In Re: Marian S.

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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 under A.R.S. § 36-540(A).
Patient asserts that because “all live witnesses” testified that she was
“medication-compliant, acknowledged her diagnoses, and expressed
willingness to continue treatment,” the court erred by finding there was
clear and convincing evidence that she was unwilling or unable to accept
treatment voluntarily. Patient alleges that the evidence instead supports
her “intent (and desire) to continue with medication management and
compliance” and reflects that she hoped to adjust, rather than stop,
medications that caused side effects.

¶8 We view the facts in the light most favorable to upholding the
court’s ruling, and we will not reverse an order for involuntary treatment
unless it is clearly erroneous and unsupported by any credible evidence. In
re MH2009-002120, 225 Ariz. 284, 290, ¶ 17 (App. 2010). We review issues
of law de novo. See In re MH2010-002637, 228 Ariz. 74, 78, ¶ 13 (App. 2011)
(citing cases).

¶9 Involuntary treatment may be imposed “if the court finds by
clear and convincing evidence that the proposed patient, as a result of
mental disorder, [(1)] . . . has a persistent or acute disability . . . and is in
need of treatment, and [(2)] is either unwilling or unable to accept voluntary
treatment.” A.R.S. § 36-540(A) (emphasis added). Here, Patient does not
challenge the first requirement but rather asserts that there was insufficient
evidence to find that she was unwilling or unable to accept voluntary
treatment.

¶10 Although one report stated that Patient was fully compliant
with the court-ordered medication and was attending her mental health
appointments, other evidence supports the court’s finding that Patient was
unwilling or unable to accept voluntary treatment. A mental health expert
expressed a concern that Patient’s medication regimen was not working
because her symptoms appeared to be worsening over time. Both expert
affidavits indicated that Patient had historically been noncompliant with
her mental health treatment, and when she was not incarcerated or
hospitalized, she did not take her prescribed medications regularly and
appeared to decompensate.

3
IN RE: MARIAN S.
Decision of the Court

¶11 The evidence thus supports the superior court’s finding that
Patient was unwilling or unable to accept voluntary treatment.

CONCLUSION

¶12 We affirm.

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

4