State Of Washington V. Faafetai Santisteban

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 87313-0-I Plaintiff, DIVISION ONE v. UNPUBLISHED OPINION FAAFETAI T. SANTISTEBAN, Respondent, THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES, non-party ordered to pay for services, Appellant. BIRK, J. — In 1998, Faafetai Santisteban was committed to Western State Hospital after being acquitted as not guilty by reason of insanity. Santisteban petitioned the superior court for conditional release. The superior court granted Santisteban’s petition and directed that she be released to an adult family home. But, in addition, based on the agreement of Santisteban and the Snohomish County prosecutor’s office, and without affording the state Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) notice and an opportunity to be heard, the superior court ordered DSHS to fund services that DSHS disputes it had legal authority to fund. We conclude the superior court did not obtain personal jurisdiction over DSHS and thus could not order DSHS to fund Santisteban’s conditional release. We further conclude the superior court did not have appellate jurisdiction to review No. 87313-0-I/2 an earlier DSHS determination of Santisteban’s eligibility for services. We reverse and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion. I Following a 1998 acquittal on criminal charges by reason of insanity, Santisteban was ordered to the care and custody of DSHS for treatment at Western State Hospital. In November 2023, Santisteban submitted to DSHS an application for conditional release. In December 2023, a division of DSHS, Home and Community Services (HCS), made a determination that she was not functionally eligible for long term care under the “Community First Choice Residential” program. HCS’s notice provided information to appeal the eligibility decision if Santisteban disagreed with the denial. The record is silent as to whether Santisteban appealed HCS’s decision. Santisteban petitioned the superior court for conditional release. The superior court scheduled a contested hearing for September 26-27, 2024. On September 18, 2024, Santisteban filed a criminal calendar note setting entry of a proposed “agreed” order for Monday, September 23, 2024. Santisteban served notice of the hearing on the Snohomish County deputy prosecutor. County prosecutors represent the State in conditional release proceedings. RCW 10.77.150(3)(b). On Friday, September 20, 2024, Santisteban filed a memorandum challenging DSHS’s release planning for Santisteban and objecting to DSHS’s contesting the proposed order. 2 No. 87313-0-I/3 At the September 23, 2024 hearing, in addition to Santisteban and the county prosecutor, an assistant attorney general appeared for DSHS. Santisteban informed the superior court that the parties—Santisteban and the county prosecutor’s office—did not disagree “on the ultimate issue under [RCW] 10.77.150. And that is with the conditions and the amount of supervision laid out in the conditions of the proposed order, there’s not a dispute.” The parties submitted an agreed proposed order of conditional release to the superior court and requested the court enter it. Through its counsel, DSHS indicated it was made aware of the hearing and the agreed proposed order the Wednesday before the Monday hearing. DSHS argued the proposed order directed it to pay for an adult family home that it had already determined the patient was not eligible for, it was obligated under the governing statute to pay for only inpatient care, and it was not statutorily obligated to pay for Santisteban’s less restrictive care. The superior court stated that DSHS had not moved to intervene under CR 24. The superior court ruled that “it’s abundantly clear from the materials that [Santisteban] meets the criteria for a less restrictive alternative based on the findings as outlined quite thoroughly in the proposed order.” In its order granting Santisteban’s conditional release, the superior court ruled that “DSHS is responsible for the cost of [Santisteban’s] continued commitment,” which the court said “includes her conditional release to an adult family home, and ordered “DSHS via HCS to pay for all aspects of [Santisteban’s] community living.” The superior 3 No. 87313-0-I/4 court left “the ultimate source of funding to the discretion of DSHS,” but found that “[HCS] should pay the cost of all aspects of this conditional release order.” The superior court based this on “the parties’ stipulation”—that is, Santisteban