety-day conditional order of non-hospitalization.  M.B. was
  released from VSH on or about June 11, 2003. 

       ¶  6.  When reviewing the trial court's factual findings, we will
  view them in the light most favorable to the prevailing party below,
  disregarding the effect of modifying evidence, and we will not set them
  aside unless they are clearly erroneous.  Brown v. Whitcomb, 150 Vt. 106,
  109,