In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
No. 06-16-00033-CV
THE STATE OF TEXAS FOR THE
BEST INTEREST AND PROTECTION OF H.S.
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2
Hunt County, Texas
Trial Court No. M-11179
Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Moseley
MEMORANDUM OPINION
H.S. appeals a trial court’s order authorizing the administration of psychoactive drugs. A
trial court may enter an order authorizing the administration of psychoactive medication to a
patient who is under an order for extended mental health services if it finds, by clear and
convincing evidence “that the patient lacks the capacity to make a decision regarding the
administration of the proposed medication and treatment with the proposed medication is in the
best interest of the patient.” See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 574.106(a-1)(1) (West
2010).
On appeal, H.S. does not argue that the evidence is legally insufficient to show (1) that she
lacks the capacity to make a decision regarding the administration of the proposed medication and
treatment or (2) that the proposed medication is in her best interest. Instead, H.S. argues only that
the trial court’s extended commitment order is not supported by legally and factually sufficient
evidence and that, therefore, the order authorizing the administration of psychoactive medication
is likewise invalid. However, in our cause number 06-16-00019-CV, this Court affirmed the trial
court’s extended commitment order, concluding that such order was supported by legally and
factually sufficient evidence. Accordingly, we overrule H.S.’s legal sufficiency point and affirm
the trial court’s order authorizing the administration of psychoactive medication.
2
We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Bailey C. Moseley
Justice
Date Submitted: May 20, 2016
Date Decided: May 27, 2016
3