{
  "id": 6776854,
  "name": "IN THE MATTER OF C.W.F.",
  "name_abbreviation": "In re C.W.F.",
  "decision_date": "2014-02-04",
  "docket_number": "No. COA13-444",
  "first_page": "213",
  "last_page": "217",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "232 N.C. App. 213"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "232 S.E.2d 492",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1977,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "494"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "32 N.C. App. 429",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8551047
      ],
      "year": 1977,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "433"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/32/0429-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 454,
    "char_count": 9363,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.713,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.1822399684305919
    },
    "sha256": "ee60f41284b2e73edc131b4b77c8620a8416696818c1d0f8b3c54de555d03ee7",
    "simhash": "1:092a03ee76243639",
    "word_count": 1413
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:34:41.441392+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges ELMORE and STEPHENS concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "IN THE MATTER OF C.W.F."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "CALABRIA, Judge.\nC.W.F. appeals an order concurring with the voluntary admission of a minor and authorizing a continued admission for inpatient psychiatric treatment for a period of 90 days. We vacate the order and remand to the trial court for findings.\nOn 7 August 2012, C.W.F\u2019s mother consented to C.W.F.\u2019s evaluation for treatment, services and support provided by Jackson Springs Treatment Center (\u201cJackson Springs\u201d). Freida Green (\u201cGreen\u201d), a member of Jackson Springs\u2019 staff, completed C.W.F.\u2019s Evaluation for Admission/Continued Stay (\u201cGreen\u2019s evaluation\u201d). Green described her findings, included C.W.F.\u2019s medications and recommended his admission for treatment or rehabilitation.\nOn 8 August 2012, Green filed a Request for Hearing to determine whether the court concurred with the voluntary admission/continued stay. Green attached her evaluation as well as a psychological evaluation prepared by licensed psychological associate Daniel Huang, M.A., dated 15 January 2012 (\u201cHuang\u2019s evaluation\u201d).\nDr. Leah McCallum, Ph.D. (\u201cDr. McCallum\u201d), performed a Comprehensive Clinical Assessment (\u201cMcCallum\u2019s assessment\u201d) dated 10 August 2012, which included, inter alia, C.W.F.\u2019s general health and behavioral health history, described his removal from home for sexually abusing his younger sister, physical abuse by his father, and the precipitating events that caused his problems. McCallum\u2019s assessment also included recommendations for C.W.F.\u2019s treatment within a structural 24-hour therapeutic environment. Dr. McCallum justified treatment at Jackson Springs because less intense levels of care where C.W.F. remained in the home and received community based treatment had been attempted but were unsuccessful. In the less structured treatment environments, C.W.F. continued to exhibit emotional and behavioral problems both in the home and community settings.\nAt the hearing in Moore County District Court on 22 August 2012 to determine whether C.W.F. should be treated at Jackson Springs or whether a less restrictive environment would be sufficient, the trial court reviewed Green\u2019s and Huang\u2019s evaluations that had been attached to the Request for Hearing. C.W.F. was represented by appointed counsel. Jackson Springs presented the testimony of clinical director Teresa McGuire (\u201cMcGuire\u201d) as well as McCallum\u2019s assessment. McGuire, a social worker and clinical director at Jackson Springs, testified that she was providing C.W.F. with individual and group therapy. McGuire stated the reason C.W.F. was transferred to Jackson Springs from his prior treatment facility in South Carolina. Specifically, during C.W.F\u2019s prior placement, he displayed physical and verbal aggression and violated sexual boundaries with peers. McGuire believed that in C.W.F.\u2019s prior treatment facility, he had possibly learned the skills he needed to reduce his physical and verbal aggression but had been unable to cariy out those skills. C.W.F. objected to McGuire\u2019s testimony.\nWhen McGuire was questioned regarding the purpose of reviewing a patient\u2019s medical records, she answered that it is part of the process of familiarizing the staff with a new patient\u2019s history, and that to prepare for the hearing she had reviewed Green\u2019s and Huang\u2019s evaluations as well as McCallum\u2019s assessment (collectively, \u201cthe reports\u201d). C.W.F. objected to the introduction of the reports. The trial court overruled C.W.F.