People in Interest of N.G.
2025 COA 92. No. 25CA1724. Behavioral Health—Substance Use Disorder—Involuntary Commitment of a Person Under CRS § 27-81-111—Sufficiency of Evidence.
December 4, 2025
N.G. was intoxicated and injured her face when she fell from a bus. An emergency room exam revealed that her liver was in complete failure, and it was determined that she needed to be committed. N.G. was referred to Centennial Peaks Hospital a few days later. She would not go voluntarily, so her son applied for emergency commitment under CRS § 27-81-111. N.G.’s son alleged that N.G. was a chronic alcohol abuser who engaged in harmful behavior, had a history of injurious accidents while intoxicated, and lacked stable housing. N.G. was placed at the hospital under the care of Dr. O’Brien, among others. The People then petitioned under § 27-81-112 to authorize N.G.’s involuntary commitment to the custody of the Colorado Department of Human Services, Behavioral Health Administration (BHA), to receive substance use treatment. The People’s petition included Dr. O’Brien’s certificate for involuntary commitment and her son’s application for involuntary commitment. Dr. O’Brien, N.G.’s son, and Kirby, a BHA Involuntary Commitment Program coordinator and trainer, testified at the evidentiary hearing. A magistrate found by clear and convincing evidence that N.G. had a substance use disorder, was incapacitated by substances, and had refused voluntary treatment. The magistrate ordered N.G.’s commitment to BHA for 90 days of substance use treatment.
On appeal, N.G. argued that there was insufficient evidence to support the magistrate’s finding that she was incapacitated by substances. She asserted that she was not incapacitated by substances because she admitted that she had an alcohol problem and planned to undergo outpatient treatment since the inpatient environment triggered her severe PTSD. Under § 27-81-112, a court may commit a person to BHA’s custody if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that the person has a substance use disorder and is incapacitated by substances. Here, the magistrate found, with record support, that N.G.’s PTSD was not contraindicated for the recommended treatment level. And the testimony established that N.G. was unable to take care of her personal safety and needs due to years of heavy alcohol use that resulted in metabolic and physical injuries. The record thus supported the magistrate’s findings that N.G. had a substance use disorder that had impaired her judgment to the extent that she could not make rational decisions about her personal care, safety, and treatment needs.
The order authorizing involuntary commitment was affirmed.