AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed July 10, 2013.
S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-13-00413-CV
THE STATE OF TEXAS FOR THE BEST INTEREST AND PROTECTION OF F.S.
On Appeal from the Probate Court No. 3
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. MI-13-70178
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Wright, Justice Evans, and Justice Richter 1
Opinion by Justice Richter
F.S. appeals from a judgment of commitment for temporary inpatient mental health
services, contending there is no evidence or the evidence is factually and legally insufficient to
support a finding by clear and convincing evidence that: (1) as a result of mental illness, he was
likely to cause serious harm to himself; or (2) his ability to function independently was
deteriorating because of mental distress, and he was unable to make a rational decision as to
whether or not to submit to treatment. We overrule F.S.’s issues and affirm the trial court’s
judgment of involuntary commitment.
Background
Around February 22, 2013, appellant was apprehended on a Mental Illness Warrant and
taken to Green Oaks Hospital. The warrant, which was filed by appellant’s mother, stated that
1
The Hon. Martin Richter, Justice, Assigned
appellant was eating, living, and sleeping in the apartment’s washer/dryer room rather than his
bedroom and that appellant was extremely paranoid and believed that the CIA was trying to kill
him. The warrant also stated that appellant was sleeping with a metal rod in order to defend
himself, was barely eating, was refusing to take his medication, and that the family feared
appellant would harm them.
On February 23, 2013, an application for court ordered temporary mental health services
was filed with a physician’s certificate of medical examination for mental illness signed by Dr.
Maximus Anitube. Also on February 23, appellant was transferred to Timberlawn Hospital, and
on February 27, 2013, he was transferred to Terrell State Hospital. On March 11, 2013, Dr.
Margaret Weidow, a staff psychiatrist at Terrell State Hospital, examined appellant and filed a
second physician’s certificate of medical examination for mental illness. That certificate
identifies appellant’s diagnosis as “schizophrenia, paranoid type.” On March 12, 2013, the trial
court held a commitment hearing, at which both Dr. Weidow and appellant testified. The trial
court granted the application and ordered commitment at Terrell State Hospital for a period of
time not to exceed ninety days.
Standard of Review
In order to involuntarily commit someone for treatment of a mental illness, the trial court
must find the statutory criteria for commitment by clear and convincing evidence. TEX. HEALTH
& SAFETY CODE ANN. § 574.034(a) (West 2010). Clear and convincing evidence is that “degree
of proof which will produce in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction as to the
truth of the allegations sought to be established.” State v. Addington, 488 S.W.2d 569, 570 (Tex.
1979). Because the state has a heightened burden of proof in commitment cases, this Court
applies a heightened standard of review. In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17, 25 (Tex. 2002). In reviewing
a no-evidence or legal sufficiency claim, we examine all the evidence in the light that is most
–2–
favorable to the finding in order to determine whether a reasonable trier of fact could have
formed a firm belief or conviction that the finding was true. 2 In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256, 266
(Tex. 2002). In conducting a factual sufficiency review, we will consider the evidence that the
fact finder could reasonably have found to be clear and convincing and then determine, based on
the entire record, whether the fact finder could have formed a firm belief or conviction that the
allegations in the application were proven. Id.
Order of Involuntary Commitment
A trial court may order temporary inpatient mental services only if it finds by clear and
convincing evidence that the patient is mentally ill and that at least one of three criteria results
from that mental illness. TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 574.034(a) (West 2010). The
three criteria are: (1) the patient is likely to cause serious harm to himself; (2) the patient is
likely to cause serious harm to others; or (3) the patient is suffering severe and abnormal mental,
emotional, or physical distress, is deteriorating in his ability to function independently, and is
unable to make a rational and informed decision as to whether or not to submit to treatment.
TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 574.034(a)(2)(A),(B), and (C)(i)-(iii) (West 2010). In this
case, the trial court found that commitment was justified under criteria one and three. The clear
and convincing evidence the trial court relied on to make this finding must have included expert
testimony and, unless waived, evidence of a recent overt act or a continuing pattern of behavior
that tended to confirm: (1) the likelihood of serious harm to the patient or others; or (2) the
patient’s distress and the deterioration of the patient’s ability to function. TEX. HEALTH &
SAFETY CODE ANN. § 574.034(d) (West 2010).
2
A no-evidence challenge is the same as a challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence. See Johnson v.
Oliver, 250 S.W.3d 182, 185 n.1 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, no pet.).
–3–
Appellant argues that there was no evidence presented at the hearing of a recent overt act
or continuing pattern of behavior to confirm that he was likely to harm himself or that he was
suffering severe, abnormal distress and that his ability to function independently was
deteriorating. Dr. Weidow testified at appellant’s commitment hearing. She stated that appellant
was acutely psychotic and delusional with both visual and auditory hallucinations that affected
his daily living. These delusions included a belief that the CIA was out to get him and intended
to kill him. He also believed that if he wore a t-shirt on his head, it would block radiation.
Appellant was also not eating well; he had lost at least 20 pounds since his last admission to the
hospital two months earlier, and his body mass index was 19, which Dr. Weidow said is
considered very low for a person of his size. Appellant told the doctor that the CIA was
manipulating his energy system to cut his appetite.
Appellant testified that if he was released from the hospital, he would go back to the CIA,
but would not “retaliate with violence.” He stated that he communicated with the CIA through
channeling and that the CIA manipulated his energy system by using electromagnetic waves
from the satellites that uniquely targeted him and were not those generally dispersed to which
everyone is exposed. Appellant told the court that he wore a cap with a 10% silver liner to block
cell phone and radio signals and that the CIA had killed three or four people that he knew. He
admitted that he had slept in a closet for two weeks before moving to the washer/dryer room. He
stated that he slept in the washer/dryer room because it had no windows and would prevent
someone from shooting him. He testified that he was being targeted and that he heard
helicopters hovering or an “evil matter.”
Having reviewed the evidence, we conclude that the evidence is legally and factually
sufficient to support the trial court’s judgment.
–4–
We overrule F.S.’s nine points of error and affirm the trial court’s judgment of
involuntary commitment.
/Martin Richter/
MARTIN RICHTER
JUSTICE, ASSIGNED
130413F.P05
–5–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
THE STATE OF TEXAS FOR THE BEST On Appeal from the Probate Court No. 3,
INTEREST AND PROTECTION OF F.S. Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. MI-13-70178.
No. 05-13-00413-CV Opinion delivered by Justice Richter. Chief
Justice Wright and Justice Evans
participating.
In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
AFFIRMED.
It is ORDERED that appellee recover its costs of this appeal from appellant F.S.
Judgment entered this 10th day of July, 2013.
/Martin Richter/
MARTIN RICHTER
JUSTICE, ASSIGNED
–6–