Michael Gordin Maddin v. Arkansas Department of Human Services

2021 Ark. App. 177
Court of Appeals of Arkansas·Decided April 21, 2021·Published

Opinion

Cite as 2021 Ark. App. 177 Elizabeth Perry ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS I attest to the accuracy and DIVISION IV integrity of this document No. CV-20-490 2023.06.26 15:34:20 -05'00' 2023.001.20174 OPINION DELIVERED: APRIL 21, 2021 MICHAEL GORDIN MADDIN

APPELLANT

APPEAL FROM THE FAULKNER

COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

V. [NO. 23PR-20-143]

HONORABLE DAVID M. CLARK, ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF JUDGE HUMAN SERVICES

APPELLEE AFFIRMED

ROBERT J. GLADWIN, Judge

On July 9, 2020, the Faulkner County Circuit Court ordered long-term protective custody of Michael Gordon Maddin, an adult. Maddin appeals arguing that the circuit court erred in finding that his health and safety are in imminent danger and that he is unable to provide for his own protection from maltreatment. We affirm.

I. Facts

The Arkansas Department of Human Services (DHS) filed a petition for emergency custody on March 11, 2020, alleging that Maddin was an endangered or impaired adult under the Adult Maltreatment Custody Act. Ark. Code Ann. §§ 9-20-101 et seq. (Repl.

2020). In an attached affidavit, DHS alleged that a referral was received by Adult Protective Services, and the reporter had stated that Maddin was a fall risk, had fallen down, and was not taking care of himself; Maddin’s bed was covered in feces, and he was stuck in it; there

were pills all over the house and on the floor; Maddin had five-gallon buckets full of urine; Maddin was defecating on the floor and covering it in cat litter; and Maddin was possibly taking too much medicine.

The affiant stated that on March 9, a DHS agent investigated and found Maddin alone in his apartment with the door open, sitting in his wheelchair. Maddin stated that he was ready for an appointment, and he had bowel movement on his legs, his shoes, and the bottoms of his feet. Police were called when Maddin became loud and verbally aggressive, and Maddin locked his door, not allowing the officers inside. Ultimately, the fire department was called, and firefighters forced entry into Maddin’s home.

The affiant stated that records showed Maddin had been involved in five police-

incident reports between June 24, 2019, and March 1, 2020; thirty-six calls “obtained per CFS History and Search Detail”; and twenty-four assist calls were made to the Conway Fire Department between February 26, 2019, and March 1, 2020. The affidavit states that Maddin has type 2 diabetes, hypertension, heart failure, atherosclerotic heart disease, atrial fibrillation, abnormalities of gait and mobility, weakness, unsteadiness of feet, cognitive communication deficit, acute kidney failure, sleep apnea, gastro-esophageal reflux disease, chronic gout, and ulcerative colitis. The affidavit concludes that DHS placed a seventy- two-hour hold on Maddin because he did not have the physical capacity to protect himself from abuse, neglect, or exploitation and that he required twenty-four-hour care, which could only be provided in a long-term-care facility.

On March 11, an ex parte order granting DHS emergency, protective custody of Maddin was filed. The order reflects that the court found Maddin indigent, and a public defender was appointed.

Dr. Gil Johnson examined Maddin and reviewed his medical records on February 24, 2020, and Maddin was diagnosed as morbidly obese with a secondary diagnosis of diabetes mellitus. Dr. Johnson opined that Maddin requires twenty-four-hour care in a long-term-care facility; that Maddin is not mentally impaired; that Maddin is physically impaired; and that Maddin does not have the mental capacity to protect himself from abuse, neglect, or exploitation. Dr. Johnson recommended that Maddin remain in DHS protective custody and that he not attend a court hearing due to chronic pain and an inability to ambulate in a wheelchair.

Dr. Scott Simmons examined Maddin on March 11, and he recommended that Maddin have institutional care for medication management and administration, safety monitoring and assistance, and basic hygiene. Dr. Simmons found that Maddin is mentally and physically impaired and does not have the mental capacity to protect himself. He recommended that Maddin remain in protective custody and that Maddin not attend a court hearing because he would not understand the court proceedings and attending would cause him undue stress and anxiety.

A probable-cause hearing was held on March 17, and the court found that Maddin had no caregiver responsible for his protection, care, or custody and that probable cause continued for custody to remain with DHS. The court found that Maddin has a mental or

physical impairment that prevents him from protecting himself from imminent danger to his health or safety.

A psychiatric evaluation on May 15 noted that Maddin weighed 422 pounds. The evaluation plan stated: (1) consider a nutrition consult due to obesity; and (2) Maddin is cognitively safe to return to his home.

At a hearing on June 16, Tashimma Lacy testified that she is a day nurse at Cottage Lane Health & Rehab, where Maddin resides in protective custody. She administers medication to Maddin and assists him with dressing, transferring, and showering. She said that Maddin is not able to get up and move around without assistance and that he has good days and bad days. She said that he is not able to shower without assistance and that he is receiving physical therapy. She said that Maddin seems to be mentally aware, she does not know of any mental issues that would stop him from caring for himself, and his limitations are physical in nature. She said that Maddin is cooperative in working with her and accepts help if he needs it. On cross-examination, she said that from her observation of his physical therapy, Maddin seems cooperative, and he has progressed in his ability to function day to day.

Captain Clint Smith of the Conway Fire Department testified that before DHS obtained custody of Maddin, he had responded to Maddin’s house four times. He said that three of Maddin’s calls had been for lifting assistance, and he had twice transported Maddin to a hospital. He said that he had responded to a structure-fire call from Maddin’s apartment; however, when firefighters arrived, there was no fire, and Maddin needed help getting up. Maddin told investigators that he had asked his girlfriend to call 9-1-1 because dispatch had

blocked his number and address “because of the amount of times we had been” to Maddin’s house. He said that every time he went to Maddin’s house, there was urine and feces from the front door to the bed, all the way back through the house to the bedroom. He said,

It was animal and human, and it was not clean. Dishes out. Clothes. Rotting food. That type stuff. Mr. Maddin didn’t appear to be clean or in a good state of care. Environmentally, it was not comfortable for me to be in the home when responding to those calls. We would actually wear our fire-fighting gear in the house and wear masks, N95 masks for the odor, the smell. The smell carried with me a little after I left.

He said that he was concerned for Maddin’s safety in the home and that his main concern was whether Maddin would be able to get out if necessary. He said that Maddin appeared to be aware of his surroundings, and there were times when Maddin was groggy. He said that he saw pill bottles that were opened and that pills had fallen out. He said that Maddin’s neighbor would check on him and visit with firefighters about Maddin and that Maddin’s demeanor was “nice,” but he had also observed Maddin being very rude. On cross- examination, he said that there had been twenty-seven reports from Maddin’s address between January 1, 2019, and June 12, 2020. Each of those times, Maddin or someone at his request had called the fire department for assistance.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Michael Gordin Maddin v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 2021 Ark. App. 177 (Ark. Ct. App. 2021).

2021 Ark. App. 177 (Michael Gordin Maddin v. Arkansas Department of Human Services) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Yarborough v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
240 S.W.3d 626 (Court of Appeals of Arkansas, 2006)
Pardew v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2017 Ark. App. 70 (Court of Appeals of Arkansas, 2017)
Johnston v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2017 Ark. App. 51 (Court of Appeals of Arkansas, 2017)
Arazola v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs. & Minor Child
2019 Ark. App. 109 (Court of Appeals of Arkansas, 2019)