IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON In the Matter ofthe Detention of E.M., STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent,

E.M., Appellant. No. 70864-3-1 DIVISION ONE CO CJ'i C/i C_.

-

.._ 

## UNPUBLISHED OPINION 5 "rz V? ~ 

### FILED: January 26, 2015 £> o.- Becker, J. — Where a court orders involuntary treatment with anti 

### psychotic medication and erroneously fails to strike the "substitutedjudgment" portion ofthe supporting findings of fact and conclusions of law,the inclusion of 

### that finding is harmless error if itdoes not materially affect the conclusions oflaw. We affirm. 

### This case arises out ofthe involuntary commitment of a minor, E.M. The 

### minorwas initially committed inApril 2013, at the age of 16. In May 2013, the 

### court signed an order releasing her to participate inoutpatient care. InJune 2013, the State filed a petition to revoke the order authorizing outpatient care on 

### the ground that E.M. had failed to comply with the terms of her release. In 

### conjunctionwith this revocation hearing, her treating psychiatrist at Children's Hospital petitioned for an order compelling the administration of an antipsychoticNo. 70864-3-1/2 medication. E.M. opposed compelled medication on the ground that she believed the medication did not help her. The trial court held a hearing on both 

### the revocation and the compelled medication petitions on August 16, 2013. At the conclusion ofthat hearing, the court revoked the order authorizing outpatient 

### care and granted the petition forcompelled medication. E.M. appeals only the order compelling medication. 

### Involuntarilycommitted patients have the right to refuse the administration 

### ofantipsychotic medication. RCW71.05.217; RCW71.34.370. The administration ofantipsychotic medication shall not be ordered unless the 

### petitioning party proves by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence that (1)there exists a compelling state interestthatjustifies overriding the patient's lack of consent to the administration of antipsychotic medications or electroconvulsant 

### therapy; (2) the proposed treatment is necessary and effective; and (3) medically acceptable alternative forms oftreatment are not available, have not been 

### successful, or are not likely to be effective. RCW71.05.217(7)(a). Ifa court enters an ordercompelling medication, it shall make specific findings of fact 

### concerning (i) the existence ofone or more compellingstate interests, (ii) the necessity and effectiveness of the treatment, and (iii) the person's desires regarding the proposed treatment. RCW71.05.217(7)(b). Ifthe patient is unable to make a rational and informeddecision about consenting to or refusing the proposed treatment, the court shall make a 

### substitutedjudgment for the patient as ifhe or she were competentto make such
a determination. RCW 71.05.217(7)(b).No. 70864-3-1/3 The court entered a compelled medication order and a separate document containing the court's findings offact and conclusions of law. The document containing the findings offact and conclusions of law appears to be a form document with blanks and boxes to be checked and filled in as appropriate inthe particular case. Among the findings on the form was one stating that the court was making a substitutedjudgment: The Respondent would consentto being treated with anti psychotic medication ifthe Respondent were capable of making a rational decision concerning treatment, and this Court is hereby substituting its judgmentfor that ofthe Respondent. E.M. contends this finding was erroneous because there was no evidence that she was incapable of making a rational and informedjudgment. E.M. asserts that the issue is not moot because it is capable of repetition yet evading review. The State does not argue that the case is moot. The State concedes thatthe substituted judgmentfinding was erroneous. Under RCW 71.05.217(7)(b), a trial court need not make a substituted 

### judgmentfinding inthe absence ofevidence thatthe respondent is incapable of making a rational decision concerning treatment. Such a finding is not necessary to support an order compelling administration of antipsychotic medication. Here, the record does not contain evidence that E.M. was unable to make a rational and informedjudgment. The conclusion of law supporting involuntary treatment does not mention substituted judgment. And the court's oral ruling does not 

### reflect any intention by the courtto findthat E.M. was incapable of making a rational decision orto substitute the court'sjudgmentfor E.M.'s.No. 70864-3-1/4 

### We are satisfied that the trialjudge inadvertently failed to strike an unnecessary finding from a form document submitted by the State. We accept the State's concession thatthe substitutedjudgmentfinding is erroneous. E.M. contends the error requires that the order compelling medication be vacated. The State contends the order can be affirmed because the error was 

### harmless. An erroneous finding offact not materially affecting the conclusions of law is not prejudicial and is therefore harmless error. State v. Caldera. 66 Wn. App. 548, 551, 832 P.2d 139 (1992), citing In re Bailey's Estate. 178 Wash. 173, 

### 176, 34 P.2d 448 (1934). Because the substitutedjudgmentfinding did not materially affect the conclusions of law, the error was harmless. Affirmed. 

# %ecl£<e

WE CONCUR: 

### <^f/^^> \„>NJ \, ) /T\ W<- <SI^.t^y