file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/00-144%20Opinion.htm

No. 00-144 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

2001 MT 140 

IN THE MATTER OF 

THE MENTAL HEALTH OF K.G.F.

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the First Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Lewis and Clark,

The Honorable Dorothy McCarter, Judge presiding.

COUNSEL OF RECORD:

For Appellant:

Allen Smith, Jr., Helena, Montana

For Respondent:

Joseph P. Mazurek, Montana Attorney General, Tammy K. Plubell, Assistant Montana Attorney 

General, Helena, Montana; Mike McGrath, Lewis and Clark County Attorney, Michael Menahan, 

Deputy Lewis and Clark County Attorney, Helena, Montana

Submitted on Briefs: November 9, 2000 

Decided: August 2, 2001

Filed:

__________________________________________

Clerk

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/00-144%20Opinion.htm (1 of 28)1/18/2007 10:10:37 AM
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/00-144%20Opinion.htm

Justice James C. Nelson delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶1 K.G.F(1). appeals the order entered by the First Judicial District Court, Lewis and Clark 

County, that involuntarily committed her to a mental health facility. K.G.F. contends that 

she was denied effective assistance of counsel during the course of the commitment 

proceedings. 

¶2 We reverse and remand for further proceedings. 

¶3 K.G.F. raises the following issue:

Did her counsel render ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of her rights 

guaranteed under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and 

Article II, Section 24, of the Montana Constitution?

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶4 It is undisputed that the condition of K.G.F.'s mental health in October of 1999, reached 

a critical point that led her to voluntarily seek treatment at St. Peter's Community Hospital 

in Helena, Montana. She was admitted into the hospital on October 21, 1999. 

¶5 K.G.F. is afflicted with bipolar disorder or what is oftentimes referred to as manicdepressive illness. The disorder is a biochemical imbalance that causes gross mood 

changes from the high reaches of mania to the lows of severe depression. K.G.F.'s disorder 

has been diagnosed as "mixed rapid cycling." The term "mixed" identifies a particular 

kind of bipolar episode that features both mania and depression. The term "rapid cycling" 

generally refers to frequent severe episodes of depression and mania. 

¶6 Up until her hospitalization, K.G.F. controlled her disorder with medication and was 

under psychiatric care. At the time she entered the hospital, K.G.F. had apparently "fired" 

her treating psychiatrist and was suicidal, which is not an uncommon symptom of a person 

afflicted with her kind and degree of bipolar disorder. She has a medical history of prior 

hospitalizations and episodes of suicidal behavior. Testimony herein indicates that K.G.F. 

did not take any affirmative steps in attempting suicide beyond threatening to do so while 

voluntarily committed at the hospital. Although not entirely clear, hearing testimony as 

well as a medical "professional person's" report indicate that there were actual suicide 

attempts in the past, one as recent as June of 1999.

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/00-144%20Opinion.htm (2 of 28)1/18/2007 10:10:37 AM
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/00-144%20Opinion.htm

¶7 After her admission, K.G.F. disagreed with the medications prescribed for her and 

refused to take those medications. It is undisputed that she is intelligent, and quite adept at 

understanding the medications she takes in relation to managing her disorder. Against 

medical advice, she requested that she be released from the hospital. By the time of her 

commitment hearing, however, she was apparently willing to take her medication and 

apparently willing to undergo further voluntary commitment if necessary.

¶8 On October 26, 1999, a deputy county attorney filed a petition with the District Court 

"alleging mental disorder that requires commitment." The petition relied on the findings 

and request made by a case coordinator, Nancy McVean, at St. Peter's who was also a 

certified "professional person" under § 53-21-106, MCA. The primary focus and concern 

was that K.G.F. planned to commit suicide, and that once released from the hospital she 

would implement her plan. The petition also reported that K.G.F. was indigent and 

therefore unable to afford an attorney, and that she was "presently detained" at the 

hospital. The petition requested that K.G.F. be held at the hospital for further evaluation 

and treatment until a commitment hearing took place. 

¶9 That same day, the District Court issued an order finding probable cause that K.G.F. 

had a mental disorder requiring commitment. Counsel was appointed pursuant to this 

order. An initial appearance took place later that same day some time in the afternoon, 

according to a court reporter minute entry. At that time, with counsel present, K.G.F.'s 

constitutional rights were explained to her as well as the substantive effects of the petition. 

A hearing was set for the next morning, on October 27, 1999, at 11:30 a.m.

¶10 Two medical professionals were called to testify at the hearing the next day, one by 

the State and one by counsel for K.G.F. Both experts had interviewed K.G.F. and 

reviewed her records. K.G.F. was also called to testify. Although present at the hearing, K.

G.F.'s husband was not called to testify. 

¶11 McVean, the case coordinator who had requested the petition and who in turn served 

as a "professional person" as required by law, recommended that based on her interview 

with K.G.F., K.G.F. should be committed to a community facility, as opposed to the State 

Hospital at Warm Springs. 

¶12 Nancy Adams, who had spent approximately one hour with K.G.F. the day before, 

recommended that K.G.F. remain in the hospital for a few days, so that a communitybased treatment plan in Bozeman--nearer to where K.G.F. lived--could be arranged. She 

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/00-144%20Opinion.htm (3 of 28)1/18/2007 10:10:37 AM
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/00-144%20Opinion.htm

testified that "being pulled away from her closest support, her husband, and staying in a 

strange place might do more harm than good."

¶13 K.G.F. was called to testify on her own behalf. She agreed that the Bozeman option 

would be best for her, and explained that she had private financial and insurance resources 

to cover the expenses. She further testified that "my husband is there and he is with me 

every night and every morning." She indicated that she would voluntarily remain at the St. 

Peter's facility until such arrangements could be worked out. 

¶14 The court issued its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order that day following 

the hearing. The court then issued an amended findings of fact, conclusions of law, and 

order on November 2, 1999. The latter struck one finding, and was otherwise identical to 

the prior order. 

¶15 The court found that K.G.F., while at St. Peter's Hospital, "began to refuse 

medications and desired to sign out against medical advice." Upon finding that K.G.F. 

suffered from bipolar disorder "mixed" and that she was an "imminent threat of injury to 

herself," the court ordered that she be committed to Golden Triangle Mental Health, in 

Helena, for a period of 90 days for "care, treatment and evaluation of the respondent's 

mental health needs . . ."

¶16 K.G.F. appeals the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order on the grounds she 

received ineffective assistance of counsel at the hearing. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶17 Our review of the constitutional issues of due process and right to counsel involves 

questions of law and our review of such questions is plenary. See Pickens v. SheltonThompson, 2000 MT 131, ¶¶ 7-8, 300 Mont. 16, ¶¶ 7-8, 3 P.3d 603, ¶¶ 7-8; State v. 

Okland (1997), 283 Mont. 10, 14, 941 P.2d 431, 433.

DISCUSSION

¶18 As a preliminary matter, we agree with K.G.F.'s contention that this controversy is not 

moot, even though K.G.F. is no longer subject to the 90-day commitment order. Although 

the issue of mootness was not contested by the State, we nevertheless emphasize that the 

issue was resolved by this Court some time ago, in In re N.B. (1980), 190 Mont. 319, 620 

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/00-144%20Opinion.htm (4 of 28)1/18/2007 10:10:37 AM
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/00-144%20Opinion.htm

P.2d 1228 (superseded in part by statute as stated in In re J.M. (1985), 217 Mont. 300, 304-

05, 704 P.2d 1037, 1040).

¶19 Our reasoning there, as here, was that this Court "reserves to itself the power to 

examine constitutional issues that involve the broad public concerns to avoid future 

litigation on a point of law." In re N.B., 190 Mont. at 322-23, 620 P.2d at 1230-31 

(concluding important constitutional questions were not rendered moot by patient's release 

from Warm Springs mental health facility and observing that approximately 100 

Montanans each year are involuntarily committed for three months of treatment and 

evaluation in that facility).

