## Facts

- T.B., a 15-year-old, had longstanding conflict with her parents, including periodic violent fights with family members, but without serious injury.
- The family attempted therapy more than once; T.B. resisted participation.
- After an argument, T.B.’s mother contacted a county-designated mental health professional to seek involuntary commitment; the professional concluded T.B. did not meet criteria because she was not dangerous as a result of a mental disorder.
- T.B. later ran away, stayed with a friend and a youth shelter, and was taken into custody for evaluation; a psychiatrist similarly found she did not meet involuntary-commitment criteria.
- Despite these evaluations and over T.B.’s objection, CPC Fairfax Hospital admitted T.B. at her parents’ request and transported her to the facility.
- Hospital staff initially restricted T.B.’s access to her attorneys and to her belongings, which included a notice of intent to leave.
- T.B. eventually contacted counsel and presented her notice of intent to leave, but the hospital continued to hold her; neither the hospital nor the parents sought timely judicial authorization or review.
- T.B. petitioned for habeas corpus; the superior court denied relief, and T.B. remained confined until she escaped.

## Issues

1. Whether RCW 71.34, as amended in 1995, authorizes a private psychiatric hospital and parents to confine a minor aged 13 or older against the minor’s will without timely judicial oversight.
2. Whether T.B.’s confinement involved an unconstitutional deprivation of liberty, including interference with access to counsel.
3. If RCW 71.34 were read to allow such confinement without oversight, whether it would be unconstitutional.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court reversed the superior court’s denial of the writ of habeas corpus and ordered T.B.’s release from confinement “or the prospect thereof.”
- The court held RCW 71.34 does not authorize involuntary confinement of an objecting minor aged 13 or older without timely judicial oversight and required procedures.
- The court held T.B. suffered an unconstitutional deprivation of liberty, including denial of timely access to counsel.
- Because the statute was construed not to permit the confinement at issue, the court did not reach a broader facial constitutional challenge to the statute.

## Legal Principles

- Confinement of a minor in a psychiatric hospital over the minor’s objection constitutes a serious restraint on liberty and triggers procedural protections comparable to those required for civil commitment.
- RCW 71.34 must be read to require timely judicial oversight and statutory safeguards when a minor aged 13 or older objects to inpatient confinement and seeks release.
- A facility and parents may not continue to hold an objecting minor without initiating the required judicial process; nonjudicial “incarceration” is unauthorized.
- A detained minor must have meaningful access to counsel and a judicial forum to contest the detention; interference with access to counsel in this context is constitutionally infirm.
- Courts may construe ambiguous statutes to avoid constitutional questions when a reasonable narrowing construction resolves the dispute.

## Conclusion

The court granted habeas relief, holding that Washington’s minor mental-health treatment statute does not permit parents and a private hospital to confine an objecting 13+ minor without prompt judicial oversight, and that the hospital’s continued detention and restriction of access to counsel unlawfully deprived T.B. of protected liberty interests.


State ex rel. T.B. v. CPC Fairfax Hosp., 918 P.2d 497 (Wash. 1996)