Citations and pin cites are based on the Westlaw online version of the cited material.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

In the Matter of the Detention of ) No. 83490-8-I 

)

T.J., ) DIVISION ONE

)

Appellant. ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION

)

MANN, C.J. — T.J. appeals the trial court’s findings, conclusions, and order 

committing him for 180 days of involuntary treatment. T.J. argues that the trial court 

erred in finding that he presented a substantial likelihood of repeating similar acts under 

RCW 71.05.280(3)(b), as well as finding that less restrictive alternatives to involuntary 

detention are not in the best interest of T.J. and others. We affirm.

FACTS

T.J. was charged with attempted assault in the first degree. On May 14, 2019, 

the charge was dismissed due to T.J.’s incompetency to stand trial. On August 28, 

2020, doctors at Western State Hospital petitioned for T.J.’s commitment on the 

grounds that he was gravely disabled and that, as a result of his behavioral health 

disorder, he continued to present a substantial likelihood of repeating similar felony acts 

as the attempted assault in the first degree. The doctors further petitioned that T.J. was 

not ready for a less restrictive placement. 
No. 80879-6-I/2

-2-

The court held a probable cause hearing, where Western State Hospital’s Dr. 

Bradley Antoniadis, T.J.’s treating psychiatrist Dr. Grzegorz Longawa, T.J.’s expert Dr. 

Michael Stanfill, and T.J. testified. The trial court found that T.J. had committed acts 

constituting a violent felony, but that he was not substantially likely to commit similar 

acts. The court also found that T.J. was gravely disabled under RCW 71.05.020(24), 

and that less restrictive alternatives to involuntary detention were not in the best interest 

of T.J. and others. 

T.J. appeals.

ANALYSIS

A. Repeating Similar Acts

T.J. first argues that the State failed to prove that there was a substantial 

likelihood of repeated acts similar to the charged criminal behavior as required for 

involuntary commitment under RCW 71.05.280(3).1 Because T.J. misreads the record, 

we disagree.2

Contrary to T.J.’s argument, the trial court found that “[T.J.] does NOT present a 

substantial likelihood of repeating similar acts based upon the evidence and testimony 

presented.” Instead, the trial court based T.J.’s involuntary commitment under RCW 

 1 RCW 71.05.280 provides:

At the expiration of the fourteen-day period of intensive treatment, a person may 

be committed for further treatment pursuant to RCW 71.05.320 if:

. . . .

(3) Such person has been determined to be incompetent and criminal charges 

have been dismissed pursuant to RCW 10.77.086(4), and has committed acts 

constituting a felony, and as a result of a behavioral health disorder, presents a 

substantial likelihood of repeating similar acts.

2 Although the 180 days on the underlying petition have expired, we have previously held that the 

appeal of an involuntary commitment order is not moot because the order may have adverse 

consequences on future involuntary commitment determinations. In re Det. of M.K., 168 Wn. App. 621, 

625, 279 P.3d 897 (2012). 
No. 80879-6-I/3

-3-

71.05.280(4) after finding and concluding that he “is/continues to be gravely disabled” 

and 

[a]s a result of a behavioral health disorder manifests severe deterioration 

in routine functioning evidenced by repeated and escalating loss of 

cognitive or volitional control over actions, is not receiving such care as is 

essential for health and safety.

T.J. explicitly states that he does not challenge this finding on appeal. Unchallenged 

findings of fact are treated as verities on appeal. State v. Stenson, 132 Wn.2d 668, 

697, 940 P.2d 1239 (1997). T.J.’s argument that the State failed to prove he was likely 

to commit a similar act fails. 

B. Less Restrictive Alternatives

T.J. next contends that the trial court erred in finding that less restrictive 

alternatives to involuntary detention are not in the best interest of T.J. and others.3 We 

disagree.

