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

## 29

# M3!1Mr. Justice Fred J. Weber delivered the Opinion of the Court.

C. M. 

### was involuntarily committed to Warm Springs State Hospital afterproceedings 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 BillingsDeaconess Hospital in Billings, Montana. On March 23, C. M. Ismother asked the Yellowstone County Attorney 

### to file

### a petition alleging C. M. to be seriouslymentally 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 districtjudge issued hisorder committing C. M. to the StateHospital for the statutory90-day period. Section 53-21-127 (2)(a) (i)

## ,MCA. She appeals from thatorder and 

### raises the following issues: (1) Was there sufficientevidence 

### to support the conclusion that C. M. 

### was "seriouslymentally ill,"and (2) 

### Was there sufficientevidence to show thatWarm Springs StateHospital was the 

### least restrictive form of commitment? Three persons 

### testi£ ied atthe commitment hearing--C. M. s mother, Dr. WilliamHague 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 ina 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 inMarch 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 inBillingsDeaconess Hospital. Dr. Hague diagnosed C. M. as schizophrenic. He testified that C. M. Ismother 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 hisown examination, it



### was hisopinion that C. M. 

### was seriouslymentally ill. He believed thather illness

### was interrupting her cognitive processes,

was causing delusional thinking, and 

### was thereby interfering ina

severe way with her functioning. Dr. Hague felt that it would be verydifficult for C. M. 

### to care for herself. It had been his experience with C. M. that she did not followthrough with outpatient programs. Dr. Hague testified that C. M. needed a lengthy period of hospitalizationwhich could not be accomplished inBillings. It 

### was Dr. Hague's recommendation that C. M. be treated atWarm Springs StateHospital. In her testimony, C. M. eithergenerallydenied the allegations of her mother 

### or explained the conduct in question. Before a person may be committed to the StateHospital under section 53-21-127, MCA, the person must be adjudged "seriouslymentally ill

# ." "'Seriouslymentally 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 lifeorhealth." Section 53-21-102(14), MCA. "Imminent threat of self-inflicted injury or injury to others shallbe evidenced by overt 

### acts, sufficientlyrecent 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 incidentswhich allegedly constituted evidence of an imminent threat of 

### sel£-inflicted in jury 

### or in jury 

### to others, and therefore the court could notproperly 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 threatof 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), 180Mont. 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 tooccur at anymoment 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 factspresented, and the doctor's diagnosis of C. M. Iscondition 

### were, when taken together, sufficient

### to show 

### a probability of physical injury in the immediate future. We alsonote that a determinationof seriousmental illnesscan be made if the person's mental disorderhas deprived the person of the ability

### to protect her 

### or hishealth. 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 doctorbelieved 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 seriousmental illness could have properlybeen 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 seriouslymentally ill. Finally, C. M. asks us 

### to decide whether there 

### was sufficient evidence to support the finding thatWarm Springs State Hospital 

### was the 

### least restrictive form of commitment. The pur-poses of Montana's 

### laws for treatment of the seriouslymentally ill 

### are to be accomplished "inan institutionalized setting only when less restrictive alternatives 

### are unavailable 

### or inadequate and onlywhen 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 determinationof seriousmental illness is made : "(i) 

### commit the respondent 

### to a facility for 

### a period of not more than 3months; "(ii)order the respondent 

### to be placed in the 

### care and custodyof hisrelative

### 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 followthrough with outpatient programs. It 

### was hisopinion that the hospital in Billingswould not be able to provide the treatment that C. M. needed. Dr. Hague testified thatbecause of the nature of her illness, C. M. should be treated 

### atWarm Springs StateHospital. C. M. did not present an expert inbehalf of her position that she be treated on an outpatientbasis. The evidence supported the District Court's decision to 

### commit C. M. to Warm Springs StateHospital. The order of the District Court 

### is affirmed.