Opinion
No. 22043-5-III
Filed: February 24, 2005 UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appeal from Superior Court of Yakima County. Docket No: 03-6-00096-9. Judgment or order under review. Date filed: 04/04/2003. Judge signing: Hon. Robert W. Inouye.
Counsel for Appellant(s), Stephanie C. Cunningham, Attorney at Law, 4616, 25th Ave NE #552, Seattle, WA 98105.
Counsel for Respondent(s), Lawrence Andrew Peterson, Yakima County Prosecuting Atty Office, Rm 211, 128 N 2nd St, Yakima, WA 98901-2639
Jane Sullivan was confined for mental health treatment. Initially, her confinement was on an emergency basis, but the court granted an additional 14-day and 21-day confinement. Claiming the 21-day confinement was improper, Ms. Sullivan appeals. But finding her case moot, we dismiss the appeal.
In 1993 and 1994, Ms. Sullivan's children were the subjects of a dependency action in Yakima County. Her parental rights were eventually terminated by Judge Michael Schwab. During the time of these proceedings, Ms. Sullivan attempted to contact the judge and repeatedly contacted court staff. These contacts were investigated, but charges were not filed. The contacts eventually stopped.
In 2003, Ms. Sullivan again tried to contact Judge Schwab and court staff. As a result of this behavior, Yakima County mental health professionals filed a petition for a 72-hour emergency detention in order to observe and treat Ms. Sullivan. The petition indicated Ms. Sullivan suffered from bipolar disorder and her behavior was bizarre and unstable. The petition authorizing her detention was granted on March 18, 2003.
On March 19, Dr. Harrison, Ms. Sullivan's treating physician, filed a petition seeking an additional 14-day detention. The court granted the petition, finding she was `gravely disabled.' Clerk's Papers at 17.
On March 28, Dr. Sawyer, another treating physician, requested an additional 90 days of confinement and treatment, alleging Ms. Sullivan was a danger to others. Finding there was a sufficient likelihood of serious harm to others, the court granted the petition and ordered confinement for up to 21 days and continued treatment for the remainder of the 90-day period. Ms. Sullivan appeals the order imposing this additional 90-day detention.
She challenges the entry of an order confining her under the civil commitment statutes. But her confinement has ended. Because we cannot provide her with any meaningful relief, her case is moot. In re Matter of LaBelle, 107 Wn.2d 196, 200, 728 P.2d 138 (1986).
Although moot, this court can nevertheless review the merits if the case involves matters of continuing and substantial public interest. In re Detention of C.W., 147 Wn.2d 259, 270, 53 P.3d 979 (2002); LaBelle, 107 Wn.2d at 200; In re Matter of Cross, 99 Wn.2d 373, 377, 662 P.2d 828 (1983). Clarification of the statutory scheme governing civil commitment is a matter of continuing and substantial public interest. C.W., 147 Wn.2d at 270; LaBelle, 107 Wn.2d at 200; Cross, 99 Wn.2d at 377.
In C.W., the court was asked to analyze the meaning of a statute's language. C.W., 147 Wn.2d at 271-76. The court was also asked to determine whether a statute violated due process. Id. at 276-79. In LaBelle, the court was asked to determine if a statute was unconstitutional. LaBelle, 107 Wn.2d at 201-08. In Cross, the court was asked to determine if the lower court exceeded its authority and if notice provisions were followed. Cross, 99 Wn.2d at 377-78. In each of these cases, the issues required the court to clarify the statutory scheme and determine how the statutes should be interpreted. There was also a likelihood of recurrence of the issues in each case.
Ms. Sullivan, however, does not raise issues requiring the court to clarify the statutes in question. The questions here are limited to whether the court entered adequate findings and whether the facts support the court's findings. Her appeal being fact specific, there is little if no likelihood these particular issues will reoccur. The case is moot and there is no substantial public interest requiring review. We therefore dismiss the appeal.
A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW 2.06.040.
SCHULTHEIS, J. and KURTZ, JJ., Concur.