b. 

No. 81-252 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

IN THE MATTER OF C.M. 

Appeal from: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Yellowstone. 

Honomble Robert Wilson, Judge presiding. 

Counsel of Record: 

For Appellant: 

Terry L. Seiffert, Billings, Montana 

For Respondent: 

Harold F. Hanser, County Attorney, Billings, Montana 

Submitted on briefs: August 11, 1981 

Decided : 

Filed: DCT 2 9 M3!1 
Mr. Justice Fred J. Weber delivered the Opinion of the Court. 

C. M. was involuntarily committed to Warm Springs State 

Hospital after proceedings in the District Court of the 

Thirteenth Judicial District, Yellowstone County. She appeals 

from the order of commitment. We affirm. 

On March 21, 1981, C. M. was placed in the psychiatric 

section of Billings Deaconess Hospital in Billings, Montana. On 

March 23, C. M. Is mother asked the Yellowstone County Attorney to 

file a petition alleging C. M. to be seriously mentally ill and 

requesting that C. M. be committed for a period of up to three 

months. The petition was filed and a hearing was held on March 

30. On April 1, the district judge issued his order committing 

C. M. to the State Hospital for the statutory 90-day period. 

Section 53-21-127 ( 2) (a) ( i) , MCA. She appeals from that order and 

raises the following issues: 

(1) Was there sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that C. M. was "seriously mentally ill," and 

(2) Was there sufficient evidence to show that Warm 

Springs State Hospital was the least restrictive form of 

commitment? 

Three persons tes ti£ ied at the commitment hearing--C. M. s 

mother, Dr. William Hague and C. M. The mother testified that C. 

M. had been living with her for about one month prior to the 

hearing. She stated that C. M. had been behaving in a paranoid 

and confused manner. C. M. 's mother said that C. M. was obsessed 

with cleaning, had shaved her head, changed clothes five or six 

times daily, was outdoors in March without shoes or a blouse, and 

had broken down the door to the family residence. The mother 

also testified that C. M. had threatened C. M.'s 9-year old son 

and on one occasion had left a number of kitchen knives lying 

about the house. Dr. Hague is a psychiatrist who had been 

involved in the treatment of C. M. over a period of two years. 

He had also examined C. M. during her then present stay in 
Billings Deaconess Hospital. Dr. Hague diagnosed C. M. as 

schizophrenic. He testified that C. M. Is mother had told him that 

C. M. had threatened her son with bodily harm and had a history 

of abusing the boy. Dr. Hague also related that the mother felt 

that the incident with the knives suggested that C. M. might be 

thinking of harming herself or others. Dr. Hague testified that, 

based upon the mother's observations and his own examination, it 

was his opinion that C. M. was seriously mentally ill. He 

believed that her illness was interrupting her cognitive processes, 

was causing delusional thinking, and was thereby interfering in a 

severe way with her functioning. Dr. Hague felt that it would be 

very difficult for C. M. to care for herself. It had been his 

experience with C. M. that she did not follow through with outpatient programs. Dr. Hague testified that C. M. needed a 

lengthy period of hospitalization which could not be accomplished 

in Billings. It was Dr. Hague's recommendation that C. M. be 

treated at Warm Springs State Hospital. In her testimony, C. M. 

either generally denied the allegations of her mother or 

explained the conduct in question. 

Before a person may be committed to the State Hospital 

under section 53-21-127, MCA, the person must be adjudged 

"seriously mentally ill ." " 'Seriously mentally ill ' means suffering from a mental disorder which has resulted in selfinflicted injury or injury to others or the imminent threat 

thereof or which has deprived the person afflicted of the ability 

to protect his life or health." Section 53-21-102(14), MCA. 

"Imminent threat of self-inflicted injury or injury to others 

shall be evidenced by overt acts, sufficiently recent in time as 

to be material and relevant as to the respondent's present 

condition." Section 53-21-126(2), MCA. C. M. argues that Dr. 

Hague had no personal knowledge of the incidents which allegedly 

constituted evidence of an imminent threat of sel £-inflicted 

in jury or in jury to others, and therefore the court could not 
properly find the existence of such a threat. However, a 

professional person may opine that the respondent is seriously 

mentally ill even though the evidence of an imminent threat of 

injury is obtained from a source other than the professional 

person. Section 53-21-126 (4), MCA. 

C. M. also contends that there was a failure to show any 

"overt actsvv which evidenced an imminent threat of injury. We 

disagree. C. M. threatened her son and a threat can be an overt 

act which, in itself, evidences an imminent threat of injury to 

another. Matter of Goedert (1979), 180 Mont. 484, 591 P.2d 

222, 36 St.Rep. 393. An overt act can also be evidenced by 

a present indication of probable physical injury which is likely 

to occur at any moment or in the immediate future. Matter 

of F. B. (1980), Mont . , 615 P.2d 867, 37 St.Rep. 1442. 

Y The inciddnt with the knives, the other facts presented, and the 

doctor's diagnosis of C. M. Is condition were, when taken 

together, sufficient to show a probability of physical injury in 

the immediate future. We also note that a determination of 

serious mental illness can be made if the person's mental 

disorder has deprived the person of the ability to protect her or 

his health. Dr. Hague testified that C. M.'s illness was 

interrupting her cognitive processes, was causing delusional 

thinking, and was thereby interfering in a severe way with her 

functioning. The doctor believed that it would be very difficult 

for C. M. to care for herself. Even absent a finding of an imminent threat of injury, a finding of serious mental illness could 

have properly been made because C. M. had been deprived of the 

ability to protect her health. Section 53-21-102(14). 

The District Court committed no error by reaching the 

conclusion that C. M. was seriously mentally ill. 

Finally, C. M. asks us to decide whether there was suff icient evidence to support the finding that Warm Springs State 

Hospital was the least restrictive form of commitment. The pur- 
poses of Montana's laws for treatment of the seriously mentally 

ill are to be accomplished "in an institutionalized setting only 

when less restrictive alternatives are unavailable or inadequate 

and only when a person is so mentally ill as to require institutionalized care ." Section 53-21-101( 3), MCA. See also section 

53-21-120 , MCA. The District Court is given four dispositional 

options af ter a determination of serious mental illness is made : 

"(i) commit the respondent to a facility for a 

period of not more than 3 months; 

"(ii) order the respondent to be placed in the 

care and custody of his relative or guardian or 

some other appropriate place other than an 

institution; 

" ( iii) order outpatient therapy; or 

" ( iv) make some other appropriate order for 

treatment." 

Section 53-21-127 (2) (a), MCA. 

Dr. Hague had been involved in the treatment of C. M. for two 

years. He had found that she did not follow through with outpatient programs. It was his opinion that the hospital in 

Billings would not be able to provide the treatment that C. M. 

needed. Dr. Hague testified that because of the nature of her 

illness, C. M. should be treated at Warm Springs State Hospital. 

C. M. did not present an expert in behalf of her position that 

she be treated on an outpatient basis. The evidence supported 

the District Court's decision to commit C. M. to Warm Springs 

State Hospital. 

The order of the District Court is af firmed.