<p>NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE IN RE: MH 2020-001729 No. 1 CA-MH 20-0033 FILED 11-3-2020 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. MH 2020-001729 The Honorable Steven K. Holding, Judge Pro Tempore (Retired) AFFIRMED COUNSEL Maricopa County Legal Defender’s Office, Phoenix By Cynthia D. Beck Counsel for Appellant Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix By Joseph Branco Counsel for Appellee IN RE: MH 2020-001729 Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Maurice Portley1 delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Jennifer B. Campbell and Judge David D. Weinzweig joined. P O R T L E Y, Judge: ¶1 Appellant challenges the order that she undergo combined inpatient and outpatient treatment until she is no longer persistently or acutely disabled. She contends the superior court abused its discretion and she was deprived of procedural due process when her motion to continue the hearing on the petition for court-ordered mental health treatment was denied, even after informing the court of her “sleep deprivation.” For the following reasons, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY2 ¶2 Appellant was receiving services from Terros for her mental illnesses, which include bipolar disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder. Her intensive-care specialist and case manager submitted an application in February 2020 for a court-ordered mental health evaluation pursuant to A.R.S. § 36-520.3 The applicant alleged Appellant had a mental disorder, was persistently or acutely disabled, and was unwilling and unable to undergo a voluntary evaluation.4 Specifically, the applicant stated that Appellant had “lost touch with reality;” had racing thoughts “to such a degree that she had no concept of where she was or her situation;” “displayed an inability to know when she was in danger” after walking in 1 The Honorable Maurice Portley, Retired Judge of the Court of Appeals, Division One, has been authorized to sit in this matter pursuant to Article 6, Section 3, of the Arizona Constitution. 2 “We view the facts in a light most favorable to upholding the court’s ruling.” In re MH2009-002120, 225 Ariz. 284, 290, ¶ 17 (App. 2010). 3 Absent material change, we cite the current version of statutes. 4 The applicant also alleged Appellant was a danger to herself. The superior court ultimately dismissed the danger-to-self allegation at the hearing, and that ruling has not been challenged on appeal. 2 IN RE: MH 2020-001729 Decision of the Court front of a moving vehicle; and could not “see past her manic state;” and she believed she did not have an “illness that need[ed] evaluation.” ¶3 Based on the petition, the superior court signed a detention order for notice and evaluation and ordered a lawyer represent Appellant. ¶4 Appellant then requested a hearing. At the hearing, Appellant told the superior court that she was no longer contesting her detention for evaluation because she was “grateful” and wanted “to ...</p><br>
<a href="/opinion/4802850/in-re-mh2020-001729/">Original document</a>