CAROLYN BLUE, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Carolyn Blue appeals an involuntary commitment order under Florida's Baker Act. The court reverses and remands, finding that while the State proved some criteria for commitment, it failed to present clear and convincing evidence of a substantial likelihood that Blue would inflict serious bodily harm on herself or others in the near future.
The court held that while the appellant meets some commitment criteria, the State failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that there is a substantial likelihood she will inflict serious bodily harm on herself or another person in the near future. Testimony that the appellant is unstable, threatening at times, and frightens her family, without specific evidence of the nature and imminence of potential harm, is insufficient to meet the statutory standard.
[1] In an involuntary commitment proceeding, the State bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the statutory criteria authorizing involuntary commit…
[2] Refusal to take medication and resulting deterioration of a mental condition alone do not justify involuntary commitment.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“In an involuntary commitment proceeding, the State bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the statutory criteria authorizing involuntary commitment have been met.”
Establishes the applicable burden of proof standard for involuntary commitment cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCarolyn Blue is mentally ill and has refused voluntary psychiatric placement. She refuses to take her medication, her mental condition is deterioratin…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Involuntary Placement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant appeals an order of involuntary placement entered pursuant to section 394.467, Florida Statutes (1999). We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
In an involuntary commitment proceeding, the State bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the statutory criteria authorizing involuntary commitment have been met. In re Beverly, 342 So. 2d 481 (Fla.1977); Salter v. State, 618 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993).
Without question, Appellant meets the criteria of section 394.467(l)(a)l. She is mentally ill, she has refused voluntary placement, and she may not be able to determine for herself whether placement is necessary. At issue is whether the State proved by clear and convincing evidence the criteria contained in section 394.467(l)(a)2.
The State established that Appellant refuses to take her medication, and therefore she is not stable and her mental condition may be deteriorating. This evidence alone does not in itself justify a Baker Act commitment. Adams v. State, 713 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998).
However, Appellant’s sister testified that she “cannot survive on her own” and that she scares her mother and the children in the family. Appellant is unable to care for her own children, and her mother must financially support her. It appears Appellant can no longer survive with the help of willing and responsible family or friends. She refuses voluntary treatment. Yet, other than proving her condition is deteriorating, the State did not establish that without treatment she would suffer from neglect or would refuse to care for herself.
Appellant is unstable and threatening to others at times. Her emotional outbursts scare her family. Her examining psychiatrist testified Appellant can be pleasant sometimes, but is generally very argumentative and hostile. Her interaction with other patients can escalate into conflicts and problems. Without specificity, the evidence is not clear and convincing that there is a substantial likelihood that in the near future Appellant will inflict serious bodily harm on herself or another person. Lyon v. State, 724 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)(expert psychiatrist’s testimony that if the patient were not on medication she would neglect herself, without specifying the nature of the self-neglect in a way that established any real and present threat of substantial harm to her well-being, could not support involuntary commitment).
As in Smith v. State, 508 So. 2d 1292 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), we find a deficiency in the proof to meet the requirements of section 394.467(1). While it appears Appellant may be a threat to herself or others now or in the near future, such evidence was not thoroughly examined below. The trial court is hereby ordered to elicit further testimony to establish the statutory criteria, or otherwise order Appellant discharged.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
JOANOS and WEBSTER, JJ., CONCUR; BOOTH, J., DISSENTS.
BOOTH, J.,
dissenting.
I would affirm.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Boller v. State, 775 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…statutory criteria. We agree and reverse. “In an involuntary commitment proceeding, the State bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the statutory criteria authorizing involuntary commitment have been met.” Blue v. State, 764 So. 2d 697, 698 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); see also Singletary v. State, 765 So. 2d 180, 181 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). It is well-settled that the need for treatment and medication and the refusal to take psychotropic medication despite a deteriorating mental condition,…
-
In re Involuntary Placement of Michael Lehrke: Michael Lehrke v. State, 12 So. 3d 307 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…not contain clear and convincing evidence to support the finding that Lehrke was substantially likely to inflict serious bodily harm to himself or others if released, we must reverse the trial court’s involuntary commitment order. See Blue v. State, 764 So. 2d 697, 698 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (“Appellant is unstable and threatening to others at times. Her emotional outbursts scare her family. Her examining psychiatrist testified [ajppellant can be pleasant sometimes, but is generally very argumentative and hostil…
-
Lischka v. State, 901 So. 2d 1025 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)…e statute and case law require reversal. “In an involuntary commitment proceeding, the State bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the statutory criteria authorizing involuntary commitment have been met.” Blue v. State, 764 So. 2d 697, 698 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); see also Boiler v. State, 775 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Singletary v. State, 765 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). It is well-settled that the need for treatment and medication and the refusal to take medication despite…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- In re Preer Beverly, 342 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 1977)
- Lyon v. State, 724 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- Smith v. State, 508 So. 2d 1292 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- Adams v. State, 713 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
- Salter v. State, 618 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)