IN THE MATTER OF F.W.S., Alleged to be Seriously Mentally Impaired, F.W.S, Respondent-Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 9-952 / 09-1110
Filed December 17, 2009
IN THE MATTER OF F.W.S., Alleged
to be Seriously Mentally Impaired,
F.W.S,
Respondent-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Kathleen A.
Kilnoski, Judge.
The respondent appeals an order involuntarily committing him to
outpatient treatment. AFFIRMED.
Eric J. Nelson, Council Bluffs, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Gretchen Witte Kraemer, Assistant
Attorney General, Matthew Wilber, County Attorney, and Jeffery Theulen,
Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Eisenhauer, P.J., Potterfield, J., and Mahan, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2009).
2
EISENHAUER, P.J.
F.W.S. appeals from the district court order affirming a magistrate’s review
order. The magistrate had previously ordered F.W.S. to comply with outpatient
requirements, including medication.
After reports of noncompliance, the
magistrate ordered his hospitalization and conducted a hearing. The magistrate
again involuntarily committed him to outpatient treatment and ordered him to
comply with medication recommendations.
The district court affirmed the
magistrate. On appeal, F.W.S. contends the court erred in finding he is seriously
mentally impaired. An involuntary commitment proceeding is an ordinary action
at law and therefore our review is for errors at law. In re J.P., 574 N.W.2d 340,
342 (Iowa 1998).
The State must prove the allegations in the application for involuntary
commitment by clear and convincing evidence. Id. In other words, there must be
no serious or substantial doubt as to whether F.W.S. is seriously mentally
impaired.
See id.
The district court’s findings of fact are binding on us if
supported by substantial evidence. Id.
The definition of serious mental impairment has three elements; the
respondent must be found to (1) have a mental illness, (2) lack “sufficient
judgment to make responsible decisions with respect to the person's
hospitalization or treatment,” and (3) be likely, if allowed to remain at liberty, to
inflict physical injury on “the person's self or others,” to inflict serious emotional
injury on a designated class of persons, or be unable to satisfy the person's
physical needs. Id. at 343.
3
On appeal it is conceded there is substantial evidence F.W.S. has a
mental illness.
commitment.
Mental illness, by itself, does not establish grounds for
Id.
F.W.S. argues there is insufficient evidence he lacks the
judgment to make reasonable decisions with respect to his hospitalization or
treatment or that he is likely to inflict physical or mental injury on himself or others
if allowed to remain at liberty.
We conclude substantial evidence supports the trial court’s conclusion
clear and convincing evidence established F.W.S. lacks sufficient judgment to
make responsible decisions with respect to his treatment. Although the issue of
mental illness is conceded on appeal, F.W.S. denies he has a mental illness.
However, he has a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia and a prior involuntarily
commitment in 2006. F.W.S. testified, “I am the first one to work for the minimum
wage. If that is wrong, then I—then I will contend that I am mentally ill but it’s not
wrong.” He further testified that medication is not beneficial to him, claiming it
harms his health. The district court found, “The record is clear, however, that
when respondent’s mental health providers have reduced his medication, or
when respondent has refused to take his medication, he becomes extremely
paranoid and delusional, leading him to have grossly impaired judgment.”
Substantial evidence supports this finding. F.W.S. lacks insight into this mental
health and as a result, cannot make responsible decisions regarding his
treatment.
We also conclude substantial evidence supports the trial court’s
conclusion F.W.S. is a danger to cause physical or serious emotional harm to
4
others if allowed to remain at liberty. As the district court noted, he “has a past
history of aggression and violent behavior” and has become “confrontational with
neighbors and authority figures, including the court and his treatment providers.”
During a period in which he was refusing medication in May of 2009, F.W.S.
travelled to Washington, D.C. and demanded to meet with the president,
attempting to enter the White House through a rear entrance.
His behavior
instigated an investigation by the United States Secret Service, which views him
as a potential threat to the president.
His behavior while unmedicated has
caused him to be arrested twice due to his “menacing” behavior towards others.
Because substantial evidence support the trial court’s conclusion the State
has proved by clear and convincing evidence the three elements necessary to
make a finding F.W.S. is seriously mentally impaired, we affirm the district court’s
order for outpatient commitment.
AFFIRMED.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