¶20 Thus, we conclude that the claimed constitutional right to effective assistance of 

counsel in civil involuntary commitment proceedings is "capable of repetition, yet evading 

review." Heisler v. Hines Motor Co. (1997), 282 Mont. 270, 275-76, 937 P.2d 45, 48 

(setting forth mootness standard). Accordingly, we proceed to the issue raised. 

ISSUE PRESENTED

Did K.G.F.'s counsel render ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of her 

rights guaranteed under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and 

Article II, Section 24, of the Montana Constitution?

¶21 K.G.F. argues that although she was appointed counsel by the District Court, her 

constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel was denied during the course of her 

involuntary commitment proceedings. 

¶22 K.G.F. reasons that this claimed right exists because the involuntary civil commitment 

process may deprive an individual of his or her liberty, and therefore should be likened to 

criminal custody and incarceration. She contends, therefore, that her constitutional right to 

effective assistance of counsel flows from both the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. 

Constitution and Article II, Section 24, of the Montana Constitution, and must be 

scrutinized pursuant to this Court's application of the Strickland test. 

¶23 The State and Amicus(2) contend that the foregoing constitutional protections afforded 

individuals in criminal proceedings are not appropriate for the "unique legal undertaking" 

of a civil commitment proceeding. K.G.F., as an alternative position, concurs with this due 

process argument. 

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/00-144%20Opinion.htm (5 of 28)1/18/2007 10:10:37 AM
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/00-144%20Opinion.htm

¶24 Although clearly not agreeing as to what should constitute a standard of 

"effectiveness," K.G.F., the State, and Amicus urge this Court to turn to the foundation of 

the due process clause under either the federal or our state constitution, and construct an 

appropriate standard for ensuring the "fundamental fairness" of civil commitment 

proceedings. See In re W.M. (1992), 252 Mont. 225, 229, 828 P.2d 378, 381 (stating that 

civil commitment for any purpose constitutes a significant deprivation of liberty that 

requires due process protection, and citing Addington v. Texas (1979), 441 U.S. 418, 425, 

99 S.Ct. 1804, 1809, 60 L.Ed.2d 323, 330-31); In re Shennum (1984), 210 Mont. 442, 450-

51, 684 P.2d 1073, 1078 (stating that procedural safeguards in commitment cases were 

"inserted by the Legislature because of the calamitous effect of a commitment: a 

deprivation of a person's liberty for up to three months . . . and the inevitable damage to a 

person's reputation"). See also Foucha v. Louisiana (1992), 504 U.S. 71, 80, 112 S.Ct. 

1780, 1785 (stating that freedom from bodily restraint has always been at the core of the 

liberty protected by the due process clause from arbitrary governmental action); Mathews 

v. Eldridge (1976), 424 U.S. 319, 334, 96 S.Ct. 893, 902, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (stating that due 

process is "flexible and calls for such procedural protections as the particular situation 

demands"). 

¶25 This Court has not previously addressed whether a person subjected to an involuntary 

commitment proceeding has a constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel, and, if 

so, how such effectiveness should be measured.(3)

A. The right to effective assistance of counsel

¶26 Involuntary civil commitments in Montana are governed by Title 53, Chapter 21, 

MCA (codified in 1975). Our initial review of this matter is guided by § 53-21-101(4), 

MCA, which expressly provides that one purpose of our laws governing the treatment of 

"seriously mentally ill" persons is to "ensure that due process of law is accorded any 

person coming under the provisions of this part." Further, under § 53-21-115, MCA, a 

person who is involuntarily detained or against whom a commitment petition is filed is 

expressly afforded numerous due process rights including the right to be represented by 

counsel. See § 53-21-115(5), MCA; § 53-21-116, MCA (judge shall appoint attorney if 

person has no attorney).(4) See also § 53-21-119(1), MCA (right to counsel may not be 

waived).

¶27 In turn, the foregoing statutory rights explicitly and implicitly garner protection under 

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/00-144%20Opinion.htm (6 of 28)1/18/2007 10:10:37 AM
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/00-144%20Opinion.htm

both the federal and the Montana constitutions. We disagree with K.G.F., however, that 

the protection of those rights flows from the express constitutional provisions addressing 

persons subject to criminal prosecution. 

¶28 The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that in all criminal

prosecutions, the accused shall have the assistance of counsel. Similarly, under Article II, 

Section 24, of the Montana Constitution, the accused in all "criminal prosecutions" shall 

have the right to appear and defend in person and by counsel. Where a criminal defendant 

claims his or her constitutional right to effective counsel has been violated, this Court 

applies the two-part Strickland test, derived from the U.S. Supreme Court decision in 

Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674. See, e.g., 

State v. Berg, 1999 MT 282, ¶ 28, 296 Mont. 546, ¶ 28, 991 P.2d 428, ¶ 28 (identifying 

two-prong Strickland ineffective assistance of counsel test as (1) whether counsel acted 

within the range of competence demanded of attorneys in criminal cases and (2) whether 

counsel's deficient performance prejudiced the defense so as to deny the defendant a fair 

trial). 

¶29 As argued by K.G.F., at least one other state appellate court has adopted and applied 

Strickland to the involuntary civil commitment process in order to secure an individual's 

rights to due process. See In re Carmody (Ill.App.Ct. 1995), 653 N.E.2d 977. 

¶30 We agree with the Carmody court to the extent it reasoned that where a state statute 

affords an individual subject to involuntary commitment with the right to counsel, the 

legislature could not have intended that counsel could be prejudicially ineffective. See

Carmody, 653 N.E.2d at 983 (holding that the State's statutorily providing a respondent in 

an involuntary commitment proceeding with the right to counsel implicitly includes the 

right to the effective assistance of that counsel, and citing to Strickland). See also In re 

Commitment of Hutchinson (Penn. 1982), 454 A.2d 1008, 1011 (holding that an alleged 

mental incompetent is entitled to effective representation by competent counsel). 

¶31 Therefore, we hold that the right to counsel, as provided under our Title 53, Chapter 

21 statutes, provides an individual subject to an involuntary commitment proceeding the 

right to effective assistance of counsel. In turn, this right affords the individual with the 

right to raise the allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel in challenging a 

commitment order. 

¶32 The fundamental question that must be resolved, as addressed by the parties and 

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/00-144%20Opinion.htm (7 of 28)1/18/2007 10:10:37 AM
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/00-144%20Opinion.htm

Amicus, is how effective counsel must be when representing an individual who is facing 

an involuntary commitment.

B. The Strickland standard is an inappropriate threshold 

¶33 Although in numerous respects the procedural due process rights of an involuntary 

commitment patient-respondent are identical to those afforded an accused criminal 

defendant, we disagree with K.G.F. and the Carmody court that the application of the 

Strickland standard is appropriate in involuntary civil commitment proceedings. We 

conclude that the standard under Strickland simply does not go far enough to protect the 

liberty interests of individuals such as K.G.F., who may or may not have broken any law, 

but who, upon the expiration of a 90-day commitment, must indefinitely bear the badge of 

inferiority of a once "involuntarily committed" person with a proven mental disorder.(5)

¶34 The Strickland decision, for example, provides that a court "must indulge a strong 

presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional 

assistance; that is, the defendant must overcome the presumption that, under the 

circumstances, the challenged action might be considered sound trial strategy." See 

Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689, 104 S.Ct. at 2065 (citation and internal quotations omitted).

See also State v. Hanson (1997), 283 Mont. 316, 327, 940 P.2d 1166, 1173 (quoting from 

Strickland, and observing U.S. Supreme Court's warning that courts should be "highly 

deferential" when second guessing counsel's assistance).

