In re C.G.

Citation278 N.C.App. 416,863 S.E.2d 237
Decision Date20 July 2021
Docket NumberNo. COA20-520,COA20-520
Parties In the MATTER OF: C.G.
CourtCourt of Appeal of North Carolina (US)

Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Assistant Attorney General Erin E. McKee, for the State.

Appellate Defender Glenn Gerding, by Assistant Appellate Defender Katy Dickinson-Schultz, for respondent-appellant.

HAMPSON, Judge.

Factual and Procedural Background

¶ 1 Respondent-Appellant C.G. (Respondent) appeals from an Involuntary Commitment Order entered in Durham County District Court declaring Respondent mentally ill, a danger to self and others, and ordering Respondent be committed to an inpatient facility for thirty days. The Record reflects the following:

¶ 2 On 30 January 2020, Dr. Phillip Jones, with the Duke University Medical Center (Duke), signed an Affidavit and Petition for Involuntary Commitment stating Respondent: "presents [as] psychotic and disorganized ... [Respondent's] ACTT team being unable to stabilize his psychosis

in the outpatient treatment. He is so psychotic he is unable to effectively communicate his symptoms and appears to have been neglecting his own care." Dr. Jones also stated: "Per [Respondent's] ACTT he threw away his medications and has not been taking them. He needs hospitalization for safety and stabilization." This affidavit was filed on 31 January 2020 in the Durham County District Court and Dr. Jones submitted a First Examination for Involuntary Commitment report with the Affidavit. The report lists the exact same findings supporting commitment as the Affidavit. On 31 January, a Durham County magistrate issued a Findings and Custody Order finding Respondent was mentally ill and a danger to self or others. Respondent was subsequently delivered to Duke's 24-hour facility.

¶ 3 That same day, Dr. Miles Christensen, also with Duke, signed a 24-Hour Facility Exam for Involuntary Commitment report; the report was filed on 3 February 2020. In this report, Dr. Christensen concluded Respondent was mentally ill and a danger to self and others. In the description of findings supporting commitment, Dr. Christensen noted, when asked about his goals for hospitalization, Respondent replied: "I don't know, 30, 40, 50 pounds probably." Dr. Christensen stated Respondent said he would like to gain weight while he was in the hospital. Dr. Christensen further noted: "Patient perseverates on being ‘Blessed and highly favored’ ... Talks to other people in the room during interview ... States ‘gods people putting voices in my head’ " and "[s]uddenly begins crying without any precipitant."

¶ 4 On 7 February 2020, the trial court heard Respondent's case pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 122C-268. At the outset, Respondent's counsel objected to the proceedings because there was no representative for the State present. Respondent's counsel stated, "the judge, on its own initiate---or volition, cannot conduct the business of the State and these proceedings to move forward." The trial court responded:

Because it sounds like the DA's office is refusing to do anything, and then it sounds like the Attorney General's office is refusing to do anything, and Duke and the VA are private and/or federal entities; therefore, they can't. So you're suggesting we do nothing and not have these cases at all as a result of people failing to do their duty? ... I'm not gonna do that.

¶ 5 Respondent's counsel continued:

Additionally, beyond that issue, I would argue that, in this case, the paperwork was also improper ... based on 122C-281 and 285, in that while there is an allegation that [Respondent] is an individual with a mental illness and dangerous to himself, the description of findings in both the first examination and the examination done by the 24-hour facility does not allege facts that would be sufficient pursuant to the statute to--to meet those criteria and what is contained therein is more conclusory, and according to In Re: Reid and In Re: Ingram [phonetic spellings], the Court of Appeals has held that conclusory statements are not sufficient in the description of findings to proceed in that.

The trial court stated: "Okay. That's gonna be denied."

¶ 6 The hearing continued and the trial court asked if any witnesses were present in this case. The trial court called Dr. Max Schiff, also with Duke, to the witness stand. Respondent's counsel objected as Dr. Schiff was not the doctor who completed or signed either of the evaluation or reports in this case. The trial court overruled the objection and noted, "if [Dr. Schiff] doesn't know anything about this case, you can keep making your objection and we will go from there."

¶ 7 The trial court stated to Dr. Schiff: "you or someone in your organization has indicated that [Respondent] has a mental illness and is a danger to himself and others, and I will leave you to tell me whether or not you can give me enough evidence on this to go forward." Dr. Schiff responded: "So, yes. [Respondent] has a long-standing history of mental illness with psychosis

. He currently carries a diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder, for which he's been treated since his late teens." Dr. Schiff continued to explain Respondent had been brought to Duke by "his ACT team" because of "an acute change in his mental status with increasing disorganization, hallucinations, delusions, abnormal psychomotor behavior, wandering around the streets" and because "he had not been taking his medications and had thrown them away[.]"

