## Facts

- The State petitioned to involuntarily commit J.A.D. for mental-health treatment under North Dakota law.
- After a September 3, 1992 preliminary hearing, the county court entered a temporary 14-day treatment order committing J.A.D. to the North Dakota State Hospital.
- On September 16, 1992, the county court held an involuntary treatment hearing and found J.A.D. had a mental illness substantially impairing self-control, judgment, and discretion.
- The county court also found a substantial likelihood of substantial harm to J.A.D. based on past acts indicating he could not take advantage of resources available outside the State Hospital.
- The county court ordered up to 90 days of treatment at the State Hospital.
- J.A.D. appealed, arguing the findings of mental illness and risk of harm were not supported by clear and convincing evidence.

## Issues

1. Whether the county court clearly erred in finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that J.A.D. had a mental illness substantially impairing his capacity to use self-control, judgment, and discretion.
2. Whether the county court clearly erred in finding, by clear and convincing evidence, a serious risk of harm to J.A.D. if not hospitalized, shown by past acts indicating inability to use available resources outside the hospital.

## Decision

- The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed the 90-day involuntary treatment order.
- The court held the record did not contain clear and convincing evidence sufficient to support the statutory findings required for involuntary treatment, particularly the required showing of serious risk of harm if not hospitalized.
- Applying the clearly erroneous standard of review, the court concluded the county court’s dangerousness/risk-of-harm finding could not stand under the heightened burden of proof.

## Legal Principles

- Involuntary treatment requires proof by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent is a “person requiring treatment.”
- The statutory determination is a two-step inquiry: (1) the person is mentally ill, and (2) there is a reasonable expectation of a serious risk of harm to self, others, or property if the person is not hospitalized.
- A diagnosis or general concern that hospitalization may be beneficial is insufficient; the risk-of-harm element must be supported by specific evidence meeting the clear and convincing standard.
- On appeal, the court reviews the lower court’s procedures, findings, and conclusions and will reverse factual determinations as clearly erroneous when the record does not satisfy the required heightened proof.

## Conclusion

The court vacated the involuntary hospitalization order because, even under deferential review, the evidence did not clearly and convincingly establish the statutory requirement of a serious risk of harm to J.A.D. if he were not hospitalized.


In re J.A.D., 492 N.W.2d 82 (N.D. 1992)