¶35 Even a cursory review of legal commentary reveals the flawed reasoning of applying 

the foregoing Strickland standard to involuntary civil commitment proceedings. Namely, 

"reasonable professional assistance" cannot be presumed in a proceeding that routinely 

accepts--and even requires--an unreasonably low standard of legal assistance and 

generally disdains zealous, adversarial confrontation. See generally Michael L. Perlin, 

Fatal Assumption: A Critical Evaluation of the Role of Counsel in Mental Disability 

Cases, 16 Law & Hum. Behav. 39, 53-54 (1992) (identifying Strickland standard as 

"sterile and perfunctory" where "reasonably effective assistance" is objectively measured 

by the "prevailing professional norms") (hereinafter Perlin). 

¶36 Further, we disagree with the Carmody court's Strickland analysis indicating that in 

involuntary commitment proceedings "no issues are likely to arise regarding respondent's 

counsel's failure to adequately investigate or prepare for trial, or counsel's failure to pursue 

defenses or witnesses as suggested by his client." See Carmody, 653 N.E.2d at 984-85. To 

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/00-144%20Opinion.htm (8 of 28)1/18/2007 10:10:37 AM
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/00-144%20Opinion.htm

the contrary, the conduct of counsel during those few available hours prior to an 

involuntary commitment hearing or trial should be a key focal point of the inquiry as to 

whether the counsel's representation was effective. 

¶37 To this extent we disagree with K.G.F. that the "most startling evidence that counsel's 

deficient performance prejudiced [K.G.F.] was counsel's failure to object to hearsay 

testimony." The weight of one missed objection to questionable testimony at a hearing is 

minuscule in comparison to the failure to fully investigate and comprehend a patient's 

circumstances prior to an involuntary civil commitment hearing or trial, which may, in 

turn, lead to critical decision-making between counsel and client as to how best to 

proceed. Such pre-hearing matters, which shall be discussed infra, clearly involve 

effective preparation prior to a hearing or trial. 

¶38 We also agree with Amicus that the Strickland burden of proving that counsel's 

"deficient performance prejudiced the defense so as to deny the defendant a fair trial," is 

contrary to our prior case law that mandates that unless civil commitment laws are strictly 

followed, a commitment order must be reversed. See, e.g., In re Morlock (1993), 261 

Mont. 499, 501, 862 P.2d 415, 416 (citations omitted). This argument is also raised by K.

G.F., in alternatively arguing that a non-Strickland due process analysis would find 

counsel ineffective here as well. 

¶39 Finally, we agree with the State and Amicus that the 6th Amendment to the U.S. 

Constitution, and Article II, Section 24, pertain to criminal proceedings alone, and that 

although affording an individual with certain "criminal" due process rights, the 

involuntary commitment process does not invoke those constitutional provisions. See § 53-

21-115(6), MCA (person has the right to remain silent) and compare with § 53-21-115(7), 

MCA (hearing governed by rules of evidence applicable to civil matters); § 53-21-126(3), 

MCA (proceedings governed by Montana Rules of Civil Procedure). See also § 53-21-126

(2), MCA (providing hybrid standards of proof at civil commitment trials or hearings: 

"beyond a reasonable doubt" and "clear and convincing evidence"). 

¶40 Thus, we turn as suggested by the State and Amicus, to the due process clause of the 

Montana Constitution. 

C. Due process and fundamental rights

¶41 Under Article II, Section 17, the Montana Constitution provides that "No person shall 

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/00-144%20Opinion.htm (9 of 28)1/18/2007 10:10:37 AM
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/00-144%20Opinion.htm

be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." 

¶42 As a starting point, it is safe to say that in purportedly protecting the due process 

rights of an individual subject to an involuntary commitment proceeding--whereby 

counsel typically has less than 24 hours to prepare for a hearing on a State petition that 

seeks to sever or infringe upon the individual's relations with family, friends, physicians, 

and employment for three months or longer(6)--our legal system of judges, lawyers, and 

clinicians has seemingly lost its way in vigilantly protecting the fundamental rights of 

such individuals. See In re Mental Health of L.C.B. (1992), 253 Mont. 1, 7, 830 P.2d 1299, 

1303 (stating that courts must safeguard the due process rights of the individual involved 

at every stage of the proceedings); In re J.B. (1985), 217 Mont. 504, 511, 705 P.2d 598, 

603 (stating that the discharge of judicial responsibility includes rigorous application of 

statutory mandates) (Morrison, J., dissenting).

¶43 In the case sub judice, for example, the public defender appointed to represent K.G.F. 

had, from the close of the initial appearance to the commencement of the commitment 

hearing, at best four or five working hours--amidst his usual case load of criminal matters--

to prepare for what can only be described as a perfunctory process that lasted minutes.

¶44 Our Legislature has, however, expressly provided that an individual who may be 

suffering from a mental disorder and who, as a result, may be involuntarily committed 

must be afforded care and treatment that fully respects that person's "dignity and personal 

integrity." See § 53-21-101(1), MCA. Once admitted to a mental health facility, whether 

voluntarily or involuntarily, a patient has the right to "privacy and dignity," under § 53-21-

142(1), MCA. These legislative mandates, in turn, invoke fundamental rights under our 

state constitution.

¶45 Respect for a person's dignity invokes Article II, Section 4, under this state's 

constitution, which provides that "dignity of the human being is inviolable." See

Armstrong v. State, 1999 MT 261, ¶ 72, 296 Mont. 361, ¶ 72, 989 P.2d 364, ¶ 72 (stating 

that "[r]espect for the dignity of each individual--a fundamental right, protected by Article 

II, Section 4 of the Montana Constitution--demands that people have for themselves the 

moral right and moral responsibility to confront the most fundamental questions about the 

meaning and value of their own lives and the intrinsic value of life in general, answering 

to their own consciences and convictions"). 

¶46 One example of respect for a patient-respondent's dignity, as provided by the 

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/00-144%20Opinion.htm (10 of 28)1/18/2007 10:10:37 AM
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/00-144%20Opinion.htm

Legislature under Title 53, Chapter 21, is the requirement that the person has a right "to be 

dressed in the person's own clothes at any hearing held pursuant to this part." See § 53-21-

115(10), MCA. Implicit under Title 53, Chapter 21, is also the notion that the hearing shall 

be conducted in court, not in a mental health facility, which enhances the dignity afforded 

to the individual. See §§ 53-21-115(2) and 116, MCA (respondent has the right to be 

present in any hearing or trial); § 53-21-119(2), MCA (affording respondent the right to 

waive presence at hearing and indicating an "alternative location" for a hearing in 

"surroundings familiar to the respondent" may be appropriate).(7)

¶47 In Armstrong, this Court identified an individual's medical decisions affecting "bodily 

integrity" as a fundamental right under the personal autonomy component of the 

constitutional right to privacy set out in Article II, Section 10, of the Montana 

Constitution. See Armstrong, ¶ 39. Respect for a patient-respondent's medical-decision 

personal autonomy has likewise been expressed by our Legislature under § 53-21-115(11) 

and (12), MCA, which provide that a person has the right to either refuse or voluntarily 

take medications prior to any hearing, and the right to be examined by a professional 

person of the respondent's choice, under §§ 53-21-115(9) and 53-21-124(3), MCA.

¶48 That these fundamental constitutional rights are at issue during all phases of the 

involuntary commitment process, including prior to a hearing when counsel is either 

appointed or obtained, is self evident. Thus, we agree that the "[q]uality counsel provides 

the most likely way--perhaps the only likely way" to ensure the due process protection of 

dignity and privacy interests in cases such as the one at bar. See Perlin, at 47.

¶49 Therefore, in reviewing the procedural circumstances set forth here for whether K.G.

F. was afforded effective assistance of counsel, we must address the obvious systemic 

failure of the involuntary civil commitment hearing process itself. In doing so, we 

emphasize that what follows is not meant as a per se indictment of the individual counsel 

here or appointed counsel in these matters in general; nor is it a tacit censure of the 

individual professionals involved, who undoubtedly have sound therapeutic objectives in 

mind. Rather, our aim is on the failure of the system as a whole, one that through the 

ordinary course of the efficient administration of a legal process threatens to supplant an 

individual's due process rights that serve to safeguard the fundamental liberty interests 

discussed thus far. 

