J. B.
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA AND N. C., RNBC, DON, AS DIRECTOR OF CIRCLES OF CARE
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.
J.B. appealed an order for involuntary psychiatric placement under Florida law. The Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the State failed to present substantial competent evidence linking J.B.'s mental health condition to a real and present threat of substantial harm to his well-being.
The order for involuntary placement must be reversed because the State failed to present substantial competent evidence linking J.B.'s mental health condition, medication non-compliance, or hygiene issues to a real and present threat of substantial harm to his well-being. The mere diagnosis of mental illness, need for treatment, or refusal to take medication is insufficient to meet the statutory criteria.
[1] A person's mental illness alone is insufficient to justify involuntary commitment.
[2] The need for treatment and medication, and the refusal to take medication despite a deteriorating mental condition, are insufficient standing alone to justify involuntary…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“the mere fact that an individual might suffer from a mental illness is not sufficient standing alone to justify involuntary commitment”
Establishes that diagnosis of mental illness does not automatically justify involuntary placement
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJ.B. has a diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type, and is a chronic mental health patient. He has issues managing his hygiene and his hom…
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 Real And Present Threat Of Substantial Harm cases and more on FLexlaw
Michael R. D'Lugo, of Wicker, Smith, O'Hara, McCoy & Ford, P.A., Orlando, for
Appellee N.C., RNBC, DON, as Director of Circles of Care.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, J.B., appeals an order of involuntary placement entered pursuant to section 394.467, Florida Statutes (2019). We reverse because the order is not supported by substantial competent evidence that without treatment, Appellant is likely to suffer from neglect or refusal to care for himself that “poses a real and present threat of substantial harm to his . . . well-being.” § 394.467(1)(a)2.a.
At the hearing, the State presented the following evidence. Appellant has a diagnosis of “schizoaffective, bipolar type” and “is a chronic mental health patient.” Additionally, Appellant has “issues managing his hygiene,” his home is in “disrepair” and he will “decompensate” if released because he will stop taking his medications. According to the State’s evidence, Appellant also refused the State’s offer to place him in an assisted living facility even though Appellant is not “able to survive solely on his own.” The State did not, however, present any evidence to explain how Appellant’s mental health condition would result in any specific harm to his well-being.
Notwithstanding, at the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found that
Appellant suffers from a mental illness and without treatment, he is likely to suffer from self-neglect that poses a real and present threat of substantial harm to his well-being, and granted the State’s petition for involuntary inpatient placement.
The evidence presented at the hearing does not support an order for involuntary placement pursuant to section 394.467. “[T]he mere fact that an individual might suffer from a mental illness is not sufficient standing alone to justify involuntary commitment.” D.F. v. State, 248 So. 3d 1232, 1234 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018) (citation omitted). Moreover, “[i]t is well-settled that the need for treatment and medication and the refusal to take medication despite a deteriorating mental condition, standing alone” are insufficient to 2 meet the state’s burden under subsection (1)(a)2.a. Lischka v. State, 901 So. 2d 1025, 1026 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (citations omitted). Importantly, “[c]onclusory testimony, unsubstantiated by facts in evidence . . . is insufficient to satisfy the statutory criteria by the clear and convincing evidence standard.” Boller v. State, 775 So. 2d 408, 410 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (citation omitted).
In this case, the State failed to present any evidence linking Appellant’s mental health condition, his failure to take medications, or his “issues managing his hygiene” to a real and present threat of substantial harm to Appellant’s well-being. See D.F., 248 So. 3d at 1233. The testimony that Appellant is not “able to survive solely on his own” is conclusory, and likewise does not support the order. Accordingly, we reverse.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
EVANDER, C.J., LAMBERT and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur. 3
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Boller v. State, 775 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)
- Lischka v. State, 901 So. 2d 1025 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)
- D.F. v. State, 248 So. 3d 1232 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)