IN THE MATTER OF THE CIVIL COMMITMENT OF R v. (20018, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED)
Opinion
RECORD IMPOUNDED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-2929-17T2
IN THE MATTER OF THE CIVIL COMMITMENT OF R.V.,
Submitted February 14, 2019 – Decided May 2, 2019 Before Judges Simonelli and O'Connor.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Union County, Docket No. 20018.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant R.V. (Christina Lewis, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, of counsel; Alexandria S. Correa, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, of counsel and on the briefs).
Robert E. Barry, Union County Counsel, attorney for respondent County of Union (Kevin G. Campbell, Assistant County Counsel, on the brief).
PER CURIAM R.V. appeals from a February 22, 2018 order that continued his involuntary commitment to Trinitas Regional Medical Center. R.V. is no longer involuntarily
committed,1 but the matter is not moot because the February 22, 2018 order may be considered in a future commitment hearing, which implicates R.V.'s constitutional liberty. See In re Commitment of T.J., 401 N.J. Super. 111, 118 (App. Div. 2008). Further, R.V. is liable for the cost of the confinement that ensued as a result of the February 22, 2018 order. See N.J.S.A. 30:4-60(c)(1). If R.V. should not have been confined, he will be entitled to a credit. See In In re Commitment of B.L., 346 N.J. Super. 285, 292 (App. Div. 2002).
After reviewing the record and applicable legal principles, we reverse.
I
The salient facts are these. On February 12, 2018, the court entered a temporary order for R.V.'s involuntary commitment for inpatient treatment pursuant to N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.2(m). A hearing to review his continued eligibility for involuntary commitment was held on February 22, 2018. At that hearing two witnesses testified, M. Awais Sethi, M.D., and R.V.'s mother. Their pertinent testimony was as follows.
Dr. Sethi, who was not qualified as an expert witness, testified R.V. suffers from schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type, for which he had been previously hospitalized before his commitment just a few weeks before. During that prior
1 The record does not indicate the date R.V. was discharged.
A-2929-17T2
hospitalization, he received medication and was discharged. Then, approximately one year before he was involuntarily committed in February 2018, R.V. stopped taking his medication and became agitated and aggressive, "destructive of property" in his home, and "very religiously preoccupied."
Sethi observed R.V. after he was hospitalized on February 12, 2018, and found R.V. to be "very easily agitated" and "religiously preoccupied." The doctor stated he "couldn't really follow [R.V.'s] conversation[s] because [R.V.] would say things that didn't make much sense of a religious nature." While hospitalized, R.V. took medication for a short period and his condition improved, but he then refused to take medication and the noted improvement "vanished."
The day before Sethi testified, he saw R.V., who at that time claimed he was talking to God. The doctor testified, "[h]e did not seem to be in his right mind, for a lack of a better way of putting it. Very religiously preoccupied still. Irrational. And I don't think he's in the state of mind where he can fend for himself out in the community." The doctor acknowledged that he had never seen R.V. harm another or damage property.
The doctor further testified R.V. is a "possible" danger to himself or to others, an opinion the doctor based upon R.V.'s state of mind, events that occurred before R.V.'s hospitalization, his history of mental illness, and the treatment he has
A-2929-17T2
received, as set forth in hospital records. The doctor recommended that the court continue R.V.'s commitment for another four weeks, to permit R.V. to be treated with medication and become well enough to be discharged.
R.V.'s mother testified she had not seen R.V. engage in aggressive behavior when he stopped taking his medication, but he did become preoccupied with religion, did not sleep or eat, and talked endlessly. She stated R.V. is "fine" when he takes his medication and could return to her home if he resumed taking it.
After the mother testified, Sethi was recalled as a witness. He indicated he heard the mother testify and he stated her testimony supported his opinion R.V. was not able to function safely in the community, because "he just reads the Bible and walks around, doesn't eat, doesn't drink." Sethi repeated that if R.V. took his medication, he could be discharged from the hospital.
At the conclusion of Sethi’s testimony, the court did not make any findings of fact or conclusions of law, as required by Rule 1:7-4(a). The court merely ordered that R.V.'s involuntary commitment continue another two weeks, and scheduled a review hearing for March 8, 2018. The record does not reveal what occurred at the March 8, 2018 hearing. In his brief, R.V. mentions he was transferred to a long- term locked institution and subsequently discharged, but he does not state when such
A-2929-17T2
admission occurred and if it was related to the involuntary commitment that commenced in February 2018.
II
On appeal, R.V. asserts an array of arguments. They include that Sethi was not qualified as an expert witness during the February 22, 2018 hearing, and that his opinion R.V. was a danger to himself and others was based upon only a possibility, an opinion that falls far short of the requirement the State prove by clear and convincing evidence a party has a mental illness and that it causes him to be dangerous to themselves, others, or property.
N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.15(a) authorizes a court to continue an individual's involuntary commitment past a temporary commitment order as long as "the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the patient needs continued involuntary commitment to treatment . . . ." The statute defines "in need of involuntary commitment to treatment" as "an adult with mental illness, whose mental illness causes the person to be dangerous to self or dangerous to others or property and who is unwilling to accept appropriate treatment voluntarily after it has been offered . . . ." N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.2(m).
"Dangerous to self" is defined as:
[B]y reason of mental illness the person has threatened or attempted suicide or serious bodily harm, or has
A-2929-17T2
behaved in such a manner as to indicate that the person is unable to satisfy his need for nourishment, essential medical care or shelter, so that it is probable that substantial bodily injury, serious physical harm or death will result within the reasonably foreseeable future; however, no person shall be deemed to be unable to satisfy his need for nourishment, essential medical care or shelter if he is able to satisfy such needs with the supervision and assistance of others who are willing and available. This determination shall take into account a person's history, recent behavior and any recent act, threat or serious psychiatric deterioration.
[N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.2(h).]
We turn to R.V.'s contention that the failure of Sethi to be qualified as an expert witness warrants the reversal of the February 22, 2018 order. N.J.R.E. 702 states that:
[i]f scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE MATTER OF THE CIVIL COMMITMENT OF R v. (20018, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) (IN THE MATTER OF THE CIVIL COMMITMENT OF R v. (20018, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED)) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.