¶50 Accordingly, while we may draw from the collective jurisprudence of both federal and 

other state's decisions and statutes, as well as an array of thoughtful commentary by 

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/00-144%20Opinion.htm (11 of 28)1/18/2007 10:10:37 AM
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/00-144%20Opinion.htm

scholars and practitioners, we must nevertheless articulate a guiding standard that 

comports with Montana's unique constitutional and statutory framework, one that protects 

the fundamental rights of individuals whose liberty is placed at issue by State action. 

D. Individual liberty and the parens patriae doctrine

¶51 In articulating a standard for effective counsel, it is necessary to recognize and dispel 

certain stereotypes that serve only to frustrate the legal process that purports to secure the 

skillful and humane care and treatment of individuals suffering from mental disorders. 

¶52 In this regard, our citation to the California Supreme Court's decision, 

Conservatorship of Roulet (Cal. 1979), 590 P.2d 1, in In re Shennum (1984), 210 Mont. 

442, 451, 684 P.2d 1073, 1078, is significant. In Shennum, we voiced the same concerns 

addressed by the California court in its landmark decision. See In re Shennum, 210 Mont. 

at 450-51, 684 P.2d at 1078 (stating that the Roulet court "nailed it down" in addressing 

the detrimental deprivation of a person's liberty and the inevitable damage to a person's 

reputation that may result from a civil commitment). 

¶53 Although decided more than 20 years ago, the Roulet court's recognition that society 

"views the mentally ill with suspicion" is still relevant today. See Roulet, 590 P.2d at 6. 

Due to the potentially "socially debilitating" stigma that results from the "irrational fear of 

the mentally ill," the court posited that "[i]t is implausible that a person labeled by the state 

as so totally ill could go about, after his release, seeking employment, applying to schools, 

or meeting old acquaintances with his reputation fully intact." Roulet, 590 P.2d at 7. Thus, 

the "former mental patient is likely to be treated with distrust and even loathing; he may 

be socially ostracized and victimized by employment and educational discrimination . . . 

the experience may cause him to lose self-confidence and self-esteem." Roulet, 590 P.2d 

at 7.

¶54 Our review of current literature concerning the treatment of the mentally ill as 

presented by Amicus leads us to once again agree with the California court that "[i]n the 

ideal society, the mentally ill would be the subjects of understanding and compassion 

rather than ignorance and aversion . . . . [b]ut that enlightened view, unfortunately, does 

not yet prevail." Roulet, 590 P.2d at 6. 

¶55 Nevertheless, as suggested by Amicus, we are mindful that such ideals as 

understanding and compassion are expressed in the Montana Constitution's Declaration of 

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/00-144%20Opinion.htm (12 of 28)1/18/2007 10:10:37 AM
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/00-144%20Opinion.htm

Rights, as well as under Title 53, Chapter 21, as discussed thus far. See, e.g., Matthew O. 

Clifford & Thomas P. Huff, Some Thoughts on the Meaning and Scope of the Montana 

Constitution's "Dignity" Clause with Possible Applications, 61 Mont.L.Rev. 301, 330-32 

(2000) (discussing application of the dignity clause to treatment of persons under State 

supervision: "[i]t is natural to speak of the inherent dignity of such . . . mentally ill 

persons, and to speak of the requirements that such vulnerable persons be treated with 

dignity"); Armstrong, ¶ 39 (discussing the right of each individual to make medical 

judgments affecting her or his bodily integrity and health in partnership with a chosen 

health care provider free from the interference of the government). 

¶56 Amicus addresses this very point in contending that because the fundamental rights 

attached to decisions within the "provider-patient relationship" may be overridden by the 

State's parens patriae duties and police power authority, the role of counsel is all the more 

critical where a patient may be involuntarily committed. The threats to individual liberty 

posed by involuntary commitment, according to Amicus, arise at a time "when the 

individual with a mental illness is least able to defend against them--during a time of 

crisis, confusion, fatigue." See also Bruce J. Winick, Therapeutic Jurisprudence and the 

Civil Commitment Hearing, 10 J. Contem. Legal Issues 37, 44-45 (1999) (observing that 

"[p]erhaps nothing can threaten a person's belief that he or she is an equal member of 

society as much as being subjected to a civil commitment hearing" and when "legal 

proceedings do not treat people with dignity, they feel devalued as members of society") 

(hereinafter Winick).

¶57 We therefore question the State's contentions regarding how much process is due to K.

G.F. with regard to effective counsel. 

¶58 According to the State, this Court should keep its sights clearly focussed on the 

balance between the State's duties under the parens patriae doctrine--i.e., the 

"humanitarian" or benevolent obligation to protect those citizens unable to protect 

themselves--and the exercise of police power to protect the general public health, safety, 

welfare and morals from the "imminent threat" of injury from persons afflicted by mental 

disorders. See In re Sonsteng (1977), 175 Mont. 307, 314, 573 P.2d 1149, 1153-54. See 

also In re J.B. (1985), 217 Mont. 504, 509-10, 705 P.2d 598, 602 (stating that "the 

legislature never intended that blood of innocent people must first be shed before the 

statutory definition of 'overt act' has been satisfied"). 

¶59 The Sonsteng decision cited by the State in this regard is particularly instructive. In 

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/00-144%20Opinion.htm (13 of 28)1/18/2007 10:10:37 AM
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/00-144%20Opinion.htm

spite of scientific and social advances in our understanding and treatment of individuals 

with mental disorders in recent years--as expressed by the policy set forth under § 53-21-

101, MCA--the Court in Sonsteng gave voice to the all-too-familiar common law notion 

that the State, in its sovereign role as "father of the country," retains the authority to "act 

as the general guardian of all . . . idiots and lunatics." In re Sonsteng, 175 Mont. at 314, 

573 P.2d at 1153 (citing and quoting Hawaii v. Standard Oil Co., 405 U.S. 251, 257, 92 S.

Ct. 885, 888, 31 L.Ed.2d 184 (1972)). 

¶60 The use of such stereotypical labels--which, as numerous commentators point out, 

helps create and reinforce an inferior second-class of citizens--is emblematic of the benign 

prejudice individuals with mental illnesses face, and which are, we conclude, repugnant to 

our state constitution.(8) See generally Michael L. Perlin, On "Sanism," 46 SMU L. Rev. 

373, 374 (1992) (identifying prejudice toward the mentally ill among "well-meaning 

citizens" as the same "quality and character of other prevailing prejudices such as racism, 

sexism, heterosexism and ethnic bigotry," which in turn is reflected in our legal system); 

Winick, at 45 (stating that because people with a mental illness "already have been 

marginalized and stigmatized by a variety of social mechanisms, self-respect and their 

sense of their value as members of society are of special importance to them" throughout 

legal proceedings). 

¶61 Nevertheless, our concept of due process regarding state action involuntarily imposed 

on individuals with mental disorders has surely progressed since the U.S. Supreme Court's 

decision in Buck v. Bell. In that case, Justice Holmes described a "feeble-minded white 

woman," who was the daughter of a "feeble-minded mother" and the mother of an 

"illegitimate feeble-minded child." The Court declared that the woman, who was 

committed to the "State Colony for Epileptics and Feeble Minded," could be involuntarily 

sterilized in the "best interest of the patients and of society" because:

It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for 

crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are 

manifestly unfit from continuing their kind . . . . Three generations of imbeciles are 

enough.

