Notice: This opinion is subject to correction before publication in the PACIFIC REPORTER. 

Readers are requested to bring errors to the attention of the Clerk of the Appellate Courts, 

303 K Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501, phone (907) 264-0608, fax (907) 264-0878, email 

corrections@akcourts.us. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALASKA 

In the Matter of the Necessity for the 

Hospitalization of 

PAIGE M. 

) 

) Supreme Court No. S-16834 

Superior Court No. 1SI-16-00074 PR 

O P I N I O N 

No. 7324 – December 21, 2018 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Appeal from the Superior Court of the State of Alaska, First 

Judicial District, Sitka, Leonard Devaney, Judge pro tem. 

Appearances: Michael Jude Pate and Rachel E. Cella, 

Assistant Public Defenders, and Quinlan Steiner, Public 

Defender, Anchorage, for Paige M. Anna Jay, Assistant 

Attorney General, Anchorage, and Jahna Lindemuth, 

Attorney General, Juneau, for State of Alaska and 

Department of Health and Social Services. 

Before: Bolger, Chief Justice, Winfree, Stowers, Maassen, 

and Carney, Justices. 

BOLGER, Chief Justice. 

I. INTRODUCTION 

A psychologist at a mental health clinic petitioned to have a patient 

involuntarily hospitalized. The superior court held a hearing on the petition at which 

only the psychologist gave substantive testimony. The court granted the petition, and the 

patient was hospitalized. The patient now appeals the court’s denial of her motion to 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

vacatetheinvoluntary hospitalization order. Because the superior court failed to conduct 

a screening investigation that met statutory requirements, and because this failure was 

not harmless error, we reverse the superior court’s denial of the patient’s motion to 

vacate. 

II. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS 

In November 2016 a psychologist at Neurobehavioral Consultants, LLC 

filed a “Petition for Order Authorizing Hospitalization” of Paige M.,1 an individual the 

clinic had been treating for approximately one year.2 The psychologist indicated on the 

petition form that she had interviewed Paige one week prior. The psychologist also 

indicated that she believed Paige was mentally ill and “gravely disabled or likely to cause 

serious harm to []herself or others” as a result of her mental illness.3 The psychologist 

explained that “[t]he risk(s) of self-neglect and self-harmare discussed in detail” in clinic 

notes she had attached to the petition and alleged that “[m]ost recently, [Paige] admitted 

needing ‘safety checks’ by S[itka] P[olice] D[epartment], due to medical and suicidal 

concerns, then hung a note on her door, refusing to answer the door for [the police].” 

The Sitka superior court held a hearing on the petition that evening. The 

only people in attendance were the psychologist and a representative ofSitka Counseling 

andPreventionServices(SCPS), which arrangesfor transportation and coordination with 

1 We use a pseudonym to protect Paige’s privacy. 

2 Alaska Statute 47.30.700 provides that “any adult” may file a petition for 

a person’s involuntary hospitalization and articulates procedures to be followed after 

such a petition is filed. 

3 See AS 47.30.700(b) (“The petition . . . must allege that the respondent is 

reasonably believed to present a likelihood of serious harm to self or others or is gravely 

disabled as a result of mental illness and must specify the factual information on which 

that belief is based.”). 

-2- 7324
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

hospitals after a hospitalization petition is granted. The court confirmed that the SCPS 

representative had no additional information related to the petition and conducted a voir 

dire examination of the psychologist, who testified to Paige’s behavior over the last 

month. The court observed that although it was “clear that [Paige] has many mental 

health diagnoses,” the court “wasn’t getting the information [it] felt like [it] needed” to 

make a finding necessary to grant the petition.4 The court accordingly requested “a little 

bit more information about whether . . . in [the psychologist’s] opinion [Paige was] likely 

to cause serious harm to herself right now.” 

