Opinion ID: 1316860
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: amendment of petitions

Text: In both cases, appellants contend that the respective trial courts improperly permitted amendment of the 90-day involuntary treatment petitions thereby denying appellants adequate notice and an opportunity of adequate preparation. RCW 71.05.290(2) provides: The petition [for 90-day involuntary treatment] shall summarize the facts which support the need for further confinement and shall be supported by affidavits signed by two examining physicians, or by one examining physician and examining mental health professional. The affidavits shall describe in detail the behavior of the detained person which supports the petition and shall explain what, if any, less restrictive treatments which are alternatives to detention are available to such person, and shall state the willingness of the affiant to testify to such facts in subsequent judicial proceedings under this chapter. The nature and purpose of this provision was recently addressed by this court in In re Cross, 99 Wn.2d 373, 382, 662 P.2d 828 (1983). The court held that, although the language of RCW 71.05.290(2) is somewhat vague, we construe it as requiring a statement of all alternative grounds on which revocation or modification is sought. Such a construction is supported by two fundamental principles of statutory construction. The first of these is the rule that a statute must be construed so as to effectuate its underlying purpose. The central purpose of providing a person with notice is to apprise the affected individual of, and permit adequate preparation for, an impending `hearing.' To accomplish this purpose, the notice must indicate the issues which will be addressed at the hearing. (Citations omitted.) Cross dealt with the due process rights of an individual detained for revocation of an order of less restrictive treatment entered pursuant to RCW 71.05.340. The court found that the failure of petitioners to state each of the alternative grounds on which petitioners sought to detain Ms. Cross violated the statutory notice requirements because she was not given the opportunity to adequately prepare her defense. Cross, at 383-84. The court further rejected the contention that respondents did not anticipate the other grounds for detention: We cannot agree for two reasons. First, respondents could have anticipated other grounds. They knew that Ms. Cross' condition had seriously deteriorated. While they believed this was due to her failure to take her medication, they could have realized that one other possibility was that the medication was simply not working. More importantly, the Superior Court's ruling misconstrues the purpose of notice. It is not intended solely to assure good faith on the part of the State, but, as noted above, is intended to permit the patient to adequately prepare for the hearing. This opportunity Ms. Cross did not have and hence the notice provided her was inadequate. Cross, at 384. The holding that proper notice requires a statement of all alternative grounds on which revocation or modification is sought is equally applicable to a petition for 90-day commitment and requires that a 90-day petition serve notice as to all alternative grounds on which commitment is sought. Nonetheless, this does not mean that there can never be an amendment to petitions for 90-day commitment. MPR 3.4 provides that the 90-day commitment proceeding is to be proceeded with as in any other civil action and CR 15 provides that leave of court should be freely given to amend pleadings when justice so requires. [7] The real issue is preparedness to meet new allegations raised by amendment. The amendment to the petitions in the instant actions is distinguishable from the amendment in Cross. In the Gilman proceeding, the petition was amended at the beginning of trial to include the likelihood of serious harm to others when the trial court found that new circumstances existed to warrant amendment. In McLaughlin, the petition was amended to conform to the proof of the likelihood of serious harm to self. At trial, neither Gilman nor McLaughlin claimed surprise, alleged unpreparedness to meet the new issue, or requested a continuance. The record further demonstrates that neither detainee was prejudiced in maintaining his respective defense upon the amended petitions. We find that the detainees had adequate notice and opportunity to prepare their defenses. The detainees Gilman and McLaughlin were not denied due process by amendment of the respective petitions.