Opinion
No. 2-151 / 01-0993.
Filed June 19, 2002.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Sioux County, JAMES D. SCOTT, Judge.
Thomas Opdahl appeals the district court ruling that denied his petition for a writ of habeas corpus requesting the court to order his release from continued hospitalization. AFFIRMED.
Michael J. Jacobsma of Klay, Veldhuizen, Binder, De Jong Pals, P.L.C., Orange City, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Mary W. Vavroch, Assistant Attorney General, and Mark Schouten, County Attorney, for appellee.
Heard by MAHAN, P.J., and ZIMMER and EISENHAUER, JJ.
Thomas Opdahl appeals from the district court's ruling that denied his petition for a writ of habeas corpus requesting the court order his release from continued hospitalization. He claims (1) Iowa Code section 229.1(15)(b) (2001) violates the principles of substantive due process and the concept of "emotional injury" is vague and standardless, and (2) chapter 229 is constitutionally deficient because the provisions allowing for continued hospitalization violate the principles of procedural due process. We affirm.
I. BACKGROUND FACTS.
Thomas Opdahl has a long history of mental illness and inpatient and outpatient psychiatric treatment. On March 30, 2001, his sisters filed an application alleging Opdahl was seriously mentally impaired pursuant to the provisions of Iowa Code chapter 229. Their statements filed in support of the application alleging serious mental impairment revealed Opdahl had recently pushed his elderly mother across a room and assaulted a neighbor. He was also making verbal threats to harm others and demonstrating intense anger if confronted with the unreasonableness of a lawsuit he is pursuing. The statements revealed Opdahl had stopped taking medication for his mental illness and his family was afraid of him.
On April 4, 2001, Opdahl and his attorney signed a stipulated order for hospitalization. Pursuant to the terms of the order, Opdahl was transported to the Cherokee Mental Health Institute for a complete psychiatric evaluation and treatment. Opdahl did not file an appeal from the order.
On May 7, 2001, Opdahl filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to section 229.37. He alleged there was no evidence he was a danger to himself or others. He argued the restraint on his liberty violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and article I, sections 1 and 9 of the Iowa Constitution. In his brief in support of the petition for writ of habeas corpus, he contended that chapter 229 violates procedural due process because it does not provide for a hearing to take place upon a decision for continued hospitalization unless the confined person files a petition for writ of habeas corpus. He asserted that section 229.1(15)(b) cannot be used as a basis to confine a person against his will because it does not provide for a showing of a threat of physical injury to the person confined or a third person if the confined person is released.
The district court denied Opdahl's petition for writ of habeas corpus. It determined that, if he were released, he would likely inflict serious emotional injury on members of his family or others unable to avoid contact with him. The court did not address Opdahl's constitutional arguments, and Opdahl did not file an Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.904(2) motion. Opdahl appeals.
II. ERROR PRESERVATION.
The State contends Opdahl failed to preserve error on his constitutional claims. It notes that while Opdahl raised the issues in his brief before the district court, it did not rule upon them, and he did not file a rule 1.904(2) motion to obtain a ruling. Opdahl did not identify in his appellate brief how error was preserved for review of his constitutional claims. See Iowa R. App. P. 6.14(1)(e). Opdahl agreed at the oral argument in this case that he did not file an Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.904(2) motion and that the trial court did not engage in a specific analysis of his constitutional claims. However, he argues the trial court's adverse ruling on the constitutional issues is implicit in its conclusion.
Generally, we will only review an issue raised on appeal if it was presented to and ruled on by the district court. State v. Hernandez-Lopez, 639 N.W.2d 226, 233 (Iowa 2002). This general rule includes constitutional issues. Id. When the trial court fails to resolve an issue, a request to enlarge or amend findings is necessary to preserve error. Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.904(2); Johnson v. Kaster, 637 N.W.2d 174, 182 (Iowa 2001). The purpose of a rule 1.904(2) motion is "to advise counsel and the appellate court of the basis of the trial court's decision in order that counsel may direct his attack upon specific adverse findings or rulings in the event of an appeal." Johnson, 637 N.W.2d at 182 (citations omitted). Since Opdahl did not move under rule 1.904(2) for an enlargement or modification of the trial court's conclusions, we find error was not preserved and decline to address the issues on appeal.
III. CONCLUSION.
We affirm the trial court's ruling on Opdahl's petition for writ of habeas corpus.
AFFIRMED.