Cited by

§ 36-539(C); MH2010-002637, 228 Ariz. at 76 ¶ 1; (“Because such proceedings may result in a serious deprivation of liberty, however, the statutory requirements must be strictly adhered to.”).

observes, “acquaintance witnesses may not include those who have participated in the psychological evaluation of the patient for commitment purposes.”

(“Because such proceedings may result in a serious deprivation of liberty, however, the statutory requirements must be strictly adhered to.”); In re Maricopa Cnty.

(“Because such proceedings may result in a serious deprivation of liberty .

See In re Commitment of an Alleged Mentally Disordered Person, MH-1425, In re MH 2001-001139, 203 Ariz. at 355, ¶¶ 24-25.

(noting, in the context of a different component of the evaluation requirement, that “the statute is tightly drawn to avoid situations such as this, where the patient appears to have been committed primarily on the opinion and observations of one psychiatrist.”).

No. MH 1425, (considering an otherwise moot issue because a decision addressing a common practice would have “a significant impact on the mechanics of involuntary commitment hearings”).

No. MH 1425, –93 (1995) (order vacated because evidence at involuntary commitment hearing did not include testimony of two evaluating physicians and two or more witnesses acquainted with patient).

Mental Health No. MH 1425

In re Commitment of Alleged Mentally Disordered Person, Coconino County No. MH 1425, see also In re Maricopa County Superior Court No. MH 2003–000058

See MH 2008-000438, 220 Ariz. at 280, ¶ 18 , 205 P.3d at 1127 ; , (even “difficult and time consuming” statutory requirements warrant strict compliance).

(“Because [civil commitment] proceedings may result in a serious deprivation of liberty ...

In re Coconino County Mental Health No. MH 1425, , see also In re Maricopa County Mental Health No. MH 2003-000058

11, 13 , see also In re Coconino County Mental Health No. 1425

In re Coconino County No. MH 1425, , 293, , 1091 (1995).

the statutory requirements must be strictly adhered to.” Coconino County No. MH 1425, , 293, , 1091 (1995).

Coconino County No. MH 1425, , 293, , 1091 (1995).

In re Coconino County No. MH 1425, , 292, , 1090 (1995); ¶ 7 , In re Maricopa County No. MH 94-00592

In re Coconino County No. MH 1425, , 292, , 1090 (1995); In re MH 2005-001290, ¶ 7 , In re Maricopa County No. MH 94-00592

See also Matter of Commitment of Alleged Mentally Disordered Person, Coconino County No. MH 1425, , , 1090 (1995) (emphasizing that the legislature intended “to prevent professional mental health evaluators, whether consciously or otherwise, from simply ratifying or ‘rubber stamping’ one another’s findings”).

Maricopa County Superior Court No. MH 2001-001139, ¶ 8 , (citing Alleged Mentally Disordered Person Coconino County No. MH 1425, , ).

Maricopa County Superior Court No. MH XXXX-XXXXXX, ¶ 8 , (citing Alleged Mentally Disordered Person Coconino County No. MH 1425, , ).

9 ¶ 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.

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.

Matter of Commitment of Alleged Mentally Disordered Person, Coconino County No. MH 1425, , 293, , 1091 (1995).

2493 , 61 L.Ed.2d 101 (1979) (Brennan, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) and In re MH 1425, , 293, , 1091 (1995)).

2493 , 61 L.Ed.2d 101 (1979) (Brennan, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) and In re MH 1125, , 293, , 1091 (1995)).

§ 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)).

See Matter of Coconino County No. MH 1425, , rev’d on other grounds, , (holding that it was not error for the trial court to admit reports of two physicians in lieu of testimony, stating “[njothing in the statute requires that the testimony be oral”).

See Matter of Coconino County No. MH 1425, , rev'd on other grounds, , (holding that it was not error for the trial court to admit reports of two physicians in lieu of testimony, stating "[n]othing in the statute requires that the testimony be oral").

¶ 14 Involuntary treatment by court order is “a serious deprivation of liberty.” In re Coconino County No. MH 1425, , 293, , 1091 (1995); cf. Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480, 491 , 100 S.Ct.

(citing Matter of Commitment of Alleged Mentally Disordered Person, Coconino County No. MH 1425, , , 1091 (1995)), and added that “[s]trict compliance with the notice requirement” is required as “is confirmed by the fact that the notice provisions cannot be waived.” Id.

In cases, such as this one, where a significant liberty interest is at stake, these “statutory requirements must be strictly adhered to.” Coconino County No. MH 1425, , 293, , 1091 (1995); see Coconino County No. MH 95-0074

Coconino County No. MH 1425, , 293, , 1091 (1995); see Coconino County No. MH 95-0074

In this case, the express statutory requirements take on added significance “[bjecause involuntary treatment proceedings may result in a serious deprivation of appellant’s liberty interests [.]” Maricopa County Superior Court No. MH 2001-001139, , (citing In re Commitment of an Alleged Mentally Disordered Person, Coconino County No. MH 1425, , , 1091 (1995)).

We must, however, “read the statute as a whole, and give meaningful operation to all of its provisions.” , ( , ).

Cf. Matter of Alleged Mentally Disordered Person, Coconino County No. MH 1425, , , 1091 (1995) (“Because [involuntary-treatment] proceedings may result in a serious deprivation of liberty, however, the statutory requirements must be strictly adhered to.”).

See, e.g., Matter of Mental Health Case MH 92-020