We have explained that the statute requires a district court to make "some record" prior to permitting waivers of rights in involuntary commitment proceedings. In re A.M., 2014 MT 221, ¶ 11, 376 Mont. 226, 332 P.3d 263 (citing In re P.A.C., 2013 MT 84, ¶ 13, 369 Mont. 407, 298 P.3d 1166). ¶18 [4] We have not, however, established parameters identifying specifically what a record must contain in order to validate a waiver.
In re F.S., 2021 MT 262, ¶ 6, 406 Mont. 1, 496 P.3d 958 (citing In re B.H., 2018 MT 282, ¶ 9, 393 Mont. 352, 430 P.3d 1006). A finding of fact is clearly erroneous if it is not supported by substantial evidence, if the district court misapprehended the effect of the evidence, or if this Court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made after reviewing the entire record. In re A.M., 2014 MT 221, ¶ 8, 376 Mont. 226, 332 P.3d 263. We review de novo questions of law as to whether the district court correctly interpreted and applied the law correctly.
is clearly erroneous if it is not supported by substantial evidence, if the district court misapprehended the effect of the evidence, or if this Court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made after reviewing the entire record. In re A.M., 2014 MT 221, ¶ 8, 376 Mont. 226, 332 P.3d 263. ¶9 At the outset, we note the facts of this case are unique and unlikely to recur.
This Court has previously held that a district court "may not accept a stipulation to an involuntary commitment without first making an affirmative determination on the record—based upon the evidence presented, including the representations of the respondent and/or his attorney and friend—that the person to be committed understands his procedural rights, and that he waives those rights intentionally and knowingly." In re A.M ., 2014 MT 221, ¶ 15, 376 Mont. 226, 332 P.3d 263. The sufficiency of the record depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. In re A.M ., ¶ 11. It is clear from the exchange with the Court that B.A.F. was aware of who and where he was, and the nature and purpose of the proceeding.
¶12 Applying these statutory requirements, we have held that a district court may not accept a respondent’s stipulation to involuntary civil commitment "without first making an affirmative determination on the record—based upon the evidence presented, including the representations of the respondent and/or his attorney and friend—that the person to be committed understands his procedural rights, and that he waives those rights intentionally and knowingly." In re A.M., 2014 MT 221, ¶ 15, 376 Mont. 226, 332 P.3d 263. The nature and extent of the record regarding the respondent’s waiver depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case.
A district court must inquire into whether the person who is the subject of a petition for involuntary commitment is capable of making an intentional and knowing waiver of rights. In re A.M., 2014 MT 221, ¶ 11, 376 Mont. 226, 332 P.3d 263 (citation omitted). As we stated in In re P.A.C., 2013 MT 84, ¶ 14, 369 Mont. 407, 298 P.3d 1166, “The nature and extent of the record will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case,” but at a minimum, the record must reflect that the attorney discussed the waiver with her client, that the client desired to waive his rights, and that the attorney was satisfied that her client understood his rights and the nature of the proceeding.