HEALTH LAW
Emma Giusto
In Matter of April S, 499 P.3d 1011 (Alaska 2021), the supreme court held that the Office of Children’s Services (OCS) could not admit a minor for voluntary commitment under the parental admission statute. (Id. at 1013). April, a minor in OCS custody, was brought to a hospital where staff placed her under emergency detention. (Id.). A social worker filed an order for involuntary commitment. (Id.). At the hearing, OCS argued that no hearing was necessary, as it had signed onto the commitment as April’s guardian and voluntary admissions do not require hearings. (Id. at 1014). At a later hearing, the court ruled that the initial thirty-day confinement was voluntary, and the next thirty days would be involuntary—only if the confinement extended beyond that would April be eligible for a jury trial or full evidentiary hearing. (Id. at 1015). The supreme court reversed the lower court’s decision, reasoning that OCS did not qualify under the voluntary admission statute. (Id. at 1019). The court relied on the statutory language, which authorizes a “parent or guardian” to commit children for mental health treatment, reasoning that OCS does not qualify as either a parent or guardian. (Id.). Therefore, OCS can only seek involuntary commitment, not voluntary. (Id. at 1020). Reversing the lower court, the supreme court held that OCS cannot admit a minor for voluntary commitment. (Id. at 1013).
