Case Title: In re P.S.

Citation: 167 Vt. 63, 702 A.2d 98

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1997-08-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
In re P.S.  (96-208); 167 Vt. 63; 702 A.2d 98

[Filed 08-Aug-1997]

       NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under
  V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont
  Reports.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
  Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of
  any errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes
  to press.

                            No. 96-208

In re P.S.                                   Supreme Court

                                             On Appeal from
                                             Washington Family Court

                                             January Term, 1997

Mary Miles Teachout, J.

       Michael Benvenuto, Vermont Legal Aid, Inc., Waterbury, for appellant
  P.S.

       Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Attorney General, Montpelier, Ira N. Morris and
  Jessica G. Porter, Assistant Attorneys General, and Marybeth McCaffrey,
  Special Assistant Attorney General, Waterbury, for appellee Department of
  Developmental and Mental Health Services

PRESENT:  Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ., and Allen, C.J.
          (Ret.), Specially Assigned

       DOOLEY, J.   P.S. appeals the Washington Family Court's decision to
  revoke her order of nonhospitalization, and enter a new order of
  hospitalization, based upon findings that she was not complying with the
  order and was a patient in need of further treatment.  The issues raised on
  appeal are (1) whether the family court's findings are supported by clear
  and convincing evidence, and (2) whether the applicable statutes, or (3)
  the Vermont or federal constitution, require a court to find that a patient
  is dangerous to herself or others at the time of revocation of an order of
  nonhospitalization.  We conclude that the issue regarding the family
  court's findings is moot; we affirm the trial court's application of the
  "patient in need of further treatment" standard in determining whether to
  rehospitalize P.S.

       P.S. was formerly a patient at the Vermont State Hospital and is
  mentally ill.  In April 1995, she was released from the hospital on an
  order of nonhospitalization pursuant to 18 V.S.A. § 7621(c).  The order
  provided for extensive supervision by the community mental

 

  health agency in the area in which P.S. went to reside.  She was required
  to take all medicine prescribed by her psychiatrist and to take it in the
  presence of agency staff if they so required. She was required to comply
  with her treatment plan and keep all appointments with her case manager. 
  Initially, she was required to live in a facility with twenty-four-hour
  supervision, but the agency could, and did, allow her to move to her
  personal condominium on August 15, 1995.

       The family court made the following finding about P.S.:

     She requires for this illness, both medication and frequent, regular
     contact with mental health professionals.  Her illness has a long
     history with a well established pattern in which she periodically
     stops taking her medication, decompensates to a serious degree,
     such that she requires hospitalization.  Her history establishes that
     in the early stages of decompensation she refuses medication,
     shows poor judgment, becomes angry and irritable.  Her history
     also shows that she tends to decompensate rapidly, which is
     characteristic of her particular form of mental illness.  She can do
     so within a period of two to four weeks.  Her history also shows
     that it takes quite a long time for her to respond to the resumption
     of medication and to get back on track after a period of
     decompensation.

       On August 24, 1995 the Commissioner of Mental Health and Mental
  Retardation, acting on behalf of the State pursuant to 18 V.S.A. § 7621(d),
  notified the family court that P.S. was out of compliance with the court's
  order of nonhospitalization, and requested permission to rehospitalize P.S.
  due to her noncompliance.  At the hearing on the petition, the State
  produced evidence showing that P.S. had refused to take her medication in
  front of staff, was unable to keep all her medical appointments, and
  occasionally missed her day treatment program.  The court found that P.S.'s
  behavior violated the order of nonhospitalization and that

     [i]f she were to receive no treatment for her mental illness, at this
     time she would most certainly decompensate within a matter of
     days. . . .  And within a matter of a few days, she represents a
     danger to herself in that her judgment and mood are so seriously
     affected by her mental illness, that she'd be unable to provide for
     her daily needs.

  The court found P.S. to be a patient in need of further treatment and that
  hospitalization "is adequate and appropriate to her condition."  The court
  revoked the order of nonhospitalization

 

  and ordered P.S. to be hospitalized.

       P.S. filed a motion to reconsider the court's revocation order,
  arguing that the court incorrectly revoked her order of nonhospitalization
  on a finding of future dangerousness, rather than a finding of current
  dangerousness.  On March 28, 1996, the family court issued an opinion,
  affirming its decision to revoke the order of nonhospitalization and
  concluding that the appropriate standard for revocation is that of a
  patient in need of further treatment.  P.S. appeals the court's findings
  and the standard of dangerousness used at the revocation hearing.

                                I.

       We must first determine whether the issues raised by P.S. are moot. 
  The general rule is that a case becomes moot when the issues presented are
  no longer "live" or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the
  outcome.  In re H.A., 148 Vt. 106, 108,