The State of Texas for the Best Interest and Protection of A. K.--Appeal from County Court at Law of Cherokee County

NO. 12-05-00120-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

THE STATE OF TEXAS FOR APPEAL FROM THE

THE BEST INTEREST AND COUNTY COURT AT LAW OF

PROTECTION OF A.K. CHEROKEE COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A.K. appeals the trial court s order renewing a prior order for inpatient extended mental health services. A.K. raises one issue on appeal. We reverse and render.

Background

A.K. is a male patient at the Texas Mental Health and Mental Retardation Facility in Rusk, Cherokee County, Texas, in accordance with an order dated April 5, 2005 for extended court-ordered inpatient mental health services. // On March 30, 2005, an application for renewal of the order for extended mental health services was filed. // On April 5, 2005, the trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing on the matter. Following the hearing, the trial court granted the application for renewal, finding that, as a result of mental illness, the patient is likely to cause serious harm to self or others, or will, if not treated, continue to experience deterioration of his/her ability to function independently and is unable to make a rational and informed choice as to whether or not to submit to treatment . . . . This appeal followed.

Specificity of Findings

In his sole issue, A.K. contends that the trial court erred in ordering the renewal because the evidence was neither legally nor factually sufficient to support its findings. // A court may not renew an order for extended inpatient mental health services unless the court finds that the patient meets the criteria for extended mental health services prescribed by Sections 574.035(a)(1), (2), and (3). See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. 574.066(f). Section 574.035(a) provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

The judge may order a proposed patient to receive court-ordered extended inpatient mental health services only if the jury, or the judge if the right to a jury is waived, finds, from clear and convincing evidence, that:

(1) the proposed patient is mentally ill;

(2) as a result of that mental illness the proposed patient:

(A) is likely to cause serious harm to himself;

(B) is likely to cause serious harm to others; or

(C) is:

(i) suffering severe and abnormal mental, emotional, or physical distress;

(ii) experiencing substantial mental or physical deterioration of the proposed patient s ability to function independently, which is exhibited by the proposed patient s inability, except for reasons of indigence, to provide for the proposed patient s basic needs, including food, clothing, health, or safety; and

(iii) unable to make a rational and informed decision as to whether or not to submit to treatment.

(3) the proposed patient s condition is expected to continue for more than 90 days . . . .

Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. 574.035(a). If the jury or judge finds that the proposed patient meets the commitment criteria prescribed by Subsection (a), the jury or judge must specify which criterion listed in Subsection (a)(2) forms the basis for the decision. Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. 574.035(c) (Vernon Supp. 2004 05). The court may not enter an order for extended mental health services unless appropriate findings are made. Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. 574.035(g).

In the case at hand, the trial court, in its order, found that, as a result of mental illness, [A.K.] is likely to cause serious harm to self or others, or will, if not treated, continue to experience deterioration of [his] ability to function independently and is unable to make a rational and informed choice as to whether or not to submit to treatment. . . . As the court s order fails to specify which criterion listed in subsection (a)(2) forms the basis of the court s decision, the order does not comply with the mandate set forth in Section 574.035(c). Therefore, we hold that due to its failure to include appropriately specific findings in its order, the trial court improperly entered the order renewing a prior order for inpatient extended mental health services. A.K. s sole issue is sustained. //

Disposition

Having sustained A.K. s sole issue, we reverse the trial court s order renewing a prior order for inpatient extended mental health services and render an order denying the application for renewal of the prior order for extended mental health services.

SAM GRIFFITH

Justice

Opinion delivered September 7, 2005.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and DeVasto, J.

(PUBLISH)