In re G.S.

• Court: Supreme Court of Rhode Island
• Decided: October 24, 2025
• Docket: 2024-0359-Appeal.
• Status: Published

Opinion

Supreme Court

No. 2024-359-Appeal. (MH-24-489)

In re G.S. :

ORDER

The respondent, G.S., appeals from an amended order issued by the District

Court certifying him to outpatient treatment, finding him not competent to make

informed decisions with respect to recommended medications, and consenting to the

administration of certain medications. On appeal, G.S. contends that the order was

made in plain error and that he was unable to prepare for trial.

This case came before the Supreme Court pursuant to an order directing the

parties to show cause why the issues raised in this appeal should not be summarily

decided. After a careful review of the record and oral argument, we are of the

opinion that cause has not been shown and that the appeal may be resolved without

further briefing or argument. For the reasons set forth herein, the matter before the

Court is moot.

In September 2024, G.S. was engaging in increasingly erratic behavior in the

community. In response to G.S.’s escalating behavior, Scituate police requested an

evaluation of G.S. at Gateway Healthcare Inc. (Gateway) that resulted in G.S.’s

-1- admission to Rhode Island Hospital under emergency certification. Shortly

thereafter, Jared Au Yeung, M.D., a staff psychiatrist at Rhode Island Hospital, filed

a Petition for Civil Court Certification pursuant to G.L. 1956 § 40.1-5-8(a), and a

Petition for Instructions pursuant to § 40.1-5-8(m), seeking permission to treat G.S.

A hearing was held in the District Court on September 27, 2024. G.S. was

represented at the hearing by competent counsel from the Office of the Mental

Health Advocate. At the hearing, Dr. Au Yeung testified that G.S. had a history of

schizophrenia, multiple inpatient psychiatric admissions, and court-ordered

treatment. According to Dr. Au Yeung, while at Rhode Island Hospital, G.S. refused

treatments and was argumentative, paranoid, and disruptive. After evaluating G.S.,

Dr. Au Yeung concluded that his “continued unsupervised presence in the

community would create a likelihood of serious harm by reason of psychiatric illness

as manifested by a substantial risk of physical harm to others.” Doctor Au Yeung

investigated alternatives to inpatient treatment, but found that none were suitable for

G.S.’s treatment needs. Counsel for G.S. engaged in extensive cross-examination

of Dr. Au Yeung.

At the conclusion of the hearing, an order was entered granting the Petition

for Civil Court Certification. The order certified G.S. to inpatient treatment, found

him not competent to make informed decisions with respect to recommended

medications, and consented to the administration of certain medications to him. The

-2- order was later amended to allow for outpatient treatment at Gateway. The amended

order was set to expire on March 27, 2025. On March 27, 2025, the order expired

by its own terms. No new certifications or petitions were filed, and the case expired

without further hearing.

It is well settled that “a case is moot if the original complaint raised a

justiciable controversy, but events occurring after the filing have deprived the

litigant of a continuing stake in the controversy.” Rhode Island Department of

Behavioral Healthcare, Developmental Disabilities and Hospitals v. L.Z., 208 A.3d

242, 242-43 (R.I. 2019) (mem.) (quoting Hallsmith-Sysco Food Services, LLC v.

Marques, 970 A.2d 1211, 1213 (R.I. 2009)). As of March 27, 2025, G.S. is no longer

committed or subject to the conditions of the order. Therefore, there is no relief this

Court can provide G.S. at this time. See Robar v. Robar, 154 A.3d 947, 948 (R.I.

2017) (mem.) (stating that the order at issue had expired, rendering the case moot).

Because this appeal is now moot, we need not address the issues raised by either

party in their submissions to this Court.

We note that G.S. appeared before this Court and presented his case in a

passionate and respectful manner. While we are sympathetic to his plight, the order

appealed from has expired by its own terms. Therefore, we are unable to grant him

any relief at this time, as there is no justiciable issue before us. The case is moot.

-3- The brief duration of civil certification orders often prevents them from being

heard on appeal. See In re L.Z., 293 A.3d 1273, 1274 (R.I. 2019) (mem.); L.Z., 208

A.3d at 243. As members of this Court have previously stated, “because orders such

as the one at issue in this case are in effect for a mere six months, it is inherently

difficult, if not impossible, for an appeal from such an order to be heard and decided

by this Court before the order expires and becomes moot.” L.Z., 208 A.3d at 243

(Indeglia, J., concurring). To facilitate meaningful review, we, again, direct Rhode

Island Department of Behavioral Healthcare, Developmental Disabilities and

Hospitals, to ensure that a stenographer is provided for civil certification hearings. 1

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

Entered as an Order of this Court this ___ day of October, 2025.

By Order,

_____________________

Clerk

1 We note that the transcript of the District Court hearing was not prepared until September 17, 2025, and was received by this Court on September 18, 2025, less than a week before argument.

-4- STATE OF RHODE ISLAND SUPREME COURT – CLERK’S OFFICE Licht Judicial Complex 250 Benefit Street Providence, RI 02903

ORDER COVER SHEET

Title of Case In re G.S.

No. 2024-359-Appeal. Case Number (MH-24-489)

Date Order Filed October 24, 2025

Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Robinson, Lynch Prata, and Justices Long, JJ.

Source of Appeal Sixth Division District Court

Judicial Officer from Lower Court Associate Justice Mary McCaffrey

For Petitioner:

Thomas J. Corrigan, Jr. RI Department of Behavioral Healthcare, Attorney(s) on Appeal Developmental Disabilities and Hospitals For Respondent:

Grant Shippee, pro se

SU-CMS-02B (revised November 2022)