Cited by

“Due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner[.]” In re MH2006-000023, –49, ¶ 10 (App. 2007) ().

“Due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” In re MH2006-000023, -49, ¶ 10 (App. 2007) ().

§ 36-536; cf. In re MH 2006-000023, ¶ 1 (App. 2007) (commitment order vacated for lack of timely notice).

Compare In re MH-1440-6-93, , (refusing to consider on appeal due process challenges not made at trial) with In re MH 2006-000023, -49, ¶¶ 8-11 , -70 (App.2007) (considering statutory notice issue despite failure to object at trial).

at 300 , 878 P.2d at 658 (qualifying that, “absent extraordinary circumstances, errors not raised in the trial court cannot be raised on appeal” (emphasis added)); In re MH 2006-000023, ¶ 11 , (concluding that, given the liberty interests at stake, an involuntary treatment case presents one of the extraordinary circumstances in which an error not presented to the trial court may be presented in the first instance to the appellate court).

¶ 12 "An involuntary commitment hearing is a civil proceeding that can result in `a serious deprivation of liberty.'" ¶ 9 , ( ¶ 10 , ).

1112 “An involuntary commitment hearing is a civil proceeding that can result in ‘a serious deprivation of liberty.’ ” ¶ 9 , (quoting In re MH 2006-000023, ¶ 10 , ).

While such supplementation may cure a defective affidavit, MH 2006-000490, 214 Ariz. at 488 -89 ¶ 13, 154 P.3d at 390-91, the superior court still must ensure that all statutory requirements for involuntary treatment are strictly met and satisfied by clear and convincing evidence before ordering treatment because COT constitutes “ ‘a serious deprivation of liberty.’” In re MH 2006-000023, ¶ 10 , (quoting In re Coconino County No. MH 1425, , 293, , 1091 (1995)); A.R.S.

While such supplementation may cure a defective affidavit, MH XXXX-XXXXXX, 214 Ariz. at 488 -89 ¶ 13, 154 P.3d at 390-91, the superior court still must ensure that all statutory requirements for involuntary treatment are strictly met and satisfied by clear and convincing evidence before ordering treatment because COT constitutes "`a serious deprivation of liberty.'" ¶ 10 , (quoting In re Coconino County No. MH 1425, , 293, , 1091 (1995)); A.R.S.

In re MH 2006-000023, ¶ 11

§ 36-539 Hearing ¶ 13 Arizona courts have repeatedly recognized that civil commitment constitutes "`a serious deprivation of liberty.'" ¶ 10 , (quoting In re Coconino County No. MH 1425, , 293, , 1091 (1995)); see also Jesse M., 217 Ariz. at 76, ¶ 9 , 170 P.3d at 685 ; MH XXXX-XXXXXX, 214 Ariz. at 320, ¶ 14, 152 P.3d at 1203 .

§ 36-539 Hearing ¶ 13 Arizona courts have repeatedly recognized that civil commitment constitutes “‘a serious deprivation of liberty.’” In re MH 2006-000023, ¶ 10 , (quoting In re Coconino County No. MH 1425, , 293, , 1091 (1995)); see also Jesse M., 217 Ariz. at 76, ¶ 9, 170 P.3d at 685 ; MH 2006-000749, 214 Ariz. at 320, ¶ 14 , 152 P.3d at 1203 .

¶ 9 An involuntary commitment hearing is a civil proceeding that can result in “a serious deprivation of liberty.” In re MH 2006-000028, ¶ 10 , (quoting In re Coconino County No. MH 1425, , 293, , 1091 (1995)).