Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

901 So. 2d 1025

Lischka v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 2005-05-25

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently July 2018

1 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“[T]he need for treatment and medication and the refusal to take medication despite a deteriorating mental condition, standing alone, do not justify involuntary commitment under the Baker Act.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including D.F. v. State

“Rather, there must also be clear and convincing evidence that without treatment, the patient would pose a real and present threat of substantial harm to himself ....”

quoted by 1 later decision, including D.F. v. State

Relies on 775 So. 2d 408 - Boller v. State · 764 So. 2d 697 - Blue v. State · Adams v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2005-05-25

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1This is an appeal from an order of involuntary commitment entered pursuant to section 394.467, Florida Statutes (2004). Appellant asserts that the state failed to present clear and convincing evidence that he met the required statutory criteria for involuntary commitment. The state has filed a confession of error. Although we are concerned about the significant problems that can occur when mental health patients refuse to take their prescribed *1026medication, the statute and case law require reversal.

¶2“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 a deteriorating mental condition, standing alone, do not justify involuntary commitment under the Baker Act. See Blue, 764 So.2d at 698; Boiler, 775 So.2d at 410; Singletary, 765 So.2d at 181. Rather, there must also be clear and convincing evidence that without treatment, the patient would pose a real and present threat of substantial harm to himself, or a substantial likelihood that in the near future he will inflict serious bodily harm on himself or another, as evidenced by recent behavior. See § 394.467(1)(a)2, Fla. Stat. (2004); Adams v. State, 713 So.2d 1063 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998).

¶3Upon review of the record, we have determined that the confession of error is proper. Accordingly, the involuntary commitment order is reversed and the case is remanded for the trial court to order the appellant discharged.

¶4No motion for rehearing will be entertained and the clerk of this court is directed to issue the mandate forthwith,

¶5REVERSED AND REMANDED.

WOLF, C.J., VAN NORTWICK and THOMAS, JJ., concur.
/901/so2d/1025 · .json · Public domain