Court Opinion

ID: 9913053
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-26 19:05:22.997546+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:06:55.159797
License: Public Domain

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by
                        Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

                               STATE OF MINNESOTA
                               IN COURT OF APPEALS
                                     A23-1077

                        In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of:
                                Rakan Muhhammad Alam

                                Filed December 26, 2023
                                        Affirmed
                                     Schmidt, Judge

                              Beltrami County District Court
                                  File No. 04-PR-23-944

Darla Nubson, Nubson Law Office, PLLC, Grand Rapids, Minnesota (for appellant)

David Hanson, Beltrami County Attorney, Taylor Tisdell, Assistant County Attorney,
Bemidji, Minnesota (for respondent)

       Considered and decided by Ross, Presiding Judge; Bratvold, Judge; and

Schmidt, Judge.

                           NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION

SCHMIDT, Judge

       On appeal from a judgment of civil commitment as a chemically dependent person,

appellant Rakan Muhammad Alam 1 argues the district court erred because: (1) the record

does not support the conclusion that he is incapable of self-management due to habitual

and excessive use of alcohol, (2) the record does not show that his alcohol use poses a

1
  The spelling of Alam’s middle name is inconsistent in the record, and the correct spelling
is “Muhammad” according to his appellant’s brief, but the case caption cannot be changed
on appeal. See Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 143.01.
substantial likelihood of physical harm to himself or others, and (3) the district court failed

to make adequate findings of fact regarding less-restrictive alternatives. We affirm.

                                           FACTS

       Respondent Beltrami County Health and Human Services 2 filed a petition for

involuntary commitment of Alam on the basis that he poses a risk of harm to himself or

others due to mental illness and chemical dependency. The petition arose from an incident

in the early morning hours of April 5, 2023, in which Alam allegedly tried to force his way

into his neighbor’s apartment. Alam reportedly punched his neighbor’s boyfriend and

threatened to harm the man. 3 Police responded, and Alam reportedly fought with officers.

Officers arrested Alam and the state charged him with fifth-degree assault, disorderly

conduct, and obstructing legal process. The April 5 incident occurred within 24 hours after

prior misdemeanor charges against Alam were dismissed by operation of law in accordance

with Minnesota Statutes section 611.45 (2022), following a finding of incompetency.

       In the petition for involuntary commitment, Beltrami County Health and Human

Services alleged facts asserting Alam’s excessive alcohol use. The petition was based on

the April 5 incident as well as a series of earlier events that we briefly summarize here.

       In December 2022, Adult Services at Beltrami County Health and Human Services

performed an assessment of Alam and determined that he met the Diagnostic and Statistical

2
 Beltrami County did not file a responsive brief on appeal. See Minn. R. Civ. App. P.
142.03 (providing if respondent fails to file a brief, the case will be decided on the merits).
3
 Alam disputes this representation of the events and claims that his neighbor’s boyfriend
assaulted him after trying to “get into his life.”

                                              2
Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V) criteria for substance use disorder. The assessment

recommended that Alam abstain from alcohol, participate in treatment coordination, and

successfully complete a residential treatment program.         The petition for involuntary

commitment alleged that Alam did not follow those recommendations.

       In March 2023, following multiple misdemeanor charges for improper calls to

emergency services, the district court ordered a competency evaluation pursuant to Minn.

R. Crim. P. 20.01. During the evaluation, Alam admitted to drinking about seven beers per

day, but did not believe he had a substance use problem. The evaluating doctor opined that

Alam had a delusional disorder, persistent depressive disorder, and alcohol-use disorder;

concluding that Alam was mentally ill, but not cognitively impaired. The evaluating doctor

also suggested that Alam should be admitted to a facility where he could be treated for his

disorders. As a result of the evaluation, the district court found Alam incompetent and the

state dismissed the misdemeanor charges. See Minn. Stat. § 611.45, subd. 3(a) (providing

misdemeanor charges must be dismissed if the court finds the defendant incompetent).

       Prior to filing the involuntary commitment petition, Beltrami County Health and

Human Services conducted a pre-petition screening of Alam. The pre-petition screening

report concluded that Alam met the definitions of a chemically dependent person and of a

person who poses a risk of harm due to a mental illness. Specifically, the report found that

Alam drinks alcohol daily and he “has no interest in stopping and does not see the need for

treatment.” The report further found Alam’s “drinking has led to physical altercations, the

last one resulting in his arrest for 5th degree assault.” The pre-petition screening also noted

that Alam relies on family for financial support and for assistance in paying bills.

                                              3
       The court-appointed examiner, Dr. James Alsdurf, subsequently filed a report of his

examination of Alam. Dr. Alsdurf’s report found that Alam had acknowledged constant

and chronic alcohol abuse but noted Alam “has failed to seek or maintain treatment for his

mental illness and currently lacks the capacity to care for himself at this point.”