The psychologist replied that there were multiple reasons for believing 

Paige was likely to cause serious harm to herself; one was Paige’s “very recent lack of 

compliance in her own treatment plan and self-care,” which the psychologist stated was 

particularly significant in light of Paige’s ailments, including her propensity to suddenly 

lose consciousness. The psychologist added that Paige’s conduct four days prior, when 

she arrived at the clinic and then abruptly left, was especially concerning “knowing that 

she’s been suicidal, that she’s been actively entertaining the thought of suicide, [and] that 

she has a history of doing this with several different means available to her.” The court 

questioned the psychologist whether Paige would have persisted in this “state of mind” 

if the psychologist had seen her over the weekend, but the psychologist was unable to 

answer the question. The court also asked if Paige had a legal guardian who could check 

in on her, but the psychologist said that she did not and that she was also “estranged from 

her nuclear family” and “[v]ery isolated.” Ultimately the court asked the psychologist: 

“Based on your education, training, and experience, . . . [and] given all these warning 

4 Cf. AS 47.30.700(a) (stating that if certain conditions are met, “a judge may 

issue an ex parte order orally or in writing, stating that there is probable cause to believe 

the respondent is mentally ill and that condition causes the respondent to be gravely 

disabled or to present a likelihood of serious harm to self or others”). 

-3- 7324
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

signs and the decompensation that you’re seeing, do you believe that [Paige is] likely to 

cause serious harm to herself?” When the psychologist replied in the affirmative, the 

court stated that it would grant the order. 

That evening the court issued an order authorizing Paige’s hospitalization 

under AS 47.30.700. The court found that there was probable cause to believe that Paige 

was mentally ill, that she was likely to cause serious harm to herself, and that she was 

gravely disabled.5 The court also indicated that Paige had been interviewed by the 

psychologist “in regard to the petition” one week earlier. The same evening Sitka police 

removed Paige from her home and placed her in a jail cell overnight. The following day 

she was transported from Sitka to the Alaska Psychiatric Institute in Anchorage, where 

she was hospitalized from November 2 to November 7.6 

On November 30 Paige filed a motion to vacate the order authorizing her 

hospitalization. She argued that the superior court had violated AS 47.30.700 by failing 

to interview her after the petition was filed, that her due process rights had been violated, 

and that the evidence presented to the court could not support the findings needed to 

order involuntary hospitalization. After two hearings in April and June 2017, the court 

issued an order denying Paige’s motion to vacate in July 2017. In rejecting Paige’s 

arguments, thecourtacknowledged AS47.30.700’s screening investigation requirement 

but asserted that petitions filed by mental health professionals “are usually complete and 

5 See AS 47.30.700(a). 

6 It is not clear why Paige was hospitalized for longer than 72 hours without 

a second commitment hearing. See AS 47.30.715 (“When a facility receives a proper 

order for evaluation, it shall accept the order and the respondent for an evaluation period 

not to exceed 72 hours. . . . The court shall set a date, time, and place for a 30-day 

commitment hearing, to be held if needed within 72 hours after the respondent’s 

arrival.”); AS 47.30.725 (describing respondents’ rights and respondent-notification 

requirements for involuntary detention under, among other statutes, AS 47.30.700). 

-4- 7324
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

contain the essence of the screening investigation.” The court concluded that neither 

AS 47.30.700 nor due process principles had been violated, and that testimony from the 

psychologist provided sufficient evidence to support the court’s probable cause finding. 

Paige moved for reconsideration and for an opportunity to supplement the record; this 

motion was also denied. Paige appeals the denial of both her motion to vacate and her 

motion to supplement the record. 

III. DISCUSSION 

Paige’s central arguments for reversal on appeal are: (1) that the superior 

court violated AS 47.30.700 and (2) that the court erred by concluding there was 

probable cause to order temporary hospitalization.7 In the alternative Paige argues that 

the case should be remanded with instructions that the trial court permit her to 

supplement the record. We reverse the superior court’s denial of Paige’s motion to 

vacate and thus do not address Paige’s alternative argument. And because we reverse 

on statutory grounds, we also do not address her probable cause arguments. 

