In Re: Mh2024-008242

── In Re: Mh2024-008242 ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: April 20, 2026 Category: General 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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: MH2024-008242 No. 1 CA-MH 24-0188 FILED 04-20-2026 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. MH2024-008242 The Honorable Terri L. Clarke, Commissioner AFFIRMED COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix By Sean M. Moore Counsel for Appellee Maricopa County Legal Defender’s Office, Phoenix By Robert S. Shipman Counsel for Appellant  IN RE: MH 2024-008242 Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Chief Judge Randall M. Howe delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Cynthia J. Bailey and Judge Andrew M. Jacobs joined. H O W E, Judge: ¶1 Mental health patient A.G. appeals the superior court’s order imposing on him mandatory mental health treatment. For the following reasons, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶2 A.G. has a history of mental illness and is designated seriously mentally ill. In the fall of 2024, he was scheduled for release from the Maricopa County Jail when two licensed social workers, D.G. and D.L. met with him. A.G. displayed concerning behavior: he was “initially not verbal” and responding to internal stimuli, then began talking to himself and acting aggressively, cursing at a social worker. Law enforcement took him from the jail to a behavioral health facility. Observation at the facility revealed that A.G. continued to respond to internal stimuli, and a crisis care manager applied to have A.G. admitted for an involuntary evaluation. Attached to that application was a witness information form listing D.G. and D.L. as potential witnesses. A psychiatric mental health nurse practitioner petitioned for a court-ordered evaluation, which the court granted. ¶3 Upon evaluation, a physician petitioned for court-ordered treatment. Attached to this petition was a witness list including D.G. and D.L. A.G.’s counsel moved to preclude D.G. and D.L. from testifying, arguing that because they were licensed social workers, they were subject to confidentiality requirements preventing them from testifying. The motion stated that “should the court permit the testimony . . . [A.G.] hereby requests additional time to voir dire the witnesses” about their confidentiality obligations. Citing Matter of Commitment of Alleged Mentally Disordered Person, 181 Ariz. 290, 293 (1995), counsel argued that “the proposed acquaintance witnesses conducted mental health evaluations [] for the sole purposes of determining commitment” and thus failed to meet 2  IN RE: MH 2024-008242 Decision of the Court the petitioner’s obligation to provide acquaintance witnesses who did not “participate[] in the psychological evaluation of the patient for commitment purposes.” ¶4 The court held a hearing on the petition. At the hearing, the court noted that A.G.’s counsel amended the motion to include the argument about acquaintance witness eligibility at the last minute, that neither the court nor the State had time to review the amended motion before the hearing, and that a similar issue was pending before this Court. The court determined that it would “have the witnesses testify, subject to the objections” and proceed depending on guidance from this Court. The State called D.G. and D.L. who both testified that they were licensed social workers working at the Maricop