Opinion ID: 2253827
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: General Policy Considerations

Text: Respondent's final argument is that his case should be considered despite its mootness because general policy considerations warrant review when a respondent exercises his right to appeal. Respondent argues that appellate review is important because it is therapeutic to provide procedural justice to mental health respondents. Under respondent's description of therapeutic jurisprudence, appeals are important because the denial of the right to appeal can `produce feelings of worthlessness and loss of dignity' and `limit the potential that hospitalization [or treatment] will have its desired beneficial effects.' Quoting B. Winick, Civil Commitment: A Therapeutic Jurisprudence Model 146-47 (2005). Respondent's argument, that providing an absolute right of appeal to respondents of civil commitment proceedings may be beneficial to both the emotional well-being of the person and to the mental health goals of the system, is very informative. However, it is not independently sufficient to warrant an exception to the well-established mootness doctrine. Respondent cites no case, and this court finds none, that would lead us to a contrary conclusion. It is not appropriate for this court to create a new exception simply because we believe that it may have tangential benefits to respondents in mental health cases.