Appellate panel hears challenge to virtual hearings under Washington Involuntary Treatment Act

An appellate panel heard arguments over whether a trial court improperly denied a hospitalized man’s repeated requests to appear in person for his involuntary‑commitment hearing, counsel told the court.

Edward Wicksler of the Washington Appellate Project, representing the appellant identified as IH, said IH made three unambiguous pro se requests across two days to appear in court rather than participate remotely. "My screen is buggy. I'd rather prefer to be in a courtroom," Wicksler quoted from the hearing transcript as reflecting IH's repeated statements, and told the panel IH's position about appearing in person "was not ambiguous."

The dispute centers on Section 8.20 of the Involuntary Treatment Act and the statute's "total disregard" standard, which provides a possible remedy if a trial court so disregards statutory protections that reversal is warranted. Wicksler argued the trial court "entirely ignored" IH’s requests and failed to assess good cause under the ITA, creating a due‑process risk for persons with behavioral‑health conditions who participate in remote proceedings.

The State, represented by Andre Nadelecu, King County Senior Deputy Prosecutor, asked the panel to affirm the commitment order. "We're asking the Court today to affirm the order of commitment because none of IH's assignments of error were properly preserved for appeal," Nadelecu told the court, arguing that IH did not make a motion under Section 8.20 in the trial court and so waived the statutory claim on appeal.

The prosecutor also urged the panel to apply common‑law principles that limit hybrid representation, saying a represented party cannot litigate through a separate, pro se line that bypasses counsel. Nadelecu argued that in at least two instances IH expressed only a preference for in‑person participation rather than a formal, contemporaneous motion supported by a record of good cause, and that the trial court therefore was not required to rule on the statements.

Panel members pressed both sides on statutory language and standards of review. One member asked whether the statute's phrase "any party" is broader than the term "respondent or respondent's counsel," and whether that difference matters for who may properly make a motion. The panel also explored whether appellate review requires a showing of "manifest constitutional error" when preservation is lacking.

The State pointed to recent case law and the practical improvements in videoconferencing, asserting that the ITA already includes procedural safeguards — such as the right to counsel, to present and cross‑examine witnesses, and rules of evidence — that reduce the marginal benefit of in‑person observation in many cases. The State cited appellate decisions addressing similar due‑process challenges and argued that IH had not met the high standard required for a facial constitutional challenge to Section 8.20.

Wicksler countered that the record showed IH's confusion about participating from a hospital and emphasized Matthews Factor 2 — the risk of erroneous deprivation of liberty — as a reason why the court should construe the ITA's procedural protections in IH's favor and reverse under the "total disregard" rubric.

After the parties finished argument and the appellant responded, the panel moved on to the next docketed matter. The court did not announce a ruling during the argument recorded in the transcript.