IN THE MATTER OF THE
CIVIL COMMITMENT OF K.A.
________________________________
May 31, 2016
Submitted May 17, 2016 – Decided
Before Judges Espinosa and Currier.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Ocean County, Docket No. 0410-15.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant K.A. (Purificacion Flores, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, on the briefs).
Frank A. Blandino, attorney for respondent State of New Jersey (J. Daniela Fama, on the brief).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
PER CURIAM
K.A. appeals from the March 10, 2015 order continuing his involuntary civil commitment pursuant to Rule 4:74-7. Because we find the judge's decision to continue the commitment was supported by clear and convincing evidence, we affirm.
K.A. was involuntarily committed on a temporary order to the Carrier Clinic on February 20, 2015. Prior to the Carrier admission he had been diagnosed with schizophrenia and treated at another hospital's crisis unit after trying to cut his wrists. It was noted upon his arrival that K.A. was non-compliant with his medications; he was not speaking nor caring for his personal needs.
At the March 10, 2015 review hearing, Advance Practice Nurse Jen Schipper and David Buch, M.D. provided testimony. Schipper was responsible for the daily care of K.A. She testified that he remained "disorganized with poor insight into his illness." Although he had shown improvement, she advised he still required prompting to take care of his personal needs such as getting out of bed and showering. Buch, the treating psychiatrist, advised that K.A.'s medications had been changed and were still being adjusted. The medical staff had been unable to contact K.A.'s family to discuss housing and assistance for him. Both medical professionals recommended continued commitment.
The judge entered an order for continued commitment noting the previous non-compliance with medications and the lack of a placement plan. K.A. was discharged from Carrier seventeen days later on March 27, 2015.
Involuntary commitment is governed by the provisions of N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.1 to -27.23 and Rule 4:74-7. A person is "[i]n need of involuntary commitment" when "mental illness causes the person to be dangerous to self or dangerous to others or property," and the person is unwilling to be voluntarily admitted to a facility for care. N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.2(m). In the present case, K.A. was found to be "dangerous to self," which is defined by N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.2(h) to mean:
by reason of mental illness the person has threatened or attempted suicide or serious bodily harm, or has 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 debilitation or death will result within the reasonably foreseeable future.
On appeal, K.A. challenges the orders continuing his involuntary commitment, arguing that the County, which had the burden of proof, In re Commitment of J.R., 390 N.J. Super. 523, 529-30 (App. Div. 2007), failed to demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence that he was dangerous to himself as statutorily defined, and for that reason, his involuntary commitment was unlawful. In considering K.A.'s appeal, we "give[] deference to civil commitment decisions[,] and reverse[] only when there is clear error or mistake." In re Commitment of M.M., 384 N.J. Super. 313, 334 (App. Div. 2006). In making our decision we must consider the adequacy of the evidence supporting the determination to continue commitment to evaluate whether it is competent. Ibid.
The judge's decision to continue the involuntary commitment was supported by expert testimony. It was undisputed that K.A. needed prompting to attend to all of his personal needs: getting out of bed, showering, changing his clothes, and taking his medications. Prior to the commitment, he was non-compliant with his medications and attempted to harm himself. At the time of the hearing, medical staff had been unable to contact family members in order to make a baseline assessment of K.A. and establish a placement plan for his discharge. The psychiatrist testified that K.A. suffered from "thought blocking"; the doctor was not yet sure if it was a positive or negative symptom of psychosis. These facts were sufficient to provide clear and convincing evidence for the judge's determination to continue the involuntary commitment.
Affirmed.
