Opinion ID: 6333550
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: The following facts either were found by the trial court or are otherwise supported by the record. The respondent has been diagnosed with “Bipolar I disorder, manic with Psychotic features.” On March 9, 2021, she took herself to a hospital emergency room because she felt unsafe. Her speech was pressured “with a flight of ideas.” The respondent reported to a medical provider that she had once driven 75 miles per hour in a 55-mile-per-hour zone, while she was on her phone, believing that somebody “was hacking her phone and rerouting her to people in black ops.” The respondent further reported that she had “gone to the [local police] multiple times” and that the police had not helped her. It was later confirmed that she had contacted the local police 300-400 times over the past year, that there were two protective orders preventing her from contacting her ex-husband and another man, and that there were criminal complaints pending against her for violating those orders. According to the respondent, the protective orders were issued because her ex-husband and the other man “stated that she has . . . followed them to their home[s].” The respondent was admitted to NHH on March 25. She had been previously admitted to NHH in February 2020. The respondent has refused all medication and has refused to sign releases to allow NHH to obtain information from other treatment facilities. The respondent was examined by a treating psychiatrist at NHH and a court-appointed psychiatrist. The respondent’s treating psychiatrist testified that she interacts with the respondent “[e]very day Monday through Friday” and has found the respondent to have “[v]ery paranoid” delusions. She described the respondent’s thoughts as “very disorganized” and “not realitybased.” The treating psychiatrist described the respondent as “very irritable, agitated,” and unpredictable. The treating psychiatrist opined that the respondent is in such a condition, as a result of her mental illness, as to create a potentially serious likelihood of danger to herself or others because of her paranoid delusions. The treating psychiatrist explained: “Because of her delusions, she would not be safe in the community and she will make accusations against others. . . . [I]f she was to go out in the community, she can meet someone who’s not as savvy, . . . who may hurt her, put her life at risk because they are not aware that she has a mental health illness.” The treating psychiatrist also testified that, during her 2020 admission to NHH, the respondent believed that a hospital social worker was “out to get her,” and, after her discharge, the respondent returned to NHH to confront the social worker. (Quotation omitted.) The court-appointed psychiatrist likewise opined that the respondent is in such mental condition, as a result of mental illness, as to create a potentially serious likelihood of danger to herself and others because of her “active paranoid delusions, impaired judgment and lack of insight.” The courtappointed psychiatrist opined that, as a result of the respondent’s delusional “[f]ears of covert danger . . . , impaired judgment and lack of insight,” she has 2 “placed herself and others at risk in her efforts to protect herself,” such as by “driving while psychotic,” and has “possibly [placed] herself at risk by avoiding indicated medical care.” Following an April 22, 2021 hearing, the trial court found that NHH had met its burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence and ordered the respondent to be admitted to NHH for two years with a conditional discharge when and if clinically appropriate. The respondent unsuccessfully moved for reconsideration, and this appeal followed.