McHUGH, Chief Justice:
This is an original proceeding in mandamus in which the relator, M.K., seeks to compel the respondents to provide juveniles in West Virginia with a comprehensive substance abuse treatment program.1 The fol[491]*491lowing are the respondents in this action: Ed Black, Director of the Adolescent Unit of Lakin Hospital; L. Clark Hansbarger, Director of the West Virginia Department of Health; and Jack L. Clohan, Director of the Division of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse of the West Virginia Department of Health. Upon the issuance by this Court of a rule to show cause, the parties have jointly moved this Court to approve stipulations between them in which the respondents have agreed to the demands of the relator and have outlined their plan for the establishment of such a comprehensive program in West Virginia. This Court has before it the petition for relief and all other matters of record.
The facts of this case, as set forth in the petition for relief, are uncontroverted. At the time the petition was filed with this Court on December 15,1983, M.K. was a 16 year-old female in the custody of the Adolescent Unit of Lakin Hospital, located in Lakin, Mason County, West Virginia. M.K. was most recently ordered to Lakin Hospital pursuant to a March 30, 1983, finding by a Pleasants County mental hygiene commissioner that she was mentally ill due to drug addiction. The petition asserts that M.K. has a long history of substance abuse and has been a resident of Lakin Hospital on numerous occasions over the past five years. The petition indicates that within the last two years M.K. has also received treatment for her drug abuse at two hospitals located in Charleston, Ka-nawha County, West Virginia.2
According to the petition, various professionals who have had direct professional contact with M.K. throughout her history of substance abuse agree that placement in the Adolescent Unit of Lakin Hospital is an inappropriate and exceedingly restrictive environment for her proper treatment. Some of these professionals have recommended that M.K. be enrolled in a comprehensive substance abuse treatment program. One professional recommended that M.K. should be placed in a residential substance abuse treatment program. The petition asserts, and it is uncontested by the parties, that such a program for juveniles does not exist at Lakin Hospital nor does it exist anywhere in West Virginia. The relator prays that this Court compel the respondents to establish such a comprehensive substance abuse treatment program for juveniles in this State.3
The relator contends that the respondents are obligated under various statutory and case authority to provide her and other similarly situated juveniles with a statewide comprehensive substance abuse treat[492]*492ment program. With respect to the duties of the Director of the West Virginia Department of Health, W.Va.Code, 16-1-10 [1983], provides, in relevant part, as follows:
The director shall be the chief executive, administrative, and fiscal officer of the department of health and shall have the following powers and duties:
(19) To provide in accordance with this subdivision and the definitions and other provisions of article one-A, chapter twenty-seven of the Code, for a comprehensive program for the care, treatment and rehabilitation of alcoholics and drug abusers; for research into the cause and prevention of alcoholism and drug abuse; for the training and employment of personnel to provide the requisite rehabilitation of alcoholics and drug abusers; and for the education of the public concerning alcoholism and drug abuse....
In addition, under the provisions of W. Va. Code, 27-1A-11 [1983], the supervisor and personnel of the Department of Health’s Division of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse “shall assist the director of the department of health” in the realization of the above objectives. W. Va. Code, 27-1A-11(a)(1) [1983].4
Under the provisions of W. Va. Code, 27-5-9(b) [1977], “[e]ach patient of a mental health facility receiving services therefrom shall receive care and treatment that is suited to his needs and administered in a skillful, safe and humane manner with full respect for his dignity and personal integrity.” In addition, subsection c of that same statute further provides that “[e]very patient shall have the following rights regardless of adjudication of incompetency: (1) Treatment by trained personnel; * * * and, (4) Treatment based on appropriate examination and diagnosis by a staff member operating within the scope of his professional license.”
Based upon the concepts contained in W.Va.Code, 27-5-9 [1977], this Court recently enunciated a clear mandate to the Director of the Department of Health with respect to the treatment and rehabilitation of patients in our mental health hospitals. In E.H. v. Matin, 168 W.Va. 248, 284 S.E.2d 232 (1981), four patients of Huntington Hospital petitioned this Court for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel the clinical director of that hospital and the Director of the Department of Health “to provide them with the services to which they are entitled under Code, 27-5-9 [1977].” 168 W.Va. at 250, 284 S.E.2d at 233. After reviewing the substandard conditions under which the petitioners were living and receiving treatment, this Court set forth basic principles in the syllabus regarding the rights of patients in our mental health hospitals:
1. W. Va. Code, 27-5-9 [1977] provides specific rights to all mental patients confined in the State hospitals of West Virginia and these rights may be enforced by an action in mandamus against the responsible state officials.