Buck v. Bell (1927), 274 U.S. 200, 205-207, 47 S.Ct. 584, 584-85, 71 L.Ed. 1000 (Holmes, J.).(9)

¶62 However enlightened we, as a society, may have become in the intervening 75 years 

since Buck v. Bell, we must nevertheless be cautious and critical of signs of paternalism 

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/00-144%20Opinion.htm (14 of 28)1/18/2007 10:10:37 AM
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/00-144%20Opinion.htm

legitimized by the parens patriae doctrine, where State actors purport to have an absolute 

understanding of what is in the best interests of an individual, whose liberty, dignity and 

privacy are at issue, and whose voice is muted by the swift and overriding authority of 

court-appointed professionals. See generally In re J.B, 217 Mont. at 511, 705 P.2d at 603 

(stating that although the evidence against J.B. proved him to be "bizarre," the decision of 

the majority "sets a dangerous precedent for incarceration of those deemed to be 

different") (Morrison, J., dissenting). As Justice Brandeis cautioned in Olmstead v. United 

States, "[e]xperience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the 

government's purposes are beneficent." Olmstead v. United States (1928), 277 U.S. 438, 

479, 48 S.Ct. 564, 572-73, 72 L.Ed. 944 (Brandeis, J., dissenting). See also Roulet, 590 

P.2d at 9 (stating that "[i]t would be small solace to a person wrongly judged mentally 

incompetent that his road to commitment was paved with good intentions"). 

¶63 We must recognize, after all, that an involuntary commitment is supposed to help, not 

punish, the person who "may be suffering from a mental disorder." See § 53-21-101, 

MCA. See also Addington v. Texas (1979), 441 U.S. 418, 428, 99 S.Ct. 1804, 1810, 60 L.

Ed.2d 323 (providing that a state's power in a civil commitment proceeding, as opposed to 

a criminal prosecution, is not exercised in a punitive sense). As discussed by numerous 

scholars, the legislated involuntary commitment process must, as a matter of public policy, 

strive to maintain the "therapeutic influence" of the legal system on the individual. See 

generally Winick, at 52-60 (discussing the need to "reconceptualize" the attorney-client 

relationship in civil commitment proceedings to "augment the potential therapeutic 

effects"). However, as argued by Amicus, rather than helping the individual afflicted with 

a mental disorder, the legal system's paternalistic influence too often turns such 

individuals away from seeking treatment due to the imminent fear of involuntary 

commitment. See National Institute for Mental Health, U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services, Mental Health: A Report of the Surgeon General, at 457 (1999) (stating 

that "[o]ne point is clear: the need for coercion should be reduced significantly when 

adequate services are readily accessible to individuals with severe mental disorders who 

pose a threat of danger to themselves or others" and that "coercion should not be a 

substitute for effective care that is sought voluntarily"). 

¶64 Thus, with the foregoing in mind, it is imperative that we construct a constitutionally 

sound framework detailing the deliberate steps counsel should take to effectively protect 

his or her client's best interests--in particular the liberty interests addressed herein--and 

ensure that the client receives a formal and fair adversarial hearing at which the State 

bears the burden of proof. See § 53-21-126(2), MCA; Winick, at 40. 

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/00-144%20Opinion.htm (15 of 28)1/18/2007 10:10:37 AM
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/00-144%20Opinion.htm

¶65 Further, it is incumbent upon courts to meaningfully respect and facilitate the exercise 

of the following requisite standards, in fully discharging the responsibility of safeguarding 

the due process rights of individuals "at every stage of the proceedings." See In re L.C.B., 

253 Mont. at 7, 830 P.2d at 1303. Thus, it is imperative in applying the following 

standards to the matter at bar, and all subsequent cases, that the constitutional and 

legislated rights discussed herein are formally and fairly balanced with the State's ultimate 

power to protect both the individual and the public from actual or perceived harm. 

E. The role of effective counsel in involuntary civil commitment proceedings

¶66 As acknowledged by all parties concerned here, our statutory guidelines under Title 

53, Chapter 21, offer little assistance in determining the requisite scope of duties of 

effective counsel in involuntary commitment proceedings. Nevertheless, the Legislature 

has provided clear procedural opportunities for counsel to pursue an adversarial role in 

such proceedings that adequately serve as a framework for our due process analysis. 

¶67 Once counsel is appointed, pursuant to § 53-21-122, MCA, counsel "shall meet with 

the respondent, explain the substance of the petition, and explain the probable course of 

the proceedings." See § 53-21-121(3), MCA. See also § 53-21-165, MCA (providing list 

of records that must be available to "any attorney charged with representing the patient"). 

Ordinarily, the commitment hearing must take place within five days of a respondent's 

initial appearance. See § 53-21-122(2) and (3), MCA. Under this statute, however, counsel 

may request additional time. 

¶68 Under § 53-21-124(1), MCA, the court may not order detention of a respondent 

pending the hearing on the petition unless requested by the county attorney and upon the 

existence of probable cause for detention. At that time, counsel for the patient-respondent 

may request a detention hearing, which "must be held forthwith." Further, under § 53-21-

124(3), MCA, counsel for the patient-respondent may also object to the continued 

evaluation and treatment by a professional person selected by the patient-respondent 

pending the hearing. 

¶69 Under § 53-21-125, MCA, a patient's counsel may in lieu of a hearing request a jury 

trial, "whereupon the time set for hearing shall be vacated and the matter set on the court's 

jury calendar at the earliest date possible, the matter taking precedence over all other 

matters." Upon a finding that a patient-respondent requires commitment, a court must hold 

a post-trial "disposition" hearing, pursuant to § 53-21-127(2), MCA. Apparently, in the 

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/00-144%20Opinion.htm (16 of 28)1/18/2007 10:10:37 AM
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/00-144%20Opinion.htm

case at bar, this second mandatory hearing was simply combined with the hearing on the 

petition, pursuant to § 53-21-126, MCA. 

¶70 In order to further enhance the due process protections under the foregoing statutory 

mandates, as Amicus suggests, we adopt certain portions of the National Center for State 

Courts' Guidelines for Involuntary Civil Commitment. See 10 Mental and Physical 

Disability Law Reporter, 409 through 514 (No. 5 1986) (hereinafter Guidelines).(10) Thus, 

the following critical areas shall serve to better define the scope of effective representation 

in involuntary commitment proceedings, under Article II, Section 17, of the Montana 

Constitution. 

1. Appointment of competent counsel

¶71 Under § 53-21-122(2) and (3), MCA, if a judge finds probable cause for the 

commitment petition, "counsel must be immediately appointed for the respondent." In 

light of the foregoing statutory mandate, we add that following guideline:

To be eligible for appointment, attorneys should have specialized course training, or 

have received supervised on-the-job training in the duties, skills, and ethics of 

representing civil commitment respondents. 

See Guidelines, Part E1 at 464. At a bare minimum, counsel should possess a verifiably competent 

understanding of the legal process of involuntary commitments, as well as the range of alternative, lessrestrictive treatment and care options available, pursuant to § 53-21-127(2), MCA (listing evaluation 

and treatment options that court may impose following a disposition hearing, including involuntary 

medication). 

¶72 Further, state law requires that the "desires of the respondent must be taken into 

consideration in the . . . confirmation of the appointment of the attorney," under § 53-21-

122(2), MCA. In the case at bar, as an example, there is no evidence that any such 

"desires," which would indicate an informed, knowledgeable decision by the patientrespondent, were ever taken into consideration. Therefore, it is critical that the district 

court, upon appointment of counsel, provide the patient-respondent with clear and concise 

information describing the attorney's name and qualifications in order for the patient to 

then make an informed decision as to whether to accept appointed counsel, or for good 

cause shown and based on compelling reasons request the appointment of different 

counsel, or retain alternative representation. 

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/00-144%20Opinion.htm (17 of 28)1/18/2007 10:10:37 AM
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/00-144%20Opinion.htm

2. The initial investigation

¶73 Under § 53-21-165, MCA, a patient-respondent's attorney has a right of access to the 

client's records. Further, under § 53-21-115(2), MCA, a patient-respondent has the right to 

"offer evidence, and to present witnesses in any proceeding concerning the person." Also, 

the patient-respondent has the right to "know, before a hearing, the names and addresses 

of any witnesses who will testify in support of a petition" and the right to "view and copy 

all petitions on file with the court" under subsections (3) and (8), of § 53-21-115, MCA. 

