In Re: Marian S.

── In Re: Marian S. ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: May 13, 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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: MARIAN S. No. 1 CA-MH 25-0187 FILED 05-13-2026 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. MH2025-006857 The Honorable Steven K. Holding, Judge Pro Tempore AFFIRMED COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix By Sean M. Moore Counsel for Appellee Zhivago Law, Phoenix By Kerrie M. Droban Zhivago Counsel for Appellant MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Kent E. Cattani delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Judge Andrew J. Becke joined.  IN RE: MARIAN S. Decision of the Court C A T T A N I, Judge: ¶1 Marian S. (“Patient”) appeals an order committing her for involuntary mental health treatment. We affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶2 In January 2025, Patient was arrested for possession of methamphetamine. She admitted to using methamphetamine regularly and to having recently been in prison for a drug possession conviction. Patient told officers that she regularly smoked methamphetamine, and that she was “allowed” to do so. ¶3 Patient has a history of behavioral health issues. After the State filed criminal charges, she was found incompetent to stand trial and not restorable based on competency evaluations that, in part, discussed Patient’s non-compliance with treatment. At the court’s direction, the prosecuting attorney in Patient’s criminal case petitioned for a court- ordered evaluation for involuntary commitment, see A.R.S. § 36-523, and the court appointed an attorney to represent Patient in the civil commitment proceedings, see A.R.S. § 36-529(A). ¶4 In late July 2025, Dr. Orla Weinhold filed a petition for court- ordered treatment, alleging that Patient was persistently or acutely disabled and unwilling or unable to accept voluntary treatment. See A.R.S. § 36- 540(A)(2), (3). The petition attached affidavits from mental health experts— Drs. Weinhold and Lydia Torio. See A.R.S. § 36-533(B). The affidavits stated that, even after being medicated, Patient remained psychotic and reported delusional statements. Both affidavits further stated that, when Patient was not incarcerated or hospitalized, she was not compliant with medications and appeared to decompensate. Dr. Weinhold opined that Patient required inpatient treatment for stabilization of her medication. The petition sought a combination of inpatient and outpatient mental health treatment. See A.R.S. § 36-540(A)(2). ¶5 The court held an evidentiary hearing, during which the parties stipulated to the admissibility of the affidavits attached to the petition, and three witnesses testified to their observation of Patient. The court then found by clear and convincing evidence that Patient was persistently or acutely disabled, needed psychiatric treatment, and was unwilling or unable to accept voluntary treatment. The court ordered a combination of inpatient and outpatient treatment, with inpatient treatment not to exceed 180 days. 2  IN RE: MARIAN S. Decision of the Court ¶6 Patient timely appealed, and we have jurisdiction under A.R.S. §§ 36-546.01 and 12-2101(A)(10). DISCUSSION ¶7 Patient argues that the court erred by concluding that she was unwilling or unable to accept voluntary treatment unde