IN THE MATTER OF M.F., Alleged to Be Seriously Mentally Impaired, M.F., Respondent-Appellant.
from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Bradley
J. Harris, Judge.
respondent challenges his involuntary commitment under Iowa
Code chapter 229 (2016).
Kathryn J. Mahoney, Waterloo, for appellant.
J. Miller, Attorney General, and Gretchen W. Kraemer,
Assistant Attorney General, for appellee State.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Potterfield and Mullins, JJ.
contends the district court wrongly determined he was
seriously mentally impaired and required involuntary
hospitalization. Specifically, he asserts the State did not
present clear and convincing evidence that he posed a
physical or emotional danger to himself or others. Because we
find substantial evidence in the record to support the
district court's finding, we affirm.
Background Facts and Proceedings
in high school, M.F.'s parents began to notice challenges
with M.F.'s mental health. Eventually, M.F. quit school,
quit a full-time job, attempted suicide twice, and started
sending conspiracy mail to the F.B.I. M.F. was incarcerated
for three years for making false threats to the federal
was released from federal prison in January 2016. After
approximately seven months of good behavior, M.F. received a
large disability check and began to use the money to buy
drugs. M.F. began to verbally attack family, make threats to
bank employees regarding a conspiracy to deny him inheritance
money, and provoked a wrestling match with his father.
December 1, 2016, M.F.'s father filed an application for
order of involuntary hospitalization. A judicial
hospitalization referee entered an order pursuant to Iowa
Code section 229.13 (2016) finding M.F. to be seriously
mentally impaired and ordering him to be committed to a
appealed the referee's order to the district court. A
hearing was held on December 5, 2016. The district court took
judicial notice of the physician's report and received as
evidence an updated report by a second physician as to
M.F.'s current condition. The district court entered its
ruling on December 27, concluding:
The court finds that the contention that the respondent is
seriously mentally impaired has been sustained by clear and