Opinion
A22-0876
11-21-2022
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Madonna Margaret Thiner.
Martin County District Court File No. 46-PR-22-383
Considered and decided by Larson, Presiding Judge; Johnson, Judge; and Smith, Tracy M., Judge.
ORDER OPINION
Elise L. Larson, Judge
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. On April 29, 2022, respondent Martin County filed a petition to civilly commit appellant Madonna Margaret Thiner as a person who poses a risk of harm due to a mental illness and as a person who is chemically dependent. Minn. Stat. § 253B.02, subds. 2, 17a (2020).
2. The district court held a hearing on May 26, 2022. The district court heard testimony from the court-appointed examiner and from appellant. The district court also received several exhibits into evidence, including a Minn. R. Crim. P. 20 evaluation, a pre-petition screening report, and a report from the court-appointed examiner.
3. The district court found appellant posed "a risk of harm due to a mental illness," suffered from "a chemical dependency," and was "in need of commitment."
4. Appellant timely appealed the district court's order, arguing: (1) the district court made insufficient findings to facilitate meaningful appellate review, and (2) clear and convincing evidence did not support the district court's decision. Respondent conceded that the district court made insufficient findings to facilitate meaningful appellate review.
5. We review whether the district court made sufficient findings to facilitate meaningful appellate review de novo. In re Civ. Commitment of Spicer, 853 N.W.2d 803, 807 (Minn.App. 2014) (citing In re Linehan, 518 N.W.2d 609, 613 (Minn. 1994)). "An order does not permit meaningful appellate review if it does not identify the facts that the district court has determined to be true and the facts on which the district court's decision is based." Id. at 811. When the district court fails to make adequate findings, we remand for additional findings. In re Danielson, 398 N.W.2d 32, 37 (Minn.App. 1986) (citing In re Stewart, 352 N.W.2d 811, 813 (Minn.App. 1984)).
6. By statute, a district court must justify a civil commitment by stating its factual findings specifically and separately from its conclusions of law, and "[w]here commitment is ordered, the findings of fact and conclusions of law shall specifically state the proposed patient's conduct which is a basis for determining that each of the requisites for commitment is met." Minn. Stat. § 253B.09, subd. 2(a) (2020); In re Thulin, 660 N.W.2d 140, 144 (Minn.App. 2003). "It is not enough for a district court to use language from the [statutory requirements] . . . in a conclusory fashion." Spicer, 853 N.W.2d at 809 (quotation omitted).
7. Here, the district court failed to make sufficient factual findings to facilitate meaningful appellate review.
8. At the hearing, the district court made limited oral findings on the record. See Minn. R. Civ. P. 52.01 (noting "findings" may include those "stated orally and recorded in open court"). Except for one statement explaining why appellant's conduct made commitment the least restrictive alternative, the oral findings summarily recited the court-appointed examiner's testimony and the legal requirements for commitment without making factual findings. In re Welfare of M.M., 452 N.W.2d 236, 239 (Minn. 1990); Spicer, 853 N.W.2d at 810.
9. Following the hearing, the district court used a form order and failed to identify appellant's specific conduct that was the basis for her commitment. See Danielson, 398 N.W.2d at 35, 37.
10. As a result, the district court failed to make adequate findings to facilitate effective appellate review, to provide insight into the persuasiveness of the witnesses and evidence, or to demonstrate that the district court considered all the required statutory criteria. Id. at 35, 37 (remanding on "wholly inadequate" findings when the district court filled out a form order that recited the legal requirements for commitment but failed to identify any specific conduct upon which to base the commitment).
11. On this basis, we remand for further findings to facilitate meaningful appellate review. Id. at 37. Whether to reopen the record shall be discretionary with the district court. Id.
12. Because we remand, we do not reach appellant's argument that the district court's decision is not supported by clear and convincing evidence.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The district court's order is remanded for further findings.
2. The district court may exercise its discretion to reopen the record on remand.
3. Pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c), this order opinion is nonprecedential, except as law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.