¶ 8 Dr. Schiff also stated: "On my evaluation ... [Respondent] continued to demonstrate very profound disorganization of thought and behavior responding to hallucinations or internal stimuli"; that it was "very difficult to elucidate a narrative from [Respondent]"; and that Respondent was "reporting that thoughts were being inserted into his head and occasionally controlling him, as well as containing derogatory content that was quite disturbing to him." The trial court interjected: "I'm sorry. Say -- I didn't quite get the last thing you said. You said some kind of behavior and then you said disturbing?" Dr. Schiff clarified that Respondent heard voices in his head and that some of the content was derogatory and disturbing to Respondent. Dr. Schiff testified Respondent was compliant with treatment while at Duke but that "[Respondent] has stated he does not feel that he really needs the medication, nor does he have a long-standing issue." Dr. Schiff continued: "Although he is accepting of help and has improved," Dr. Schiff was "still concerned that, if he were to be discharged, that there would be an immediate decompensation, given his ... hallucinations which are disturbing and to him and, in the past, have led him to have aggressive behaviors in the community."

¶ 9 After questioning by the trial court, Respondent's counsel questioned Dr. Schiff. When Respondent's counsel asserted Dr. Schiff was not the doctor who completed Respondent's first examination, Dr. Schiff responded that he was not but that he was present for the second examination and was Respondent's attending physician since the second examination. Respondent's counsel asked Dr. Schiff if Respondent had an "ACT team" that was able to assist Respondent when he was not in the hospital. Dr. Schiff replied: "That's right ... but they felt that ... they could no longer support him in the community based on his level of disorganization and decompensation[.]" Dr. Schiff testified that he was not aware of any prior suicide attempts by Respondent, but that Respondent had exhibited "aggressive behavior" and been subject to assaults in the past. Dr. Schiff further testified Respondent had improved and was taking his medication while at Duke, but Dr. Schiff was concerned Respondent would decompensate if discharged especially because Respondent's ACT team—who would normally encourage Respondent to take his medication—felt it could not support Respondent in the community.

¶ 10 After Dr. Schiff testified, Respondent took the stand. Counsel asked Respondent with whom Respondent lived. Respondent replied: "My brother and my friend. My -- he's my brother first, but he's my friend second.... And his best friend, which is my roommate, which is my brother." Respondent also testified that he had previously "gotten into it" with a man named William on the street when William became angry. Respondent stated he thought William had an anger management problem. However, Respondent said he had never thought of harming William. Respondent stated he had been taking his medication and would continue to do so if discharged, but that he could not "tell the difference" when asked if he thought the medication was helping him. Respondent also stated that his ACT team and Easterseals could provide him assistance if discharged, but that his ACT team wanted him to "take care of [his] teeth more," and Respondent "just disregarded it." Respondent also testified he did not eat "three meals a day," but that "they have started to give me at least breakfast" and he was "gonna have to eat more." When counsel asked Respondent if he would like to be released from Duke, he replied: "I see her ankles and Amy -- the Amy at Williams Ward -- Williams Ward remind me of my mom's ankles, and she takes her water pills in the morning. I remind her." Counsel then asked if Respondent was okay.

¶ 11 After questioning by Respondent's counsel, the trial court asked Respondent: "Your ACT team, tell me about what they do to help you." Respondent testified he would see his ACT team on Monday, Wednesday, and Thursday and that Fridays were for group substance abuse meetings. Respondent stated he went to group sessions "once in a blue" and that he received a bus ticket every time he went. He also stated Easterseals gave him weekly checks that he used to buy groceries. The trial court asked: "So right before they took you to the hospital, what was going on?" Respondent said, "I don't ... everything was the same, you know?" When the trial court asked "[s]o you don't know why...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • In re J.R.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • 16 d5 Dezembro d5 2022
    ...Concerns' issue in In re C.G., [278] N.C.App. [416], 2021-NCCOA-344." In re J.R., 278 N.C.App. 604, 2021-NCCOA-366, ¶ 7; see In re C.G., 278 N.C.App. 416, 2021-NCCOA-344, ¶ 25 (finding that "the trial court did not violate Respondent's right to an impartial tribunal"). The dissenting judge ......
  • In re D.G.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of North Carolina (US)
    • 7 d2 Junho d2 2022
    ...trial court operates to preclude raising the error on appeal."). ¶ 32 We considered a nearly identical preservation issue in In re C.G., 278 N.C.App. 416, 2021-NCCOA-344, ¶ 20. There, counsel for Respondent "objected to the proceedings because there was no representative for the State prese......
  • In re B.R.W.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of North Carolina (US)
    • 20 d2 Julho d2 2021
    ...reunification with their children. Moreover, it will assuredly be detrimental to the success of this DSS program and similar programs.278 N.C.App. 416 ¶ 71 For the foregoing reasons, I would hold: (1) the trial court's findings of fact are supported by competent evidence; (2) the trial cour......
  • In re C.T.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of North Carolina (US)
    • 5 d3 Julho d3 2023
    ...426, 429, 613 S.E.2d 40, 42 (2005); In re J.L., 264 N.C.App. at 419-20, 826 S.E.2d at 266-67; In re N.Z.B., 278 N.C.App. at 450-51, 863 S.E.2d at 237. Before reaching the merits of this issue, we address DSS' and the GAL's contention that Respondents' challenge to the trial court's determin......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT