DA 18-0326

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

2020 MT 137N

IN THE MATTER OF:

C.T.D.,

 Respondent and Appellant.

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Tenth Judicial District,

In and For the County of Fergus, Cause No. DI 18-9

Honorable Brenda R. Gilbert, Presiding Judge

COUNSEL OF RECORD:

For Appellant:

Chad Wright, Appellate Defender, Danny Tenenbaum, Assistant Appellate 

Defender, Missoula, Montana

For Appellee:

Timothy C. Fox, Montana Attorney General, Damon Martin, Assistant 

Attorney General, Helena, Montana

Kent M. Sipe, Fergus County Attorney, Monte J. Boettger, Deputy County 

Attorney, Lewistown, Montana

Submitted on Briefs: April 29, 2020

 Decided: May 26, 2020

Filed:

__________________________________________

Clerk

q3,,---, 6mal•-.— 4(

05/26/2020

Case Number: DA 18-0326
2

Justice Dirk Sandefur delivered the Opinion of the Court. 

¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court Internal Operating 

Rules, we decide this case by memorandum opinion. It shall not be cited and does not 

serve as precedent. Its case title, cause number, and disposition shall be included in our 

quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana Reports.

¶2 C.T.D. appeals the judgment of the Montana Tenth Judicial District Court, Fergus 

County, committing her to the Montana State Hospital pursuant to §§ 53-21-126(1)(a), (c),

and -127, MCA, for mental health treatment for a period not to exceed 90 days. We affirm. 

¶3 On April 4, 2018, the State of Montana filed a petition for involuntary commitment 

and mental health treatment of C.T.D, age 36, based on two incidents. The first occurred 

on February 27, 2018, when Lewistown police found her walking outside on a windy 

20-degree day with snow on the ground, dressed only in shorts, a tank top, and no shoes. 

She stated that she was walking from her brother’s home to her father’s home. Police 

found her about three quarters of a mile from her brother’s home and about a mile from her

father’s home. A police officer later testified that she also stated, inter alia, that she had 

been “trapped in a box for the past 6,000 years” and had been “fight[ing] with the son of 

perdition.” He testified that she also made statements about monsters, finding bodies, and 

that “the bodies will shock you . . . in the brain, jab you in the heart.” 

¶4 The second incident occurred on March 31, 2018, when police responded to her 

brother’s home on a domestic violence report. Upon arrival, they arrested C.T.D. and her 

brother, citing both for partner family member assault. The brother later testified that 

C.T.D. was acting erratically, was verbally aggressive, and, with her frequent mood swings,
3

did not appear to be capable of caring for herself. A responding police officer later

described her as “very agitated and upset.” He testified that she made a number of irrational 

statements including stating her name as “God’s love” and saying that “happy is her best 

friend,” being arrested would make “happy angry,” “[happy] wants to hurt [the responding 

police],” and that she “can’t control [happy].”

¶5 At the jail, C.T.D. was again erratic, made suicidal statements, refused to change 

into jail clothing, and attempted to kick the undersheriff as staff involuntarily changed her

clothes. Over the next three days in jail, C.T.D. was repeatedly screaming, banging and 

kicking on her cell, stripping and walking around naked in the isolation cell, and, on at 

least one occasion, smeared feces on the wall. She acknowledged her erratic behavior at 

trial, testifying that she was in such a rage that she thought she was going to have an 

aneurysm. She adamantly denied, however, that she had any mental problem. 

¶6 The examining mental health professional testified that her first three evaluation 

attempts were unsuccessful due to C.T.D.’s “yelling, . . . very agitated” state, and inability 

to “really . . . follow any of the questions.” The professional was able to meaningfully 

evaluate C.T.D. on the fourth try, but testified that she was still “very delusional,” again

“not able to . . . answer questions,” had “pressured speech,” and talked for an “hour nonstop 

about [unrelated] issues.” The professional ultimately diagnosed her with a form of 

psychosis, schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder, and bipolar disorder with psychotic 

features. 

¶7 Following the adjudicatory trial, the District Court found that C.T.D. suffered from 

a mental disorder and that her “mental state ha[d] deteriorated . . . to the point where she is 
4

a danger to herself, to others[,] and unable to care for her own basic needs, clothing, shelter, 

health[,] or safety.” The court thus ultimately concluded that she required involuntary 

commitment pursuant to § 53-21-126(1)(a), (c), MCA. 

¶8 In the subsequent dispositional hearing, the court heard testimony about available 

treatment options, including placement with her sister, a nursing home, the Montana 

Mental Health Nursing Care Center, and the state hospital. In that regard, the examining 

professional testified that: (1) C.T.D. had no insight into her illness and was thus “less 

likely to be willing to treat the problem”; (2) prescribed medication would likely be part of 

her mental health treatment plan; (3) the state hospital was the only placement able “to 

enforce the [necessary] medication”; (4) a state hospital report stated that C.T.D. had stated 

“that she may elope from” the state hospital; and (5) authorization of involuntary 

medication “would be appropriate.” 

