Case Title: In re K.M.

Citation: 165 Vt 569, 678 A.2d 1263

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1996-05-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
In re K.M.  (93-340); 165 Vt 569; 678 A.2d 1263

[Opinion Filed 07-May-1996]

                               ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 93-340

                              APRIL TERM, 1996


In re K.M.                           }     APPEALED FROM:
                                     }
                                     }
                                     }     District Court of Vermont,
                                     }     Unit No. 4, Waterbury Circuit
                                     }
                                     }     DOCKET NO. 97-93-Wy-MH-AIT


       In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       K.M appeals the family court's involuntary hospitalization order.  K.M
  argues that the court erred in granting the involuntary commitment order
  without requiring the State to prove that voluntary treatment was not
  possible in his case.  We reverse and remand.

       In April 1993, K.M was admitted to the Vermont State Hospital for
  "emergency examination" pursuant to 18 V.S.A. § 7504.  He was diagnosed as
  suffering depression and a personality disorder.  The State filed an
  application for involuntary treatment with the family court.  A few days
  before the hearing on the State's application, K.M. submitted a written
  request to register as a "conditional voluntary" patient.  As a conditional
  voluntary patient, K.M. could have been required to give four-days' notice
  before leaving the hospital.  During that time, the State could seek
  involuntary admission of the patient if necessary.  See 18 V.S.A. § 8010.
  K.M.'s treatment team told him that he would not be accepted as a
  conditional voluntary patient, and K.M requested a grievance hearing before
  the executive director of the hospital.  The grievance hearing was held on
  May 6, 1993;(FN1) the family court hearing on the State's application for
  involuntary commitment was held the next day.

       Although K.M. raised the issue of voluntary treatment at the
  involuntary commitment hearing, the court refused to consider whether
  voluntary treatment was possible.  Instead, the court limited its decision
  to whether or not K.M. met the criteria for commitment. The court found
  that K.M was a threat to himself and others and ordered that he be
  committed.

       On appeal, K.M. points to our recent decision in In re R.L., ___ Vt.
  ___,