¶74 Therefore, before and after the required meeting with a patient, under § 53-21-121(3), 

MCA, counsel should conduct a thorough review of all available records. Such inquiry 

must necessarily involve the patient's prior medical history and treatment, if and to what 

extent medication has played a role in the petition for commitment, the patient's 

relationship to family and friends within the community, and the patient's relationship with 

all relevant medical professionals involved prior to and during the petition process. In 

sum, we conclude that the rights afforded a patient-respondent under § 53-21-115, MCA, 

without the assistance of diligent, competent, and well-informed counsel at the 

commencement of the critical investigatory stage of the involuntary commitment process, 

would have little meaning. 

¶75 Thus, counsel should be prepared to discuss with his or her client the available options 

in light of such investigations, as well as the "practical and legal consequences of those 

options." See Guidelines, Part E2 at 465; § 53-21-127(2), MCA. It is likewise imperative 

that counsel request a reasonable amount of time for such an investigation prior to the 

hearing or trial on the petition, pursuant to § 53-21-122(2) and (3), MCA.

¶76 Prior to or following the initial client interview, counsel should also attempt to 

interview all persons who have knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the 

commitment petition, including family members, acquaintances and any other persons 

identified by the client as having relevant information, and be prepared to call such 

persons as witnesses. See Guidelines, Part E5(c) at 474. Again, counsel should freely and 

liberally request a reasonable amount of time for such an investigation prior to the hearing 

or trial on the petition, pursuant to § 53-21-122(2) and (3), MCA.

3. The client interview

¶77 Under § 53-21-121(3), MCA, counsel "shall meet with the respondent, explain the 

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/00-144%20Opinion.htm (18 of 28)1/18/2007 10:10:37 AM
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/00-144%20Opinion.htm

substance of the petition, and explain the probable course of the proceedings." As 

indicated by the Commentary to the Guidelines, the "prehearing services of an attorney are 

an indispensable prerequisite for protecting a respondent's interests." Guidelines, Part E5 

Commentary, at 475. See also Rule 1.2(a), Montana Rules of Professional Conduct (a 

lawyer shall abide by a client's decisions concerning the objectives of representation and 

shall consult with the client as to the means by which they are to be pursued); Rule 1.14 

(providing that when a client's ability to make adequately considered decisions in 

connection with the representation is impaired, whether because of minority, mental 

disability or for some other reason, the lawyer shall, as far as reasonably possible, 

maintain a normal client-lawyer relationship with the client).

¶78 To the foregoing we add the following guideline:

The initial client interview should be conducted in private and should be held 

sufficiently before any scheduled hearings to permit effective preparation and 

prehearing assistance to the client. 

See Guidelines, Part E5, at 473 (emphasis added). 

¶79 In addition to explaining the petition and commitment process and the various rights 

at issue to the client, counsel should also ascertain, if possible, a clear understanding of 

what the client would like to see happen in the forthcoming commitment proceedings, 

whether it be arguing for dismissal of the petition, seeking a voluntary commitment status, 

formulating and then negotiating with the State a least-restrictive alternative to 

commitment, or agreeing to a State-recommended court-ordered commitment. See § 53-21-

127(2), MCA (listing options that court may impose following a disposition hearing). The 

above guideline recognizes that such an understanding may take additional time, due to 

the client's mental condition and medication, and therefore counsel may need to request a 

continuation of a scheduled hearing, pursuant to § 53-21-122(2) and (3), MCA. 

¶80 Further, it is critical that counsel, through the course of interviewing the client, discuss 

and determine whether a jury trial should be pursued, pursuant to § 53-21-125, MCA. It is 

also incumbent upon counsel to facilitate the exercise of the client's right, under §§ 53-21-

115(9) and 124(3), MCA, to "be examined by a professional person of the person's choice" 

and to determine whether the evaluation and treatment should be objected to. See § 53-21-

124(3), MCA. Finally, counsel should discuss whether a detention hearing, pursuant to § 

53-21-124(1), MCA, should be pursued.

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/00-144%20Opinion.htm (19 of 28)1/18/2007 10:10:37 AM
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/00-144%20Opinion.htm

4. The right to remain silent

¶81 A patient-respondent, under § 53-21-115(6), MCA, has the right to remain silent. This 

right attaches, pursuant to the introductory language, when a person is "involuntarily 

detained or against whom a petition is filed." In turn, this provision potentially conflicts 

with § 53-21-123(1), MCA, which requires after the initial hearing that the respondent 

"must be examined by the professional person without unreasonable delay." 

¶82 Generally, this court-ordered "examination" serves to establish the evidence necessary 

for involuntary commitment, as indicated by the report submitted to the court in the case at 

bar, which identified K.G.F.'s "mental background," and "present mental status," through a 

list of "yes" or "no" criteria, and a handwritten commentary. The professional person, 

pursuant to § 53-21-123(1), MCA, may take up to four hours to complete the examination.

¶83 We conclude that it is critical for the patient-respondent, via assistance of counsel, to 

be allowed to make a voluntary and knowing waiver of his or her right to remain silent 

prior to the commencement of this examination, see § 53-21-119(1), MCA, or, in the 

alternative, that counsel must be present during the "examination" similar to a criminal 

interrogation or a civil deposition. We emphasize again that the right to counsel cannot 

under any circumstances be waived. See § 53-21-119, MCA. We conclude, therefore, that 

it would be a patent due process violation for the "examination," as provided for under § 

53-21-123, MCA, to be conducted without the assistance of counsel as provided herein.

5. Counsel as an advocate and adversary

¶84 To what extent an attorney representing a patient-client in an involuntary commitment 

proceeding should adopt an "adversarial" posture is a subject of extensive debate among 

state legislatures and commentators, and is noticeably absent from Title 53, Chapter 21 

statutes. 

¶85 As indicated earlier, other states have adopted express statutory provisions defining 

this role. See, e.g., Minn. Stat. Ann. § 144.4177 (counsel shall be a "vigorous advocate on 

behalf of the client"). As the Commentary to the Guidelines states: "[w]hen an attorney 

fails to act as an advocate and assumes a paternalistic or passive stance, the balance of the 

system is upset, the defense attorney usurps the judicial role, and the defendant's position 

goes unheard." Guidelines, Part E2 Commentary, at 466 (internal quotations omitted). 

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/00-144%20Opinion.htm (20 of 28)1/18/2007 10:10:37 AM
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/00-144%20Opinion.htm

¶86 Accordingly, we agree with the Guidelines as well the approach taken in Texas, that 

the proper role of the attorney is to "represent the perspective of the respondent and to 

serve as a vigorous advocate for the respondent's wishes." See Guidelines, Part E2, at 465. 

Further:

To the extent that a client is unable or unwilling to express personal wishes, the 

attorney should advocate the position that best safeguards and advances the client's 

interest.

Guidelines, Part E2, at 465. Additionally:

In the courtroom, an attorney should engage in all aspects of advocacy and 

vigorously argue to the best of his or her ability for the ends desired by the client.

Guidelines, Part F5, at 483. 

¶87 The foregoing guidelines create the presumption that a client wishes to not be 

involuntarily committed. The ultimate decision of whether a patient-respondent should be 

involuntarily committed, therefore, should not be independently made by counsel. See

Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 574.004 (providing that "regardless of an attorney's 

personal opinion, the attorney shall use all reasonable efforts within the bounds of law to 

advocate the proposed patient's right to avoid court-ordered mental health services if the 

proposed patient expresses a desire to avoid the services"). 

¶88 Thus, we conclude that pursuant to the foregoing guidelines, evidence that counsel 

independently advocated or otherwise acquiesced to an involuntary commitment--in the 

absence of any evidence of a voluntary and knowing consent by the patient-respondent--

will establish the presumption that counsel was ineffective. 

¶89 One final statutory consideration is whether a post-trial "disposition" hearing should 

be conducted separately, utilizing the five-days permitted pursuant to § 53-21-127(2), 

MCA. Again, a continuation to fully examine and assert a "least restrictive alternative" at 

a second hearing may be in the client's best interest, and therefore should be pursued by 

counsel when necessary.

