The Washington Court of Appeals has upheld a 14-day involuntary commitment order for a man diagnosed with bipolar disorder, known as M.P. The court ruled that M.P. was not a good faith voluntary patient, which justified the treatment order. This decision affects M.P. and others with similar mental health issues, highlighting the legal standards for involuntary treatment.
The case, filed under docket number 88811-1, stems from M.P.'s deteriorating mental health following a serious injury and subsequent medication changes. The ruling emphasizes the court's reliance on substantial evidence to determine the necessity of involuntary treatment under the Involuntary Treatment Act (ITA) in Washington State.
Background
M.P. has a long history of managing his bipolar disorder with medication. He worked for 35 years as a train engineer for BNSF Railway. However, his life took a turn in 2022 when a semi-truck collided with his train, leading to injuries that required surgery. Following the surgery, doctors prescribed him painkillers, which contributed to a decline in his mental health.
In April 2025, after starting the new medication, M.P. exhibited manic behaviors, including extreme sociability and giving away large sums of money. In July 2025, his friend Chad Osborn took him to a voluntary inpatient treatment facility called We Level Up. M.P. left the facility after just 36 hours against medical advice. Shortly after, his mother reported an assault, leading to his arrest.
Following his arrest, a designated crisis responder evaluated M.P. and filed a petition for his initial detention. M.P. was admitted to Fairfax Behavioral Hospital on July 26, 2025. On July 31, the hospital petitioned for a 14-day involuntary treatment, which led to a hearing on August 11. M.P. argued that he was a good faith voluntary patient and that involuntary commitment was unnecessary.
The Ruling
The court ruled against M.P., affirming the involuntary commitment order. The court stated, "We hold that substantial evidence supports the court’s finding that M.P. was not a good faith voluntary patient." The ruling was based on the evidence presented during the hearing, where M.P. claimed he had voluntarily sought treatment.
The court found that M.P. had left the We Level Up facility against the staff's advice, which undermined his claim of being a good faith patient. The court noted that M.P. expressed a desire to leave treatment, stating he liked that he could "just leave if he wanted to." This behavior indicated a lack of commitment to the treatment process.
The court also highlighted that M.P. was still showing symptoms of mania at the time of the hearing. The evaluator testified that M.P. was "still very hyperverbal and loud" and had stopped taking his medications due to cost issues. The court concluded that M.P.'s track record did not support his stated intent to continue treatment voluntarily, justifying the 14-day commitment order.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for individuals with mental health issues and the legal framework surrounding involuntary treatment. It clarifies the standards for determining whether a patient can be considered a good faith voluntary patient. The court's decision reinforces the importance of a patient's behavior and history in evaluating their commitment to treatment.
The ruling may also affect how mental health professionals assess patients who exhibit similar symptoms and behaviors. It emphasizes that a patient's past actions, such as leaving treatment against medical advice, can influence the court's decision regarding involuntary commitment.
What's Next
M.P. has the option to appeal the court's decision, but details regarding any potential appeal were not available in the court filing. There are no related cases pending at this time.
