## Facts

- Nyflot’s parents initiated proceedings seeking involuntary treatment under North Dakota’s civil commitment statutes.
- After a preliminary hearing, the court found probable cause that Nyflot was a person requiring treatment and ordered up to 14 days’ detention for examination at a state hospital.
- A staff psychiatrist at the state hospital examined Nyflot and petitioned for involuntary treatment.
- At the treatment hearing, evidence showed Nyflot engaged in repeated dangerous conduct while living in a school dormitory, including:
  - Setting two fires in a dormitory bathroom.
  - Sliding lit cigarettes under another student’s dorm-room door.
  - Cutting a dorm-room window screen and eloping to a restricted area.
  - Repeatedly possessing and concealing contraband such as a lighter.
- The psychiatrist opined Nyflot was mentally ill and, without hospitalization, posed a serious risk of harm to herself, others, or property.
- The county court found Nyflot was a person requiring treatment and ordered hospitalization for up to 90 days.
- Nyflot appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the petition had to be dismissed because Nyflot was not examined by a statutorily qualified “expert examiner.”
2. Whether the court lost jurisdiction by not holding the treatment hearing within 14 days after the preliminary hearing.
3. Whether the examiner’s report failed to clearly explain how Nyflot met the statutory criteria for a person requiring treatment.
4. Whether the evidence supported, by clear and convincing proof, that Nyflot was a person requiring treatment who presented a serious risk of harm.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the hospitalization order.
- A licensed staff psychiatrist satisfied the statutory definition of “expert examiner.”
- The statutory time limit for holding the treatment hearing was directory; absent a showing of prejudice, a minor delay did not divest jurisdiction.
- The examination report adequately connected Nyflot’s mental illness and described conduct to the statutory criteria and was not merely conclusory.
- The trial court’s findings were supported by clear and convincing evidence that Nyflot presented a serious risk of harm to persons or property.

## Legal Principles

- A licensed physician, psychiatrist, or clinical psychologist qualifies as an “expert examiner” when the statute defines the role by licensure in those professions.
- A statutory deadline for a civil commitment treatment hearing is not jurisdictional when the statute does not mandate dismissal and the respondent shows no prejudice from delay.
- An expert report is sufficient when it links diagnosis and specific observed behavior to the statutory criteria for involuntary treatment; it need not be exhaustive if it provides reasons beyond rote statutory language.
- “Serious risk of harm” may be established by repeated objectively dangerous conduct creating a substantial likelihood of injury or significant property damage; actual past harm and asserted benign intent are not controlling.
- Appellate review sustains commitment findings supported by clear and convincing evidence and not clearly erroneous.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Nyflot’s involuntary hospitalization, holding that the examining psychiatrist met statutory qualifications, a short nonprejudicial delay did not defeat jurisdiction, the report sufficiently explained the statutory basis, and the evidence clearly and convincingly showed a substantial likelihood of serious harm based on repeated fire-related and other dangerous behavior.


In re Nyflot, 340 N.W.2d 178 (N.D. 1983)