       At Alam’s request, the district court appointed Dr. Charles Chmielewski to conduct

an independent examination of Alam. Dr. Chmielewski found that Alam “seems to be

having a lot of difficulty managing his life,” “sustaining any employment, [and] managing

his finances.” Dr. Chmielewski opined that the evidence was not “clear and convincing”

regarding a mental illness commitment, but concluded that Alam’s alcoholism is “clear and

convincing.” Dr. Chmielewski recommended a chemical dependency commitment:

              [Alam] is in denial with regard to his alcoholism, and has made
              it clear that he isn’t going to address this problem voluntarily.
              The alcoholism has no doubt made it very difficult for him to
              manage his life, and has allegedly led to some threatening
              remarks toward family members on the phone, and then
              resulted in the assault charges and his return to jail later that
              same night. I would recommend a six month [chemical
              dependency] commitment, with inpatient [chemical
              dependency] treatment followed by mandated follow up
              services in the community.

       At the civil-commitment hearing in May 2023, both examining doctors testified.

Dr. Alsdurf testified consistent with his report. Dr. Alsdurf also opined that an inpatient

program is necessary to adequately treat Alam. Dr. Chmielewski testified that in his

opinion Alam is not mentally ill, but also opined that Alam poses a substantial likelihood

of harm to himself due to his chemical dependency. Dr. Chmielewski further opinioned

that Alam could not adequately address his chemical dependency issues on an outpatient

                                              4
basis and concluded that the least-restrictive option would be for Alam to be committed to

an inpatient facility.

       In its findings of fact and conclusions of law, the district court rejected the state’s

request for civil commitment based upon mental illness. The district court found, however,

that “[b]ased upon the testimony offered by the examiners at the hearing, as well as the

related criminal files, documents, and records,” there is clear and convincing evidence to

support that Alam is a chemically dependent person as defined under Minnesota Statute

section 253B.02 (2022). The district court continued that Alam “is a danger to [himself],

or others as demonstrated by the underlying criminal charges and [Alam’s] failure to obtain

necessary food, clothing, shelter, safety, or medical care due to being chemically

dependent.” The district court also noted that because of Alam’s alcohol use, he “poses a

substantial likelihood of physical harm to self or others as demonstrated by his recent

attempt or threat to physically harm self or others that occurred on or around April 5, 2023,

and for which [Alam] was ultimately arrested and criminally charged.”              Regarding

less-restrictive alternatives, the district court stated:

               The criminal court ordered [Alam] to complete a chemical use
               assessment and follow all recommendations. The chemical use
               assessment recommended that [Alam] enter into inpatient
               treatment.      [Alam] failed to comply with those
               recommendations and did not enter inpatient treatment.
               [Alam] instead continued to use alcohol and incurred
               additional criminal charges as a result of his chemical use.
               [Alam’s] failure to seek any sort of treatment despite having
               this requirement imposed upon him by the criminal court,
               shows that he is unable or unwilling to comply with voluntary
               treatment.

       As a result, the district court granted the petition. Alam appeals.

                                                 5
                                        DECISION

       Involuntary commitment is justified where the district court finds by clear and

convincing evidence that the proposed patient is a person who has a chemical dependency

and there is no suitable alternative to commitment. Minn. Stat. § 253B.09, subd. 1(a)

(2022); In re Galusha, 372 N.W.2d 843, 846-47 (Minn. App. 1985). The statute defines a

“chemically dependent person” as any person “determined as being incapable of

self-management or management of personal affairs by reason of the habitual and

excessive use of alcohol . . . and . . . whose recent conduct as a result of habitual and

excessive use of alcohol . . . poses a substantial likelihood of physical harm to self or

others[.]” Minn. Stat. § 253B.02, subd. 2.

       The district court’s findings related to a determination that a person is chemically

dependent will not be set aside unless clearly erroneous. In re May, 477 N.W.2d 913, 915

(Minn. App. 1991). The supreme court has stated that the clear error standard of review

“is a review of the record to confirm that evidence exists to support the decision.” In re

Civ. Commitment of Kenney, 963 N.W.2d 214, 222 (Minn. 2021). “When the record

reasonably supports the findings at issue on appeal, it is immaterial that the record might

also provide a reasonable basis for inferences and findings to the contrary.” Id. at 223

(quotation omitted). In applying the clear error standard of review, appellate courts

(1) view the evidence in the light most favorable to the findings, (2) do not reweigh the

evidence, (3) do not find their own facts, and (4) do not reconcile conflicting evidence. Id.

at 221-22. Accordingly:

                                             6
              [A]n appellate court need not go into an extended discussion
              of the evidence to prove or demonstrate the correctness of the
              findings of the [district] court. Rather, because the factfinder
              has the primary responsibility of determining the fact issues
              and the advantage of observing the witnesses in view of all the
              circumstances surrounding the entire proceeding, an appellate
              court’s duty is fully performed after it has fairly considered all
              the evidence and has determined that the evidence reasonably
              supports the decision.

Id. at 222 (quotations and citation omitted). We review de novo the legal question of

whether the facts found by the district court satisfy the statutory criteria for commitment.

In re Civ. Commitment of Spicer, 853 N.W.2d 803, 807 (Minn. App. 2014).