Paige argues that the trial court violated AS 47.30.700 by not ensuring that 

a full screening investigation was conducted before it issued the order for her involuntary 

hospitalization. We agree. Alaska law provides two avenues for initiating involuntary 

hospitalization for a mental health evaluation — one for emergency situations and one 

for non-emergency circumstances. The emergency detention statute, AS 47.30.705, 

7 In her reply brief and at oral argument, Paige argued that the procedures 

followed in her case violated her right to due process. Because our decision rests on 

statutory grounds, it is not necessary to consider either the merits of this argument or 

whether it was waived for insufficient briefing. See In re Hospitalization of Heather R., 

366 P.3d 530, 533 n.17 (Alaska 2016) (vacating an evaluation order on statutory basis 

and therefore declining to address appellant’s due process argument). We also note that 

although we have stated that “[a]ppeals from evaluation orders are moot after the 

commitment period has expired,” the parties did not raise the issue in their briefs, and 

thus we do not address it here. Id. at 532. 

-5- 7324
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

authorizes a peace officer or a mental health professional granted authority by the statute 

to “cause [a respondent] to be taken into custody” without first petitioning a court. But 

the person who initiates this emergency procedure must have “probable cause to believe 

that [the respondent] is gravely disabled or is suffering from mental illness and is likely 

to cause serious harm to self or others of such immediate nature that considerations of 

safety do not allowinitiationofinvoluntary commitment procedures.”8 In this case Paige 

was not in custody when the petition for her involuntary hospitalization was filed, so the 

emergency detention statute did not apply. 

Alaska Statute 47.30.700 provides the second, non-emergency, avenue to 

initiate involuntary hospitalization for a mental health evaluation. It allows any adult to 

petition for involuntary hospitalization: 

Upon petition of any adult, a judge shall immediately conduct 

a screening investigation or direct a local mental health 

professional . . . to conduct a screening investigation of the 

person alleged to be mentally ill and, as a result of that 

condition, alleged to be gravely disabled or to present a 

likelihood of serious harm to self or others. Within 48 hours 

after the completion of the screening investigation, a judge 

may issue an ex parte order orally or in writing, stating that 

there is probable cause to believe the respondent is mentally 

ill and that condition causes the respondent to be gravely 

disabled or to present a likelihood of serious harm to self or 

others.[9] 

The statute identifies three key events that must occur before an individual may be 

involuntarily hospitalized. First an adult must petition a superior court for the 

respondent’s involuntary hospitalization. Second a judge or mental health professional 

must conduct a screening investigation to evaluate the allegations in the petition. Third 

8 AS 47.30.705. 

9 AS 47.30.700(a). 

-6- 7324 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the court must find probable cause that the respondent is mentally ill and that this mental 

illness causes the respondent to be gravely disabled or to present a likelihood of serious 

harm to self or others. Only then may a judge issue an ex parte order for the 

respondent’s involuntary hospitalization. 

Applying AS 47.30.700, the non-emergency statute, to this case, the court 

conducted an inadequate screening investigation in violation of that statute when, absent 

a finding that a post-petition interview was not reasonably possible, it did not require 

Paige to be interviewed as part of the investigation. Because this was not harmless error, 

we reverse. 

A. The Screening Investigation Statute Required A Post-Petition 

Interview With Paige If Reasonably Possible. 

We first interpreted the “screening investigation” language ofAS 47.30.700 

in In re Hospitalization of Heather R.10 In that case a patient appealed her hospitalization 

order, arguing that the court had violated AS 47.30.700 by failing to conduct a complete 

screening investigation before issuing the order.11 The court’s screening investigation 

had included neither an interview with the patient nor any attempt to ensure an interview 

was conducted.12 Relying on the language of AS 47.30.700 and AS 47.30.915, we held 

that “a screening investigation should omit an interview with the respondent only if such 

an interview would not be reasonably possible” and vacated the order authorizing the 

hospitalization.13 In re Heather R. confirms that a screening investigation should, if 

reasonably possible, include an interview with the respondent. 

10 366 P.3d 530 (Alaska 2016). 