2. W.Va.Code, 27-5-9 [1977] requires a system of custody and treatment in State mental hospitals which reflects the competent application of current, available scientific knowledge.
3. It is the obligation of the State to provide the resources necessary to accord inmates of State mental institutions the rights which the State has granted them under W.Va.Code, 27-5-9 [1977].
Generally, as we held in syllabus point 1 of Citizens Concerned About Valley Mental Health Center v. Hansbarger, 172 W.Va. 519, 309 S.E.2d 17 (1983), “[t]he West Virginia Department of Health through its Board of Health and Director has a duty to insure the effective delivery [493]*493of mental health services in this State. W.Va.Code, 16-1-1 [1977].”
With respect to alcohol abusers, this Court, in McGraw v. Hansbarger, 171 W.Va. 758, 301 S.E.2d 848 (1983), was recently petitioned to compel the Director of the Department of Health and other government officials to provide and fund “detoxification and alcoholism treatment programs at community mental health centers. ...” 171 W.Va. at 761, 301 S.E.2d at 851. In McGraw, we concluded that the respondents did possess an obligation under our laws to provide such programs through the Department of Health’s mental health centers.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
McHUGH, Chief Justice:
This is an original proceeding in mandamus in which the relator, M.K., seeks to compel the respondents to provide juveniles in West Virginia with a comprehensive substance abuse treatment program.1 The fol[491]*491lowing are the respondents in this action: Ed Black, Director of the Adolescent Unit of Lakin Hospital; L. Clark Hansbarger, Director of the West Virginia Department of Health; and Jack L. Clohan, Director of the Division of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse of the West Virginia Department of Health. Upon the issuance by this Court of a rule to show cause, the parties have jointly moved this Court to approve stipulations between them in which the respondents have agreed to the demands of the relator and have outlined their plan for the establishment of such a comprehensive program in West Virginia. This Court has before it the petition for relief and all other matters of record.
The facts of this case, as set forth in the petition for relief, are uncontroverted. At the time the petition was filed with this Court on December 15,1983, M.K. was a 16 year-old female in the custody of the Adolescent Unit of Lakin Hospital, located in Lakin, Mason County, West Virginia. M.K. was most recently ordered to Lakin Hospital pursuant to a March 30, 1983, finding by a Pleasants County mental hygiene commissioner that she was mentally ill due to drug addiction. The petition asserts that M.K. has a long history of substance abuse and has been a resident of Lakin Hospital on numerous occasions over the past five years. The petition indicates that within the last two years M.K. has also received treatment for her drug abuse at two hospitals located in Charleston, Ka-nawha County, West Virginia.2
According to the petition, various professionals who have had direct professional contact with M.K. throughout her history of substance abuse agree that placement in the Adolescent Unit of Lakin Hospital is an inappropriate and exceedingly restrictive environment for her proper treatment. Some of these professionals have recommended that M.K. be enrolled in a comprehensive substance abuse treatment program. One professional recommended that M.K. should be placed in a residential substance abuse treatment program. The petition asserts, and it is uncontested by the parties, that such a program for juveniles does not exist at Lakin Hospital nor does it exist anywhere in West Virginia. The relator prays that this Court compel the respondents to establish such a comprehensive substance abuse treatment program for juveniles in this State.3
The relator contends that the respondents are obligated under various statutory and case authority to provide her and other similarly situated juveniles with a statewide comprehensive substance abuse treat[492]*492ment program. With respect to the duties of the Director of the West Virginia Department of Health, W.Va.Code, 16-1-10 [1983], provides, in relevant part, as follows:
The director shall be the chief executive, administrative, and fiscal officer of the department of health and shall have the following powers and duties:
(19) To provide in accordance with this subdivision and the definitions and other provisions of article one-A, chapter twenty-seven of the Code, for a comprehensive program for the care, treatment and rehabilitation of alcoholics and drug abusers; for research into the cause and prevention of alcoholism and drug abuse; for the training and employment of personnel to provide the requisite rehabilitation of alcoholics and drug abusers; and for the education of the public concerning alcoholism and drug abuse....
In addition, under the provisions of W. Va. Code, 27-1A-11 [1983], the supervisor and personnel of the Department of Health’s Division of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse “shall assist the director of the department of health” in the realization of the above objectives. W. Va. Code, 27-1A-11(a)(1) [1983].4
Under the provisions of W. Va. Code, 27-5-9(b) [1977], “[e]ach patient of a mental health facility receiving services therefrom shall receive care and treatment that is suited to his needs and administered in a skillful, safe and humane manner with full respect for his dignity and personal integrity.” In addition, subsection c of that same statute further provides that “[e]very patient shall have the following rights regardless of adjudication of incompetency: (1) Treatment by trained personnel; * * * and, (4) Treatment based on appropriate examination and diagnosis by a staff member operating within the scope of his professional license.”