F. Conclusion

¶90 In summary, we hold that the right to counsel, as provided under Title 53, Chapter 21, 

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/00-144%20Opinion.htm (21 of 28)1/18/2007 10:10:37 AM
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/00-144%20Opinion.htm

provides an individual subject to an involuntary commitment proceeding the right to 

effective assistance of counsel. This right affords the individual with the right to raise the 

allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel in challenging a commitment order. 

¶91 We further hold that the foregoing five critical areas of representation define, 

generally but not exclusively, the scope of effective counsel pursuant to Article II, Section 

17, of the Montana Constitution. In turn, the due process afforded individuals under the 

foregoing standards must serve to protect the fundamental individual liberty interests of 

dignity and integrity as identified under Title 53, Chapter 21, and Article II, Sections 4 and 

10, of the Montana Constitution. We hold that upon a substantial showing of evidence, 

presented to the issuing district court, or this Court, pursuant to § 53-21-131, MCA, that 

counsel did not effectively represent the patient-respondent's interests pursuant to the 

foregoing standards, an order of involuntary commitment should be vacated.

¶92 In so holding here today, we again emphasize that it is not only counsel for the patientrespondent, but also courts, that are charged with the duty of safeguarding the due process 

rights of individuals involved at every stage of the proceedings, and must therefore 

rigorously adhere to the standards expressed herein, as well as those mandated under Title 

53, Chapter 21.

¶93 Finally, the record before this Court, particularly any evidence of the critical prehearing investigation, is insufficient. Accordingly, this matter is reversed and remanded 

for a fact finding hearing and further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 

/S/ JAMES C. NELSON

We Concur:

/S/ KARLA M. GRAY

/S/ W. WILLIAM LEAPHART

/S/ JIM REGNIER

Justice Terry N. Trieweiler dissents.

¶94 I dissent from the majority's decision to reverse the order of the District Court and 

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/00-144%20Opinion.htm (22 of 28)1/18/2007 10:10:37 AM
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/00-144%20Opinion.htm

remand for further proceedings to determine whether K.G.F. received effective assistance 

of counsel. 

¶95 Although I disagree with the ultimate result arrived at by the majority, I do not 

disagree with most of what is said in the majority opinion.

¶96 For example, I agree that when a person is subject to involuntary commitment for 

mental illness, that person has a right to effective assistance of counsel pursuant to Article 

II, Section 17, of the Montana Constitution. I agree that that right is independent of the 

Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article II, Section 24, of the 

Montana Constitution; and I agree that Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668, 

104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674, is not a helpful analytical tool for evaluating whether 

effective assistance of counsel was provided.

¶97 I agree in general that in determining whether effective assistance of counsel has been 

provided in a commitment proceeding, it is appropriate to consider the five factors 

established by the National Center for State Court Guidelines for involuntary civil 

commitment. However, I believe the application of those five factors will vary from case 

to case depending on the circumstances and disagree with the formalistic way in which 

they have been imposed by the majority. 

¶98 For example, the extent of the investigation necessary will depend greatly on the 

nature of the allegations made by the initiating authority and there is no need for this Court 

to decide ahead of time what the details of each investigation should include. The nature 

and extent of useful information that can be exchanged at the client interview will depend 

to a large extent on the mental health of the client. Although I have no disagreement with 

providing a right to counsel during the examination by the court-appointed professional 

person, I think it inconsistent that someone involved in a civil commitment proceeding 

which is for that person's own protection and to which no Fifth Amendment rights attach 

is afforded a greater right to remain silent and assistance of counsel than is afforded in a 

criminal proceeding where the ultimate result is punishment and imprisonment. See 

Dawson v. State, 2000 MT 219, ¶¶ 46-48, 301 Mont. 135, ¶¶ 46-48, 10 P.3d 49, ¶¶ 46-48. 

Finally, while I believe that counsel had an adversarial role to play in a civil commitment 

proceeding, I believe that counsel's primary obligation is to see that all procedural 

safeguards are followed and that the State meets its burden of proof. The purpose of 

involuntary commitment proceedings is to secure skillful and humane treatment for people 

suffering from a mental disorder which makes them a danger to themselves or others. 

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/00-144%20Opinion.htm (23 of 28)1/18/2007 10:10:37 AM
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/00-144%20Opinion.htm

While no one should have to bear the stigma of mental illness without being afforded full 

due process, due process does not require suppressing evidence of a person's intent to 

harm himself or herself in the name of effective advocacy. I believe that Montana's 

Involuntary Commitment Act sets forth the basic elements necessary to provide due 

process as guaranteed by Article II, Section 17, of the Montana Constitution. Those 

elements are found at § 53-21-115, MCA. 

¶99 My problem with the majority opinion is that I can find no evidence in the record that 

K.G.F.'s counsel was ineffective. There is no indication in the pleadings, transcript, nor 

briefs filed on appeal that any of the procedural rights statutorily afforded to K.G.F. were 

denied based on ineffective assistance of counsel. Furthermore, it is clear from the 

transcript of the hearing that the State was held to its burden of proving that K.G.F. 

suffered from a mental disorder which threatened her own well being.

¶100 The issues in this case were not that complicated. Proceedings were initiated when 

Nancy McVean, case coordinator at St. Peter's Hospital, notified the county attorney that 

K.G.F. suffered from a mental disorder which, when combined with her refusal to take 

medication, made her a danger to her own well being. McVean reported that on October 

19, 1999, K.G.F. discharged her psychiatrist and reported to his office that she had a plan 

to kill herself. After her threat was reported to the sheriff, she agreed to voluntarily 

commit herself to St. Peter's Hospital. However, after having a disagreement over 

medication that was prescribed, she announced her intention to leave. In the opinion of the 

health care staff at St. Peter's, she did not improve while hospitalized and was at a high 

risk for suicide if she left the hospital without further care. Therefore, the petition for 

commitment was filed on October 26, 1999. The petition complied with all the 

requirements of § 53-21-121, MCA, and no one contends otherwise. 

¶101 Immediately after the petition was filed, counsel was appointed to represent K.G.F. 

pursuant to § 53-21-116 and, most importantly, she was provided with an independent 

professional examination pursuant to § 53-21-118, MCA. 

¶102 At the hearing which was held the following day, the State produced testimony from 

Nancy McVean who described the history which led K.G.F. to the hospital and further 

reported an actual suicide attempt by K.G.F. a matter of four months earlier. She reported 

the diagnosis of bipolar disorder and expressed the opinion that K.G.F. was a danger to 

herself because of her suicidal inclinations. McVean recommended a community 

commitment as the least restrictive alternative to stabilize K.G.F.'s condition before 

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/00-144%20Opinion.htm (24 of 28)1/18/2007 10:10:37 AM
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/00-144%20Opinion.htm

discharging her to aftercare services on an out-patient basis in Bozeman. 

¶103 McVean was cross-examined about the drugs which had been prescribed for K.G.F. 

at St. Peter's Hospital and their side effects.

¶104 Counsel for K.G.F. then called Nancy Adams, an independent professional person, 

who disputed McVean's opinion that K.G.F. was a threat to herself but agreed that she 

should be treated further before being released from the hospital. Adams also disagreed 

that commitment to a community healthcare facility was necessary. It was her opinion that 

following a period of voluntary treatment at the hospital, K.G.F. could be successfully 

treated on an outpatient basis in Bozeman.

¶105 K.G.F. testified and agreed that she needed treatment. However, her preference was 

to receive treatment from a clinical professional and psychiatrist in Bozeman with whom 

she was already familiar. 

¶106 Importantly, neither Adams nor K.G.F. disagreed with the diagnosis reported by 

McVean. Neither disputed that K.G.F. had previously attempted suicide in June and 

threatened suicide again two days before her admission to the hospital.

¶107 Counsel had an obligation to serve his client effectively, however, effective 

representation cannot change reality. In a civil commitment proceeding, if there is no 

question about a person's mental disorder and no question about the fact that that person 

presents a danger to herself, then counsel is left to argue for the least restrictive form of 

commitment. That is exactly what K.G.F.'s counsel did. 

