No. 87-333 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1987 

IN THE MATTER OF T.J.F., 

Respondent. 

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Yellowstone, 

The Honorable William J. Speare, Judge presiding. 

COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

For Appellant: 

Terry L. Seiffert argued, Billings, Montana 

For Respondent : 

Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana 

Betsy Brandborg argued, Asst. Atty. General, Helena 

Harold Hanser, County Attorney; Curtis Bevolden, 

Deputy County Attorney, Billings, Montana 

For Amicus Curiae: 

Allen Smith, Jr. argued for Mental Disabilities Board 

of Visitors, Warm Springs, Montana 

Submitted: December 3, 1987 

Decided: December 22, 1987 

[J; (-* ; 2 7987 Filed. - 
Mr. Justice William E. Hunt, Sr. , delivered the opinion of 

the Court. 

A youth, T.J.F., appeals from an order of the District 

Court, Thirteenth Judicial District, County of Yellowstone, 

committing him to continued treatment of up to 3 months to 

Rivendell of Billings, Inc., a lock-up treatment facility for 

mentally disturbed youths. The Legal Services Program of 

Warm Springs has filed an amicus brief. The youth, T.J.F., 

has been discharged from custody and we therefore dismiss 

this case on the grounds of mootness. 

Appeal dismissed. 

We cannot let this case be dismissed without commenting 

on the facts that gave rise to this appeal. The appellant has 

alleged serious procedural errors committed by the State. 

The commitment procedure is governed by S 53-21-101, et seq. 

MCA. These statutes are clear and must be strictly adhered 

to. Although we do not pass upon the validity of the 

appellant's claims today, we will not hesitate to do so in, 4 

future cases where there are allegations of procedural 

abuses, whether moot or not. 

Issues of the appellant are as follows: 

1. Did the District Court err by not dismissing the 

petition for conunitment on grounds of procedural defect? 

2. Was there sufficient evidence to find that T.J.F. 

was mentally ill to a reasonable mesical certainty? 

3. Was there sufficient evidence to find that T.J.F. 

was a danger to himself or others? 

4. Did the District Court err when it based its order 

on a medical report not in evidence? 

The appellant, T.2.F. was committed to the Rivende1.1 

facility for mentally disturbed youths on April. 13, 1987. 
T.J.F. is a 12 year old male. On July 1, 1987, a petition 

for extension of commitment was filed by the deputy county 

attorney. Because the petition was not filed within the 

statutory time frame, appellant made a motion to dismiss on 

procedural grounds at the hearing. This motion was never 

ruled on but on July 8, 1987, the deputy county attorney 

filed a petition for commitment supported by a June 23 

medical report by T.J.F.'s psychiatrist, Dr. Newman. T.J.F. 

again made a motion to dismiss because no request for 

commitment had been filed as required by statute and because 

the appellant had not been advised of his rights prior to the 

June 23 exam. The District Court ordered that a psychiatrist 

examine T. J. F. No examination was ever given pursuant to 

this order. 

Without ruling on the motion to dismiss (which went 

unopposed by the State), the court held a hearing. John 

Kiedrowski, a certified mental health professional at 

Rivendell, testified that through his daily contact with 

T.J.F., he felt that T.J.F. was seriously mentally ill and 

believed that if placed back in his home he would be 

dangerous to younger children owing to a past history of 

abuse. Kiendrowski is neither a psychiatrist nor a 

psychologist but holds a degree in personnel guidance. No 

personal evaluation of T.J.F. was made nor was any report 

written. Kiendrowski testified that he concurred with Dr. 

Newman's June 23 report. The report, however, was never 

introduced into evidence and Dr. Newman did not testify. 

Kiendrowski further testified that T.J.F. had not been 

violent while at Rivendell but had made threats about getting 

back at people. 

The Court ordered that T. J.F. be committed and attached 

Dr. Newman's June 23 report to its findings of fact. It is 

from this order that appellant appeals. 
It is unnecessary to address the appellant's arguments 

because we hold that the case before us today is moot. Moot 

questions may not be addressed by this Court. State ex rel. 

Miller v. Murray (1979), 183 Mont. 499, 503, 600 P.2d 1174, 

1176. We defined a moot question in Murray as "one which 

existed once but because of an event or happening, it has 

ceased to exist and no longer presents an actual 

controversy." 600 P.2d at 1176. A case will become moot for 

the purpose of an an appeal "where by a change of 

circumstances prior to the appellate decision the case has 

lost any practical purpose for the parties, for instance 

where the grievance that gave rise to the case has been 

eliminated . . .." 5 Am.Jur.2d, 5 762, Appeal and Error 

(1962). 

Since this action arose, T.J.F. has been released from 

the Rivendell facility. There is no longer any actual 

controversy. 

Dismissed on grounds of mootness i 

We Concur: 

Chief Justice ,/"