¶9 Upon consideration of all available options, the District Court found and concluded 

that the state hospital “would be the most suitable and least restrictive placement to meet 

[C.T.D.’s] needs.” With reference to § 52-21-127(6), MCA, the court further found it 

“necessary for the [state hospital] . . . to have the authority to administer” involuntary

medication as needed to protect C.T.D or “facilitate effective treatment.” The court thus 

committed C.T.D. to the state hospital pursuant to §§ 53-21-126(1)(a), (c), and -127, MCA,

with authorization for involuntary medication.1 C.T.D. timely appeals. 

 

1 The court made oral findings of fact, conclusions of law, and judgments under 

§§ 53-21-126(1)(a), (c), and -127, MCA, from the bench at the close of the adjudicatory bench 

trial and dispositional hearing and then later issued more formal written findings of fact, 

conclusions of law, and judgment. 
5

¶10 Based on an isolated statement of the court near the end of the dispositional hearing

(i.e., “I’m pretty confident that [involuntary medication] won’t be necessary” because “it’s 

very likely that [she] will see the benefits of medication”), C.T.D. asserts there was 

insufficient evidence to support the court’s finding that involuntary medication

authorization was necessary. We disagree.

¶11 We review involuntary mental health commitments for compliance with the 

requirements of §§ 53-21-126 and -127, MCA. In re D.L.B., 2017 MT 106, ¶¶ 7-8, 

387 Mont. 323, 394 P.3d 169. Whether an involuntary commitment satisfies the 

requirements of §§ 53-21-126 and -127, MCA, is a conclusion of law based on applicable 

conclusions and applications of law and pertinent findings of fact. In re D.L.B., ¶¶ 7-8. 

We review conclusions and applications of law de novo for correctness and findings of fact 

only for clear error in the light most favorable to the prevailing party. In re D.L.B., ¶ 7; In

re D.K.D., 2011 MT 74, ¶ 12, 360 Mont. 76, 250 P.3d 856; In re Mental Health of C.R.C., 

2004 MT 389, ¶ 11, 325 Mont. 133, 104 P.3d 1065. 

¶12 Upon an involuntary commitment, the district court “may authorize” involuntary 

medication upon a finding that it “is necessary to protect the respondent or the public or to 

facilitate effective treatment.” Section 53-21-127(6), MCA. The finding must further state 

“the reason involuntary medication was chosen from among other alternatives.” 

Section 53-21-127(8)(i), MCA. We review an authorization of involuntary medication for 

whether the court made sufficient findings of fact under § 53-21-127(6), 8(i), MCA, and 

whether it otherwise abused its discretion. In this context, an abuse of discretion occurs if 

the court authorized involuntary medication based on a clearly erroneous finding of fact or 
6

otherwise acted arbitrarily, without employment of conscientious judgment, or exceeded

the bounds of reason resulting in substantial injustice. See In re D.E., 2018 MT 196, ¶ 21, 

392 Mont. 297, 423 P.3d 586; In re D.L.B., ¶¶ 7-8.

¶13 Here, unlike in In re R.H., 2016 MT 329, ¶¶ 20-23, 385 Mont. 530, 385 P.3d 556 

(erroneous authorization of involuntary medication based on unsupported finding that it 

“may be necessary”), the District Court found that authorization of involuntary medication 

was necessary based on the examining medical professional’s unrebutted testimony that: 

(1) C.T.D. had no insight into her illness and was thus “less likely to be willing to treat the 

problem”; (2) prescribed medication would likely be part of her mental health treatment 

plan; (3) the state hospital was the only placement able “to enforce the [necessary] 

medication”; (4) a state hospital report stated that C.T.D. “had expressed that she may elope 

from” the state hospital; and (5) authorization of involuntary medication “would be 

appropriate.” The court’s finding is further inferentially supported by the undisputed 

evidence that C.T.D. was thrice uncooperative and unable to track the examiner’s questions 

sufficient to allow a meaningful evaluation of her mental condition. Unlike in In re R.H., 

and more akin to In re C.B., 2017 MT 83, ¶¶ 37-41, 387 Mont. 231, 392 P.3d 598 (affirming 

involuntary medication authorization based on documented “history of medication 

non-compliance”), the District Court’s finding of necessity under § 53-21-127(6), (8)(i), 

MCA, was supported by substantial evidence and we are not convinced the court 

misapprehended the evidence, abused its discretion, or otherwise erred. Cherry-picked out 

of context on appeal, the court’s isolated comment at the close of hearing (i.e., that it 

expected C.T.D. would see the benefit of medication and that involuntary medication 
7

would not be necessary) was, in context, no more than a gratuitous statement of empathetic 

respect to C.T.D., clearly offered to soften her disappointment with an adverse decision in 

a poignantly difficult situation. We hold that the District Court did not erroneously 

authorize involuntary medication in this case. 

¶14 We decide this case by memorandum opinion pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c) 

of our Internal Operating Rules. It presents no constitutional issues, no issues of first 

impression, and does not establish new precedent or modify existing precedent. 

¶15 Affirmed. 

/S/ DIRK M. SANDEFUR

We concur: 

/S/ MIKE McGRATH

/S/ JAMES JEREMIAH SHEA

/S/ INGRID GUSTAFSON

/S/ JIM RICE