IN RE: the Application of John HARPER (2021)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the amended order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Petitioners commenced this proceeding seeking authorization for the continued administration of a course of treatment to respondent over his objection pursuant to the parens patriae power of the State of New York (see Matter of Sawyer [R.G.], 68 A.D.3d 1734, 1734-1735, 891 N.Y.S.2d 813 [4th Dept. 2009]; see generally Rivers v. Katz, 67 N.Y.2d 485, 496-498, 504 N.Y.S.2d 74, 495 N.E.2d 337 [1986], rearg denied 68 N.Y.2d 808, 506 N.Y.S.2d 1039, 498 N.E.2d 438 [1986]). Respondent is an inmate serving an 18-year sentence of imprisonment for his conviction of manslaughter in the first degree, and he suffers from schizophrenia and antisocial personality disorder. Respondent now appeals from an amended order (treatment order) that, following a hearing, authorized the continued administration, over his objection, of a regimen of the medication Haldol Decanoate, and also authorized certain alternative medication regimens, for a period of up to 24 months from the date of the treatment order. We affirm.

It is well settled that “the State may administer a course of medical treatment against a patient's will if it establishes, by clear and convincing evidence, that the patient lacks the capacity to make a reasoned decision with respect to proposed treatment ․, and that ‘the proposed treatment is narrowly tailored to give substantive effect to the patient's liberty interest, taking into consideration all relevant circumstances, including the patient's best interests, the benefits to be gained from the treatment, the adverse side effects associated with the treatment and any less intrusive alternative treatments’ ” (Matter of Samuel D. [Mid-Hudson Forensic Psychiatric Ctr.], 171 A.D.3d 1172, 1173, 97 N.Y.S.3d 233 [2d Dept. 2019], appeal dismissed 33 N.Y.3d 1117, 106 N.Y.S.3d 708, 130 N.E.3d 1319 [2019], quoting Rivers, 67 N.Y.2d at 497-498, 504 N.Y.S.2d 74, 495 N.E.2d 337).

Here, respondent does not dispute that he lacks the capacity to make a reasoned decision with respect to his treatment. Rather, he contends that petitioners failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the treatment order, with respect to both the 24-month duration and the inclusion of the alternative medication regimens, was “narrowly tailored to give substantive effect to [his] liberty interest” (Rivers, 67 N.Y.2d at 497, 504 N.Y.S.2d 74, 495 N.E.2d 337). We reject respondent's contentions. With respect to the duration of the treatment order, petitioners presented, inter alia, the testimony of respondent's treating psychiatrist, who noted that respondent would be assigned to a new treating psychiatrist and who requested that Supreme Court issue an order that would be effective for a period of 24 months to allow a rapport to develop between the new treating psychiatrist and respondent. Moreover, the treating psychiatrist's evaluation reports admitted in evidence at the hearing established that respondent has a history of paranoia and suspicion of others, and of refusing to take medication. Contrary to respondent's contention, we conclude that the court properly took into consideration all of the relevant circumstances relating to the requested duration of the treatment order (see id. at 497-498, 504 N.Y.S.2d 74, 495 N.E.2d 337).

With respect to the alternative medication regimens, the evaluation reports of the treating psychiatrist provided a list of the alternative medications, as well as, inter alia, the “appropriate dosages and frequencies” of those medications and their foreseeable side effects (Matter of Tyrone M., 186 A.D.3d 604, 606, 128 N.Y.S.3d 587 [2d Dept. 2020]). In addition, one of the reports established that, with the “additional suggested medications that can be tried and maintained, [respondent was] expected to have alleviation of psychosis, diminish[ed] irritability and aggression and diminished impulsivity.” Thus, under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that petitioners established by clear and convincing evidence that the treatment order should include the alternative medication regimens in question (cf. Matter of Radcliffe M., 155 A.D.3d 956, 958, 65 N.Y.S.3d 227 [2d Dept. 2017]; see generally Matter of Guttmacher [James M.], 181 A.D.3d 1313, 1314, 120 N.Y.S.3d 545 [4th Dept. 2020]).