I.     The district court did not err in concluding Alam is incapable of
       self-management due to chemical dependency.

       Alam argues that the district court clearly erred in the findings of fact by finding

that he is incapable of self-management due to his alcohol use. Alam further argues the

district court erred in using those findings to support its conclusion of law that the statutory

criteria for commitment was met. We disagree.

       “Self-management” is not statutorily defined. See Minn. Stat. § 253B.02. This

court has previously held that, as used in section 253B.02, subdivision 2, self-management

refers to “one’s handling of the ordinary occurrences of daily life.” In re Heurung,

446 N.W.2d 694, 696 (Minn. App. 1989). “One who ‘self-manages,’ performs the ordinary

activities of daily life, copes with the ordinary stresses of daily life, and independently

cares for oneself in the ordinary course of daily life.” Id.

       A district court’s finding that a patient cannot adequately function constitutes

sufficient evidence that the patient is incapable of managing himself. Id. (quotations

                                               7
omitted). We have affirmed a district court’s finding that a patient cannot adequately

function where the evidence indicates the patient cannot manage his drinking or control his

anger and aggressive behavior, remains extremely dependent upon family members to pay

his bills and care for him, and that his health is deteriorating. Galusha, 372 N.W.2d at 847.

       Alam acknowledges that the record contains evidence that he relied on his family to

pay his bills but argues that finding is insufficient because there is “no evidence that he

was unable to handle the ordinary occurrences of daily life.” While self-management is

“broader than the ability to pay bills,” the ordinary occurrences of daily life still include

the ability to pay bills. See Heurung, 446 N.W.2d at 696. The evidence in the record

supports the district court’s finding that Alam appears wholly reliant on his family to

perform that for him.

       The district court’s finding that Alam is incapable of self-management is also

supported by Dr. Chmielewski’s concerns that Alam “seems to be having a lot of difficulty

managing his life,” “has had much difficulty sustaining any employment, or managing his

finances,” and that the amount of alcohol Alam consumes would “[c]ertainly . . . have

deleterious effects on one’s capacity to manage their life[.]” Thus, the record evidence

demonstrates that the district court did not clearly err in finding that Alam was incapable

of self-management due to his alcohol use.

                                             8
II.    The district court did not clearly err in finding Alam’s chemical dependency
       poses a substantial likelihood of physical harm to himself or others.

       Alam argues that the district court clearly erred in finding he is a “danger” to himself

or others. Alam contends the record does not support the court’s finding and, as such, the

court erred in granting the civil-commitment petition.

       A substantial likelihood of physical harm may be demonstrated by a recent attempt

or threat to physically harm self or others, evidence of recent serious physical problems, or

a failure to obtain necessary food, clothing, shelter, or medical care. Minn. Stat. § 253B.02,

subd. 2. The statute requires only that a substantial likelihood of physical harm exists, not

that the individual has, in fact, physically harmed himself or others. See id.

       In arguing for reversal, Alam focuses on the district court’s finding that it had “no

reason to disbelieve” Alam’s version of events related to whether a criminal physical

assault occurred. While the altercation on April 5, 2023, may not have been a criminal

assault according to Alam’s version of events, it still provided support for the district

court’s finding that the altercation represented a recent threat of physical harm to Alam or

others as a result of his “habitual and excessive use of alcohol.”

       Alam’s physical altercation in April 2023 constituted a recent attempt or threat to

harm himself or others sufficient to support a finding that Alam’s chemical dependency

poses a substantial likelihood of physical harm to himself or others. The district court did

not clearly err in its findings of fact or err in its conclusion of law.

                                                9
III.   The district court adequately considered less-restrictive alternatives.

       Finally, Alam argues the district court did not adequately consider less-restrictive

alternatives. We disagree.

       If the district court orders commitment, the court must make findings that “identify

less restrictive alternatives considered and rejected by the court and the reasons for

rejecting each alternative.” Minn. Stat. § 253B.09, subd. 2(b) (2022). We review a district

court’s findings regarding the least restrictive treatment program for clear error. In re

Thulin, 660 N.W.2d 140, 144 (Minn. App. 2003).

       We have previously affirmed a commitment order where both examiners

recommended inpatient treatment and the appellant had failed to cooperate with voluntary

treatment. See In re Redcloud, 359 N.W.2d 710, 712 (Minn. App. 1984). In such

circumstances, we concluded that less-restrictive options than inpatient treatment were

foreclosed.   Id.   Further, where previous treatment efforts have been unsuccessful,

alternatives less restrictive than commitment would not ensure that the individual would

remain off alcohol. See Heurung, 446 N.W.2d at 696; May, 477 N.W.2d at 916.

       Here, both experts opined that Alam required inpatient treatment and both agreed

this constituted the least-restrictive alternative available. The record also supports the

district court’s finding that Alam had not complied with previous treatment despite

recommendations to do so after a court ordered a rule 25 evaluation. The district court

properly found that commitment to the Commissioner of Human Services is the least-

restrictive alternative that meets Alam’s needs.

       Affirmed.

                                            10