Jump To

Top Caption [Combined Opinion

                  by Jennifer M. Perkins](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10799654/in-re-mh-2024-008892/about:blank#o1)

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

Feb. 24, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

In Re: Mh 2024-008892

Court of Appeals of Arizona

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 1 CA-MH 24-0209

• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Opinion

• Authorities (0)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

                        by Jennifer M. Perkins

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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: MH2024-008892

No. 1 CA-MH 24-0209
FILED 02-24-2026

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. MH2024-008892
The Honorable Elisa C. Donnadieu, Judge Pro Tempore

DISMISSED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix
By Sean M. Moore
Counsel for Appellee

Office of the Legal Defender, Phoenix
By Robert Shipman, Lindsay Ficklin
Counsel for Appellant

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Jennifer M. Perkins delivered the decision of the Court, in
which Judge James B. Morse Jr. and Judge D. Steven Williams joined.
IN RE: MH 2024-008892
Decision of the Court

P E R K I N S, Judge:

¶1 Bowery B. (“Patient”) challenges the superior court’s order
finding him persistently or acutely disabled and directing him to undergo
involuntary mental health treatment. For the following reasons, we dismiss
his appeal as moot.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 In September 2024, a psychiatric nurse practitioner filed an
application for an involuntary mental health evaluation (“Application”) of
Patient. The superior court ordered Patient detained and evaluated. Two
doctors evaluated Patient, diagnosed him with a mental health disorder,
and recommended involuntary psychiatric treatment. One of the doctors
petitioned for court-ordered treatment, attaching an affidavit and a
psychiatric evaluation report from himself and the other doctor who
evaluated Patient. The court ordered that Patient be detained, appointed
counsel to represent him, and set a hearing on the petition for court-ordered
treatment.

¶3 At the hearing, Patient stipulated to the admission of the
doctors’ affidavits and evaluation reports. The State called two
acquaintance witnesses. One of them was a licensed counselor who had
evaluated Patient one time before the Application was filed.

¶4 On October 8, 2024, the court granted the petition and ordered
Patient to undergo involuntary mental health treatment “for a period time
not to exceed a total of 365 days.” Patient timely appealed and we have
jurisdiction. A.R.S. §§ 12-2101(A)(1), 36-546.01.

DISCUSSION

¶5 To prevail on a petition for court-ordered treatment, the
petitioner must provide: (1) testimony from “two or more witnesses[]
acquainted with the patient at the time of the alleged mental disorder”
(“acquaintance witnesses”), and (2) testimony or affidavits from the two
physicians or other healthcare professionals who evaluated the patient.
A.R.S. § 36-539(B) (2024).

¶6 The only issue Patient raises on appeal is whether the licensed
counselor qualified as an acquaintance witness. Patient argues that the
counselor did not qualify because she only met Patient in the context of a
medical evaluation and thus “[her] testimony could not offer a separate and
distinct perspective than the evaluating doctors’ affidavits.” The State

2
IN RE: MH 2024-008892
Decision of the Court

counters that the counselor could testify as an acquaintance witness because
she evaluated Patient outside of the statutory evaluation process—before
that process had begun.

¶7 We stayed this appeal pending a decision in In re MH2023-
004502 because that appeal addressed the same issue: whether a health
professional can testify as an acquaintance witnesses based on her
evaluation of the patient before the Application was filed. See In re MH2023-
004502, CV-24-0275-PR, 2026 WL 377485, at *1, ¶¶ 4–5 (Feb. 10, 2026).

¶8 On March 31, 2025, while both appeals were pending, the
Legislature amended Arizona Revised Statutes Section 36-539(B), which
now provides:

The evidence presented by the petitioner or the patient shall
include the testimony of two or more witnesses, regardless of
the witnesses’ professional licensure, if any, who observed
or were acquainted with the patient at the time of the alleged
mental disorder before the submission of the current
application for evaluation pursuant to [Section] 36-520 or, if
after the submission of the current application, who were
not formal participants in the evaluation process.

2025 Ariz. Sess. Laws ch. 20 § 1 (1st Reg. Sess.) (emphasis added).

¶9 In MH2023-004502, our supreme court noted that the
additional language in Section 36-539(B) “clarif[ied] that licensed
behavioral health professionals may testify as acquaintance witnesses”
based on their observations of the patient before the Application was filed.
See MH2023-004502, CV-24-0275-PR, at *1, ¶ 5. The court declined to decide
whether the health professional in that case qualified as an acquaintance
witness because that issue was rendered moot by the amendment to Section
36-539(B) and the expiration of the court’s treatment order. Id.

¶10 This appeal raises the same issue as in MH2023-004502. And
the superior court’s treatment order here has also expired. Therefore, we
need not decide whether the counselor here qualified as an acquaintance
witness because that issue is moot for the same reasons as in
MH2023-004502.

3
IN RE: MH 2024-008892
Decision of the Court

CONCLUSION

¶11 We dismiss Patient’s appeal as moot.

MATTHEW J. MARTIN • Clerk of the Court
FILED: JR

4