In re: K.J.Â

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA
No. COA18-639
Filed: 3 September 2019
Granville County, No. 17 SPC 50833
IN THE MATTER OF: K.J.
Appeal by Respondent from Order entered 2 November 2017 by Judge Adam
S. Keith in Granville County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 12
February 2019.
Appellate Defender Glenn Gerding, by Assistant Appellate Defender Aaron
Thomas Johnson, for respondent-appellant.
Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Assistant Attorney General John Tillery,
for the State.
MURPHY, Judge.
Respondent’s (K.J.) sole argument on appeal is that the Affidavit and Petition
for Involuntary Commitment (“Petition”) supporting the trial court’s involuntary
commitment order was insufficient. Respondent failed to challenge the sufficiency of
the affidavit during the hearing before the District Court, and our binding precedent
mandates that the argument is waived. We dismiss Respondent’s appeal.
BACKGROUND
This action commenced when Richard Benson II, M.D. (“Dr. Benson”), signed
a petition requesting that Respondent be involuntarily committed. Dr. Benson’s
Petition alleged Respondent was mentally ill and a danger to herself and others. Dr.
IN RE: K.J.
Opinion of the Court
Benson stated his conclusion was based upon the following facts: “Aggressive
behavior/HI/psychosis[.]” An involuntary commitment hearing was held in Granville
County District Court, and Respondent was subsequently committed for a period not
to exceed 45 days, followed by outpatient commitment for a period not to exceed 45
days. At that hearing, Respondent did not object to the Petition or argue it did not
present a valid factual basis to support an involuntary commitment. Respondent
timely appeals.
ANALYSIS
Respondent’s only argument on appeal is that Dr. Benson’s Petition lacked
sufficient facts to show reasonable grounds for involuntary commitment. Indeed,
before a trial court may enter a commitment order, there must be an underlying
petition that alleges facts sufficient to show reasonable grounds that the person is
mentally ill and a danger to himself or others. N.C.G.S. § 122C-261(a) (2017); In re
Reed, 39 N.C. App. 227, 227-29, 249 S.E.2d 864, 865-66 (1978). However, our caselaw
requires respondents to “raise issues with the affidavit, petition, or custody order in
the first involuntary commitment hearing . . . .” In re Moore, 234 N.C. App. 37, 42,
758 S.E.2d 33, 37 (2014). Otherwise, we must hold that “respondent has waived any
challenge to the sufficiency of the affidavit to support the magistrate’s original
custody order.” Id. Here, it is undisputed that Respondent did not challenge the
sufficiency of the Petition during the initial involuntary commitment hearing. This
-2-
IN RE: K.J.
Opinion of the Court
issue, which is Respondent’s only argument on appeal, is deemed waived, and this
appeal is dismissed.
CONCLUSION
Respondent’s only argument on appeal is waived because it was not raised
during Respondent’s initial involuntary commitment hearing.
DISMISSED.
Judges BRYANT and DIETZ concur.
-3-