¶108 The District Court listened to the evidence presented by the State and the 

independent professional person called on K.G.F.'s behalf. The District Court had an 

opportunity to observe K.G.F. during her testimony and consider her prior history of 

refusing to follow through with voluntary commitment following threats of suicide and 

chose to accept the recommendation of the State's witness rather than K.G.F.'s witness.

¶109 No one contends that the District Court's findings are not supported by substantial 

evidence nor does anyone claim that its conclusions of law are incorrect. Nor in the 

majority opinion is there any example of inadequate performance by K.G.F.'s counsel.

¶110 My concern is this. Having adopted the five-part criteria for evaluating effective 

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/00-144%20Opinion.htm (25 of 28)1/18/2007 10:10:37 AM
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/00-144%20Opinion.htm

assistance of counsel, does this now mean that following every civil commitment 

proceeding, a separate hearing will be required to determine the extent of counsel's 

experience in civil commitment proceedings, the nature and extent of his initial 

investigation, and the detail provided during his client interview? None of these facts will 

be apparent from the record and in this record there is nothing to indicate that any of these 

responsibilities were performed inadequately. How then is this case to be distinguished 

from any civil commitment appealed in the future? 

¶111 While I agree with the general principles established in the majority opinion and 

applaud the majority's efforts to guarantee consistently capable representation for those 

people subject to civil and voluntary commitment proceedings, I am concerned about 

some of the practical effects of the majority opinion and particularly disagree that there is 

any basis for reversing and remanding the District Court's order in this case. After 

thoroughly reviewing the record, I can find no evidence that the attorney who represented 

K.G.F. acted ineffectively or that K.G.F. was denied any of the procedural rights to which 

she is entitled pursuant to Article II, § 17 of the Montana Constitution and Title 53, 

Chapter 21, Part 1, of the Montana Code. Therefore, I dissent from the majority's decision 

to reverse the order of the District Court and remand to the District Court for further 

proceedings.

/S/ TERRY N. TRIEWEILER

1. The Respondent's name has purposely not been published herein; her initials are used throughout for 

the purpose of protecting her privacy. 

2. The Montana Advocacy Program filed an Amicus Curiae brief in this matter upon stipulation by the 

parties. The program is a private, non-profit civil rights organization designated as the state's protection 

and advocacy system for people with disabilities, including people with mental illness. The Montana 

American Civil Liberties Union signed Montana Advocacy Program's brief, as well. 

3. Other states, such as Minnesota, Texas, and Wisconsin, have to a measurable degree statutorily set 

forth the duties of an attorney in involuntary commitment proceedings. See, e.g., Minn. Stat. Ann. § 

144.4177 (counsel shall be given adequate time to prepare for all hearings and be a "vigorous advocate 

on behalf of the client"); Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 574.004(c) (providing that "[r]egardless of 

an attorney's personal opinion, the attorney shall use all reasonable efforts within the bounds of law to 

advocate the proposed patient's right to avoid court-ordered mental health services if the proposed 

patient expresses a desire to avoid the services"); Wis. Stat. Ann. § 51.20(3) (providing that "court shall 

assure that the subject individual is represented by adversary counsel"). 

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/00-144%20Opinion.htm (26 of 28)1/18/2007 10:10:37 AM
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/00-144%20Opinion.htm

4. Under Title 38, RCM, the forerunner of current law in Montana pertaining to the treatment of 

seriously mentally ill, a patient apparently had an implied right to "obtain" counsel prior to an 

involuntary commitment hearing, but one was not appointed, nor guaranteed by statute. If a subsequent 

jury trial was requested by a committed person or relative, a county attorney would represent the person, 

under § 38-213(2), RCM. Further, as evidenced by this Court's decision in Petition of Kolocotronis

(1965), 145 Mont. 564, 402 P.2d 977, the hearing could take place "at the bedside of the patient" in the 

hospital. See § 38-201, RCM. Needless to say, Kolocotronis did not have counsel present at the hospital 

hearing--although the Court took notice that his mother was present--and on appeal he challenged his 

commitment to the state hospital at Warm Springs pro se. Although ruling that Kolocotronis was 

provided the opportunity to obtain counsel, the Court did not address Kolocotronis's other constitutional 

challenge that he did not have the opportunity to "gather witnesses to challenge the commitment." 

5. Under § 53-21-102, MCA, "mental disorder" means an organic, mental, or emotional impairment that 

has substantial adverse effects on an individual's cognitive or volitional functions, and does not include 

addiction to drugs or alcohol, drug or alcohol intoxication, mental retardation, or epilepsy. 

6. The 2001 Montana Legislature, under Senate Bill No. 466, doubled the length of certain involuntary 

commitments provided pursuant to § 53-21-127(2), MCA. Now, under what will become § 53-21-127

(3), MCA, patient-respondents, such as K.G.F., may be involuntarily committed to a "community 

facility, or program, or to any appropriate course of treatment, which may include housing or residential 

requirements, for a period of not more than 6 months." Under prior law, an involuntary commitment to a 

"community facility, program, or course of treatment" could not exceed three months. Further, SB 466 

struck out subparts (iii) through (v), which offered the "least restrictive alternatives" of ordering the 

respondent to be placed in the care and custody of a relative or guardian or some other appropriate place 

other than an institution, ordering outpatient therapy, or making some other appropriate order for 

treatment. The effect of the foregoing statutory amendments on the constitutional rights at issue and 

under discussion in this opinion are not before us, however. 

7. The 2001 Montana Legislature, under Senate Bill No. 107, established the use of two-way electronic 

audio-video communication for the initial hearing under § 53-21-122, MCA; the detention hearing under 

§ 53-21-124, MCA, the trial or hearing on a petition under § 53-21-126, MCA; the hearing on post-trial 

disposition under § 53-21-127, MCA; a hearing on the extension of a commitment period, under § 53-21-

128, MCA; a hearing on re-hospitalization of a conditionally released person under § 53-21-197, MCA; 

and a hearing on an extension of the conditions of release under § 53-21-198, MCA. Under Senate Bill 

No. 107, the use of the two-way electronic audio-video communication is at the discretion of the court. 

The effect of the foregoing statutory amendments on the constitutional rights at issue and under 

discussion in this opinion are not before us, however. 

8. For example, the "title" of Title 38, RCM, which was largely repealed by the time Title 53, Chapter 

21, became law in 1975, was "Insane and Feeble-Minded." Under § 38-602, RCM (repealed in 1969), 

the term "inmate" was defined as "an idiot, feeble-minded, insane or epileptic person who is treated, 

trained, or cared for within a custodial institution." 

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/00-144%20Opinion.htm (27 of 28)1/18/2007 10:10:37 AM
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/00-144%20Opinion.htm

9. The U.S. Supreme Court's Buck v. Bell decision involved a challenge to the then predominant 

eugenical sterilization laws in effect in this country. Such laws in Montana, see § 38-601, et. seq., RCM, 

which were codified in 1923, were not repealed until 1969. Montana's Legislature provided that the 

purpose of involuntary sterilization, under § 38-608, RCM, was "for the betterment of the physical, 

mental, neural or psychic condition of said inmate, or to protect society from the menace of procreation 

by said inmate, and not in any manner as a punitive measure." See also Armstrong, ¶ 50 (discussing 

eugenical laws and the Buck v. Bell decision). 

10. The Mental and Physical Disability Law Reporter is published bimonthly by the American Bar 

Association. The Guidelines were prepared by a National Task Force of the National Center for State 

Courts Institute on Mental Disability and the Law, and resulted from a multi-year project. See also ABA 

Commission on the Mentally Disabled, How to Prepare for an Involuntary Civil Commitment Hearing, 

37 No. 1 Prac. Law. 39 (1991). 

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/00-144%20Opinion.htm (28 of 28)1/18/2007 10:10:37 AM