11 Id. at 533. 

12 Id. 

13 Id. 

-7- 7324
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Paige contends that the superior court’s hearing did not comply with the 

screening investigation requirement of AS 47.30.700 because it included neither an 

interview with her nor a finding that such an interview was not reasonably possible. The 

State contends that the superior court satisfied the statutory requirements by relying on 

the psychologist’s petition, which it argues contained the equivalent of a screening 

investigation conducted by a mental health professional, including a respondent 

interview — the psychologist’s earlier conversation with Paige. The State further argues 

that the superior court was not required to conduct or direct a second investigation after 

establishing that the psychologist’s petition constituted the functional equivalent of a 

screening investigation. 

Ultimately at issue is whether, absent a finding that a post-petition 

respondent interview is not reasonably possible, AS 47.30.700’s screening investigation 

requirement can be satisfied with a pre-petition respondent interview. This is a question 

of statutory construction — a question of law to which “[t]his court applies its 

independent judgment.”14 “When reviewing questions of law, this court adopts ‘the rule 

of law most persuasive in light of precedent, reason, and policy.’ ”15 

“Interpretation of a statute begins with its text,”16 and the plain text of the 

two implicated statutes — AS 47.30.700 and AS 47.30.915(19) — indicates that a 

screening investigation must include, if possible, a post-petition interview with the 

respondent. The most natural reading of the phrase “[u]pon the petition” in 

14 Id. at531-32 (citing AlaskaConservation Found. v. PebbleLtd. P’ship,350 

P.3d 273, 279 (Alaska 2015)). 

15 Id. at 532 (quoting Nunamta Aulukestai v. State, Dep’t of Nat. Res., 351 

P.3d 1041, 1052 (Alaska 2015)). 

16 City of Valdez v. State, 372 P.3d 240, 249 (Alaska 2016) (citing City of 

Kenai v. Friends of the Recreation Ctr., Inc., 129 P.3d 452, 458-59 (Alaska 2006)). 

-8- 7324
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AS 47.30.700 suggests that the filing of a petition triggers the judge’s initiation of the 

screening investigation; thus the filing of a petition necessarily precedes an 

investigation.17 Furthermore AS 47.30.915 defines a “screening investigation” as “the 

investigation and review of facts that have been alleged to warrant emergency 

examination or treatment.”18 This wording further indicates that the screening 

investigation should occur after the petition has been filed. 

Alaska Statute 47.30.915 lists the components of a screening investigation, 

one of which is an “interview[] with . . . , if possible, the respondent.”19 This language 

indicates that a screening investigation should include an interview in all instances in 

which it is possible to conduct one.20 

Taken together the two statutes indicate that: (1) the required screening 

investigation should take place after a petition has been filed, and (2) the screening 

investigation should, if possible, include an interview with the respondent. Accordingly 

thestatutory languagesupportsPaige’sassertionthat acourt violates AS47.30.700 when 

it neither ensures that a post-petition interview with the respondent is conducted nor 

attempts to determine whether conducting such an interview would be reasonably 

possible. 

17 See Gov’t Emps. Ins. Co. v. Graham-Gonzalez, 107 P.3d 279, 284 (Alaska 

2005) (“In assessing statutorylanguage, ‘unlesswordshave acquiredapeculiar meaning, 

by virtue of statutory definition or judicial construction, they are to be construed in 

accordance with their common usage.’ ” (quoting Muller v. BP Expl. (Alaska) Inc., 923 

P.2d 783, 788 (Alaska 1996))). 

18 AS 47.30.915(19) (emphasis added). 

19 Id. 

20 See In re Heather R., 366 P.3d at 533. 

-9- 7324
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The State characterizes Paige’s textual interpretation as “overly formalistic 

and . . . not necessary to ensure fidelity to the statute’s purpose.” It is true that when 

interpreting statutes, we seek “to give effect to the legislature’s intent, with due regard 

for the meaning the statutory language conveys to others.”21 We have “rejected a 

mechanical application of the plain meaning rule in matters of statutory interpretation,”22 

instead “ ‘adopt[ing] a sliding scale approach,’ under which ‘[t]he plainer the statutory 

language is, the more convincing the evidence of contrary legislative purpose or intent 

must be.’ ”23 But the statutory language is clear in this case, and we see no indication of 

legislative purpose or intent compelling enough to depart from it. 

