Cited by

¶5 Court-ordered treatment “constitutes a significant deprivation of liberty that requires due process protection.” ¶ 14 (App. 2007) (quoting Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 425 (1979)).

Due process further requires that the patient be present at the hearing with counsel, “be confronted with witnesses against [her], have the right to cross-examine, and to offer evidence of [her] own.” ¶ 9 (App. 2007) (citations omitted).

Appellant also argues the court violated her due process rights by denying her the right to represent herself at the hearing and by conducting an incomplete inquiry under ¶ 30 (App. 2007).

Here, the record indicates the parties stipulated to a settlement conference before the judge assigned to their case.4 There is no evidence in the record 4 Relying on this court’s decision in Father argues that “a judge does not have the discretion to disregard the statutory requirement for a verbatim record.” That case, however, involved the application of A.R.S.

¶11 Appellant’s reliance on is similarly unavailing.

¶ 19, (“[a]lthough a civil commitment proceeding cannot be equated to a criminal prosecution, .

Due process requires that the patient “be present with counsel, have an opportunity to be heard, be confronted with witnesses against him, have the right to cross-examine, and to offer evidence of his own.” ¶ 9

In re MH 2007-001236, ¶ 15 , ( ¶ 8 , In re MH 2006-000749, ¶ 13 , Little v. All Phoenix S. Cmty.

¶¶ 30, 34-35, -90 (App. 2007); MH 2006-000749, 152 P.3d at 1206.

§ 36-539 hearing); ¶ 27 , (waiver of the patient's right to be present at a hearing); ¶ 30 , (waiver of the right to counsel).

§ 36-539 hearing); In re MH 2006-000749, ¶27 , (waiver of the patient’s right to be present at a hearing); ¶ 30 , (waiver of the right to counsel).

¶ 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 , ).

¶ 8 , (citing In re *279 MH 2006-000749, ¶ 13 , ).

¶ 8 , (citing In re *1126 MH XXXX-XXXXXX, ¶ 13 , ).

¶ 8 , In re MH 2006-000749, ¶ 13 , Little v. All Phoenix South Community Mental Health Center, Inc.

¶ 8 , ¶ 13 , Little v. All Phoenix South Community Mental Health Center, Inc.

¶6 An individual subject to court-ordered treatment faces “a significant deprivation of liberty that requires due process protection.” ¶ 14 , (quoting Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 425 , 99 S.Ct.

¶ 8 , ¶ 13 , Little v. All Phoenix South Community Mental Health Center, Inc.