In re: K.J.Â

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA
No. COA18-639
Filed: 18 June 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 now
appeals, arguing Dr. Benson’s Petition did not state facts sufficient to grant the trial
court subject matter jurisdiction over the commitment hearing.
ANALYSIS
Respondent’s only argument on appeal is that the trial court lacked jurisdiction
to order a commitment because 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.
-2-
IN RE: K.J.
Opinion of the Court
Here, it is undisputed that Respondent did not challenge the sufficiency of the
Petition during the initial involuntary commitment hearing. This 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-