The overall statutory scheme supports our reading.24 It provides two 

avenues to initiate involuntary hospitalization for a mental health evaluation. In 

AS 47.30.705, the emergency detention avenue, the legislature provided a method for 

circumventing the screening investigation when necessary. This supports strict 

adherence to the screening investigation requirement set forth in AS 47.30.700, the nonemergency detention avenue; we need not read emergency procedures into the text of 

AS 47.30.700 when the legislature has already accounted for them elsewhere. 

21 Graham-Gonzalez, 107 P.3d at 284 (quoting Muller, 923 P.2d at 787). 

22 Id. (quoting Muller, 923 P.3d at 787). 

23 City of Kenai v. Friends of the Recreation Ctr., Inc., 129 P.3d 452, 459 

(Alaska 2006) (second alteration in original) (quoting Graham-Gonzalez, 107 P.3d at 

284). 

24 We sometimes consider the overall statutory scheme when interpreting 

specific language. See City of Valdez v. State, 372 P.3d 240, 249-51, 252-53 (Alaska 

2016). 

-10- 7324
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Policy considerations also do not counsel a more permissive reading of 

AS 47.30.700.25 The State argues that requiring post-petition interviews where 

reasonably possible “place[s] unwarranted demands on judicial resources.” But we are 

not convinced. The cost associated with post-petition interviews is minimal — in this 

case the court could have conducted a satisfactory interview simply by inviting Paige to 

attend and testify at the hearing.26 And the efforts a court must make to conduct an 

interview are not so extensive as to place a serious demand on judicial resources.27 

Moreover requiring post-petition interviews can reduce needless waste when the 

interview reveals that involuntary hospitalization is not necessary. And while it may 

seem wasteful or unnecessary to conduct a post-petition interview in some instances (for 

example where a pre-petition interview takes place the same day that a petition is filed), 

this downside is outweighed by the benefits of a bright-line rule requiring a post-petition 

interview where reasonably possible. Such a bright-line rule eliminates uncertainty 

about how recent a satisfactory interview must be, provides a check to ensure that the 

information from the interview is recent enough to be relevant, and preserves the 

screening investigation as a tool for evaluating the allegations of a petition at the time of 

its filing. 

Accordingly we hold that after a court is petitioned to involuntarily 

25 We have also looked to policy considerations to assist our interpretation of 

statutory language. See id. at 252-53. 

26 See In re Hospitalization of Heather R., 366 P.3d 530, 533 n.20 (Alaska 

2016) (“In this case, the master could have satisfied the statute by providing notice of the 

hearing to Heather and allowing her to appear and testify.”). 

27 We observed in In re Heather R. for example, that it may not be reasonably 

possible to obtain an interview if the respondent is incapacitated or unwilling to be 

interviewed — situations where the burden on the court to obtain an interview could 

indeed prove significant. See id. at 533. 

-11- 7324
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

hospitalize a respondent under AS 47.30.700, the court must either itself conduct a 

screening investigation or appoint a local mental health professional to do so. This 

screening investigation must include post-petition interviews with the person(s) making 

the allegations, any other significant witnesses, and if reasonably possible, the 

respondent.28 In Paige’s case the court did not appoint a mental health professional to 

conduct an investigation. And no one from the court tried to contact Paige to conduct 

a post-petition respondent interview. Without a finding that such an interview was not 

reasonably possible, Paige’s brief contact with the clinic several days before her 

involuntary hospitalization was not adequate to satisfy the screening investigation 

requirement. 

B.	 The Failure To Conduct An Adequate Screening Investigation Was 

Not Harmless Error. 

