The Washington Court of Appeals ruled on May 26, 2026, that the Attorney General's Office (AGO) should not represent a designated crisis responder (DCR) in involuntary treatment petitions filed under the Involuntary Treatment Act (ITA). This decision affects how legal representation is assigned in mental health commitment cases, particularly when multiple petitions are filed regarding the same individual.
The case, In Re Detention Of A.R. (No. 87531-1-I), arose when a DCR from Aristo Healthcare filed a petition to commit A.R. for 180 days of less restrictive treatment. The AGO challenged an order that required it to represent the DCR, arguing that the county prosecutor should have taken over the case. This ruling clarifies the responsibilities of the AGO and county prosecutors in such matters.
A.R. had a complicated history with mental health treatment, having been admitted to various facilities for competency restoration and treatment. After an initial commitment, he was transferred between facilities and agreed to a less restrictive treatment order. However, his condition led to a new petition for involuntary treatment, which sparked the legal dispute over representation.
The AGO initially represented A.R. in earlier petitions, but when the DCR filed a new petition, the AGO sought to withdraw from the case. The trial court ruled that the AGO must remain involved, citing a statute that seemed to require the AGO to represent state hospitals or institutions. This led to the AGO filing an emergency motion with the Court of Appeals.
The court ultimately decided that the AGO's representation was not required in this case. It stated, "The court erred by denying the AGO’s request to withdraw from representing the DCR because under the relevant statute, RCW 71.05.130, Aristo is not a state hospital or facility." This ruling emphasizes that the county prosecutor is responsible for representing DCRs in involuntary treatment petitions when those petitions are not initiated by state hospitals.
The court's decision is significant as it sets a clear guideline for future cases involving involuntary treatment petitions. It establishes that each petition requires a reassessment of which public entity is responsible for representation. The ruling also highlights the importance of clarity in legal representation for mental health cases, ensuring that the appropriate legal counsel is assigned based on the specifics of each case.
This ruling impacts not only the AGO and county prosecutors but also individuals undergoing involuntary treatment, as it clarifies who will represent their interests in legal proceedings. The court noted that the issue presented was of continuing and substantial public interest, indicating that similar disputes could arise in the future.
The court acknowledged that while the specific case of A.R. had concluded with an agreed commitment order, the legal questions raised were important for future guidance. The court's interpretation of RCW 71.05.130 will likely influence how similar cases are handled moving forward.
Looking ahead, the ruling can potentially be appealed, but it is unclear if there are plans for further legal action. The case underscores the complexities of mental health law and the importance of proper legal representation in ensuring the rights and needs of individuals in treatment are met.