Based upon the concepts contained in W.Va.Code, 27-5-9 [1977], this Court recently enunciated a clear mandate to the Director of the Department of Health with respect to the treatment and rehabilitation of patients in our mental health hospitals. In E.H. v. Matin, 168 W.Va. 248, 284 S.E.2d 232 (1981), four patients of Huntington Hospital petitioned this Court for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel the clinical director of that hospital and the Director of the Department of Health “to provide them with the services to which they are entitled under Code, 27-5-9 [1977].” 168 W.Va. at 250, 284 S.E.2d at 233. After reviewing the substandard conditions under which the petitioners were living and receiving treatment, this Court set forth basic principles in the syllabus regarding the rights of patients in our mental health hospitals:
1. W. Va. Code, 27-5-9 [1977] provides specific rights to all mental patients confined in the State hospitals of West Virginia and these rights may be enforced by an action in mandamus against the responsible state officials.
2. W.Va.Code, 27-5-9 [1977] requires a system of custody and treatment in State mental hospitals which reflects the competent application of current, available scientific knowledge.
3. It is the obligation of the State to provide the resources necessary to accord inmates of State mental institutions the rights which the State has granted them under W.Va.Code, 27-5-9 [1977].
Generally, as we held in syllabus point 1 of Citizens Concerned About Valley Mental Health Center v. Hansbarger, 172 W.Va. 519, 309 S.E.2d 17 (1983), “[t]he West Virginia Department of Health through its Board of Health and Director has a duty to insure the effective delivery [493]*493of mental health services in this State. W.Va.Code, 16-1-1 [1977].”
With respect to alcohol abusers, this Court, in McGraw v. Hansbarger, 171 W.Va. 758, 301 S.E.2d 848 (1983), was recently petitioned to compel the Director of the Department of Health and other government officials to provide and fund “detoxification and alcoholism treatment programs at community mental health centers. ...” 171 W.Va. at 761, 301 S.E.2d at 851. In McGraw, we concluded that the respondents did possess an obligation under our laws to provide such programs through the Department of Health’s mental health centers. However, in so holding, we further held in syllabus point 1, based upon the aforementioned principles contained in W.Va.Code, 16-1-10(19) [1983], that “[t]he Director of the Department of Health has an affirmative duty to provide a comprehensive program for the care, treatment and rehabilitation of alcoholics.” See State ex rel. Harper v. Zegeer, 170 W.Va. 743, 296 S.E.2d 873, 885 (1982).
As noted above, W. Va. Code, 16-1-10(19) [1983], provides that the Director of the Department of Health “shall” have the duty to “provide ... for a comprehensive program for the care, treatment and rehabilitation of alcoholics and drug abusers.” That statutory provision does not distinguish between the duty owed to adult substance abusers and juvenile substance abusers. Based upon all of the above, it is therefore clear that under the provisions of W.Va. Code, 16-1-10(19) [1983], W.Va. Code, 27-1A-11 [1983], and W.Va.Code, 27-5-9 [1977], the West Virginia Department of Health, through its Director and other personnel, has an affirmative duty to provide a comprehensive program for the care, treatment and rehabilitation of juvenile substance abusers.
It is undisputed by the parties that despite this unambiguous mandate to the Director of the Department of Health by the legislature, a comprehensive substance abuse treatment program for juveniles is nonexistent in West Virginia. However, this Court is without sufficient information or expertise to determine or develop the proper composition of such a program. As we noted in E.H. v. Matin, supra, 168 W.Va. at 258, 284 S.E.2d at 237:
In cases of this type it is important for courts to recognize that we are not experts in medicine, mental health, or institutional management. Furthermore, among the best trained professionals in the field of mental health there is an enormous divergence of opinion concerning appropriate management of related institutions and appropriate techniques of therapy for different categories of patients.
Nevertheless, we are well aware of the void that exists in our mental health system with respect to the care, treatment and rehabilitation of juvenile substance abusers. Inasmuch as the parties have agreed upon the basic framework of this statewide comprehensive program, upon review thereof, this Court will approve the stipulations between the parties with a recognition of the respondents’ affirmative statutory duties.5
[494]*494Based upon all of the above, the joint motion for approval of stipulations is hereby granted and the writ of mandamus for which the petitioner prays is granted as moulded.
Writ granted as moulded.