RCW 71.05.320(1) provides that if the trial court finds a person to be gravely 

disabled, it also must determine “that the best interests of the person or others will not 

be served by a less restrictive treatment which is an alternative to detention” before 

ordering involuntary commitment. The statute empowers the trial court “to determine 

the best interests of the individual and in so doing, to consider less restrictive 

treatment.” In re Det. of J.S., 124 Wn.2d 689, 699, 880 P.2d 976 (1994). The State has 

the burden of proving that a less restrictive alternative is not in the best interests of the 

 3 T.J. argues that RCW 71.05.320(6)(a)(i) compels his placement in a less restrictive alternative. 

This provision, however, requires that the trial court have “previously made an affirmative special finding 

under RCW 71.05.280(3)(b).” RCW 71.05.320(6)(a)(i). As we have noted, the trial court did not make an 

affirmative finding under RCW 71.05.280(3)(b), so the statute is not applicable. Moreover, as the State 

correctly points out, RCW 71.05.320(6)(a)(i) was enacted in 2021 as part of section two of Engrossed 

Second Substitute Bill 5071 which had an effective date of July 25, 2021—four months after T.J.’s 

commitment hearing. 
No. 80879-6-I/4

-4-

person to be committed. In re Det. of T.A.H.-L., 123 Wn. App. 172, 186, 97 P.3d 767 

(2004).4

We review a trial court’s finding that less restrictive alternatives to involuntary 

detention are not in the best interest of T.J. and others for substantial evidence. In re 

Det. of LaBelle, 107 Wn.2d 196, 209, 728 P.2d 138 (1986). Substantial evidence is 

“evidence in sufficient quantum to persuade a fair-minded person of the truth of the 

declared premise.” In re Det. of A.S., 91 Wn. App. 146, 162, 955 P.2d 836 (1998). We 

“defer to the trier of fact on the persuasiveness of the evidence, witness credibility, and 

conflicting testimony.” In re Knight, 178 Wn. App. 929, 937, 317 P.3d 1068 (2014).

Here, there exists substantial evidence to support the trial court’s finding. At the 

commitment hearing, Dr. Antoniadis testified that T.J. suffers from schizophrenia 

resulting in hallucinations that he responds to, exhibits cognitive interference, self 

isolates, and responds to internal stimuli. Dr. Antoniadis explained that T.J.’s auditory 

hallucinations are command in nature and, because they cause him fear, T.J. responds 

to them. For example, the hallucinations might command T.J. to not shower or to stab 

people. Dr. Antoniadis ultimately suggested that T.J. not receive a less restrictive 

placement, as he was still exhibiting severe symptoms, he was not stable on his 

medications, and there was no other less restrictive setting to meet his needs. 

Dr. Longawa also testified that T.J. should not receive a less restrictive 

placement. At the time of testimony, doctors were adjusting T.J.’s medications in an 

effort to stabilize his condition while also minimizing side effects. When altering 

 4 Although “RCW 71.05 guarantees that less restrictive treatment for involuntarily detained 

individuals will be considered, . . . it does not expressly grant them a [statutory] right to less restrictive 

treatment.” J.S., 124 Wn.2d at 701. Furthermore, a person is not entitled to treatment in a less restrictive 

setting when continued treatment is “amply supported by professional judgment.” J.S., 124 Wn.2d at 701. 
No. 80879-6-I/5

-5-

dosages, Dr. Longawa testified that T.J. began experiencing auditory hallucinations 

commanding him to take his own life. Dr. Longawa explained that this adjustment was 

a slow process, and that a community medical provider could not properly monitor such 

a complex situation; the risks involved in medication adjustment were too significant for 

a community placement. 

The petitioning doctors presented substantial evidence showing that T.J. was not 

stable on his medications and was experiencing acute symptoms of schizophrenia. 

This evidence supports the trial court’s finding that less restrictive alternatives to 

involuntary detention were not in the best interest of T.J. and others.

Affirmed.

WE CONCUR: