In Re: Mh 2024-008892

── In Re: Mh 2024-008892 ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: April 28, 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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: MH2024-008892 No. 1 CA-MH 24-0209 FILED 4-28-2026 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. MH2024-008892 The Honorable Elisa C. Donnadieu, Judge Pro Tempore AFFIRMED 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 affirm. 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 evaluated Patient at a rehabilitation center before the Application was filed. They met only once, for approximately 40 minutes, and did not maintain any relationship afterwards. ¶4 On October 8, 2024, the court granted the petition and ordered Patient to undergo involuntary mental health treatment “for a period time of 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 We recognize this appeal is now moot because the treatment order has since expired. While appellate courts generally do not consider moot questions, Slade v. Schneider, 212 Ariz. 176, 179, ¶ 15 (App. 2006), we may choose to do so at our discretion when the order at issue will continue to have collateral consequences for any of the parties, Cardoso v. Soldo, 230 Ariz. 614, 617–18, ¶ 9 (2012). We will consider the merits of this appeal because of the potential impact the involuntary treatment order may have on Patient’s future interests. See In re MH2007-001236, 220 Ariz. 160, 165, ¶ 12 n.3 (App. 2008) (deciding the merits of the appeal from an expired involuntary treatment order because of the patient’s interests at stake as a result of having that order on her record). 2  IN RE: MH 2024-008892 Decision of the Court ¶6 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”