If a trial court errs, we then determine whether the error was harmless.29 

When there is minimal evidence for a ruling and the court’s error involves exclusion of 

pertinent evidence, we have held that the error was likely prejudicial and not harmless.30 

28	 AS 47.30.915(19); In re Heather R., 366 P.3d at 533. 

29 Alaska R. Civ. P. 61 (“[N]o error or defect in any ruling or order or in 

anything done or omitted by the court . . . is ground for granting a new trial or for setting 

aside a verdict or for vacating, modifying or otherwise disturbing a judgment or order, 

unless refusal to take such action appears to the court inconsistent with substantial 

justice.”); see also, e.g., Solomon v. Solomon, 420 P.3d 1234, 1242-43 (Alaska 2018) 

(conducting harmless error analysis before vacating the superior court’s domestic 

violence determination for failure to make adequate findings). 

30 See, e.g., In re Heather R., 366 P.3d at 533-34; Klawock Heenya Corp. v. 

Dawson Constr./Hank’s Excavation, 778 P.2d 219, 220-21 (Alaska 1989) (holding that 

superior court’s exclusion of evidence was not harmless error because the other evidence 

was “flimsy at best”). 

-12-	 7324
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In this case the evidence supporting the court’s findings was weak; the court’s failure to 

require a current interview of Paige therefore was not harmless error. 

First there was little support for the superior court’s finding that Paige was 

“gravely disabled.” Alaska Statute 47.30.915(9) defines a gravely disabled person as a 

person who is either (a) “in danger of physical harm arising from such complete neglect 

of . . . personal safety as to render serious accident, illness, or death highly probable”31 

or (b) in danger of “severe and abnormal mental, emotional, or physical distress.”32 But 

the court made no factual finding that Paige’s noncompliance with her treatment plan 

made it highly probable that serious harm would result from her alleged “history of 

passing out” — the only condition with which she was diagnosed that could plausibly 

support a conclusion she was in danger of “physical harm.” Moreover Paige in no way 

exhibited the level of “distress” we have associated with the definition of “gravely 

disabled” in AS 47.30.915(9)(B)33 — Paige previously had stated that she avoided 

treatment because of a toothache and she had made affirmative efforts to address her 

personal safety, scheduling medical and dental appointments for the week following the 

petition. At the November 1 hearing, the court acknowledged that Paige might be fine, 

expressing “concern [that] she’s at home, she has a toothache, she just doesn’t want to 

answer the door, but she’s feeling great.” Had Paige been interviewed after the petition 

was filed, this concern could have been addressed. 

31 AS 47.30.915(9)(A). 

32 AS 47.30.915(9)(B). 

33 See Wetherhorn v. Alaska Psychiatric Inst., 156 P.3d 371, 378 (Alaska 

2007) (construing “distress” as “a level of incapacity that prevents the person in question 

from being able to live safely outside of a controlled environment”). 

-13- 7324
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There was also little support for the superior court’s finding that Paige was 

likely to cause serious harm to herself within the statutory definition.34 There was no 

evidence indicating that she had recently “caused” or “attempted” such harm, and the 

evidence the State relies on to show that she had “threatened” such harm is ambiguous. 

The State contends that Paige’s alleged “chronic and recent” suicidal ideation in the 

preceding days leading up to November 1, along with her self-acknowledged tendency 

to isolateherselfwhen experiencing mental health crises, meantthat her withdrawal from 

treatment on November 1 “signaled an increased threat of suicidal behavior.” While this 

evidence may support a finding that Paige experienced suicidal ideation, it does not 

clearly establish that she threatened self-harm, as the statute required. 

The marginal evidence supporting the superior court’s probable cause 

findings thus establishes that the failure to conduct a post-petition interview with Paige 

“had a prejudicial effect on the outcome of the hearing.”35 

IV. CONCLUSION 

We therefore REVERSE the superior court’s decision denying Paige’s 

motion to vacate her hospitalization order. 

34 See AS 47.30.915(12)(A) (defining one who is “likely to cause serious 

harm” as a person who “poses a substantial risk of bodily harm to that person’s self, as 

manifested by recent behavior causing, attempting, or threatening that harm”). 

35 In re Heather R., 366 P.3d at 534. 

-14- 7324