\u2019s objections to McGuire\u2019s testimony and also admitted the reports.\nThe trial court found as fact all matters that had been set out in Green\u2019s evaluation, which included Green\u2019s opinion that C.W.F. was mentally ill, and incorporated it by reference as findings. Based on the findings, the trial court concluded that C.W.F. was mentally ill and in need of continued treatment at Jackson Springs because less restrictive measures would not be sufficient. In addition, the court concurred with C.W.F.\u2019s voluntary admission and authorized C.W.F.\u2019s continued admission at Jackson Springs for 90 days. C.W.F. appeals.\nC.W.F. argues that the court erred by admitting and relying on three reports prepared by non-testifying witnesses because the reports violated his right to confrontation. We agree.\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 122C-224.3(f) (2011) provides the criteria for the trial court to determine whether a minor should remain in a voluntary admission:\nFor an admission to be authorized beyond the hearing, the minor must be (1) mentally ill or a substance abuser and (2) in need of further treatment at the 24-hour facility to which he has been admitted. Further treatment at the admitting facility should be undertaken only when lesser measures will be insufficient. It is not necessary that the judge make a finding of dangerousness in order to support a concurrence in the admission.\nOn appeal from an order of involuntary commitment, the questions for determination are (1) whether the court\u2019s findings of fact \u201care indeed supported by the \u2018facts\u2019 which the court recorded in its order as supporting its findings, and (2) whether in any event there was competent evidence to support the court\u2019s findings.\u201d In re Hogan, 32 N.C. App. 429, 433, 232 S.E.2d 492, 494 (1977). These same issues must be addressed in an appeal from the voluntary commitment of a minor.\nC.W.F. disputes the trial court\u2019s findings of mental illness and that further treatment at Jackson Springs was based upon competent evidence. Specifically, C.W.F. argues that the admission of all three reports deprived him of his right to confrontation.\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 122C-224.3, which addresses hearings for review of voluntary admissions of minors, provides that \u201c[cjertified copies of reports and findings of physicians, psychologists and other responsible professionals as well as previous and current medical records are admissible in evidence, but the minor\u2019s right, through his attorney, to confront and cross-examine witnesses may not be denied.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 122C-224.3(c) (2011). Thus, the plain language of this statute not only permits admission of relevant medical records into evidence, but also ensures the minor\u2019s right to confront and cross-examine witnesses. Id. The juxtaposition of these two points in a single sentence indicates the legislature sought to protect the minor\u2019s right to confront and cross-examine witnesses regarding those admissible records.\nIn the instant case, McGuire was Jackson Springs\u2019 sole witness at the hearing. C.W.F.\u2019s counsel specifically objected to McGuire\u2019s rebanee on the reports \u201con the grounds of hearsay, lack of confrontation, and foundation\u201d and later objected to the admission of the reports themselves on the same grounds. The court overruled the objections and admitted Green\u2019s report as well as Huang\u2019s evaluation and McCallum\u2019s assessment. McGuire indicated that the purpose of all three reports was for the professionals at Jackson Springs to acquaint themselves with C.W.F.\u2019s specific needs and individual conditions as a new patient.\nThe trial court found as fact all matters in Green\u2019s evaluation, and incorporated it by reference as findings. The court made no additional findings of fact. While Green\u2019s evaluation was certified as a true and exact copy of the Evaluation for Admission/Continued Stay, and therefore admissible under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 122C-224.3(c) as a certified copy of a report by a \u201cpsychologist [or] other responsible professional,\u201d Green was not available to testify at the hearing. In addition, Green was not subject to cross-examination regarding her evaluation and opinions regarding C.W.F.\u2019s mental health. Therefore, the trial court erred in relying solely on Green\u2019s evaluation, since C.W.F. had no opportunity to cross-examine her.\nThe court\u2019s conclusions of law that C.W.F. was mentally ill, in need of continued treatment, and that less restrictive measures than a voluntary commitment would not be sufficient, are based solely upon Green\u2019s report. However, Green did not testify at the hearing, and C.W.F. was unable to confront or cross-examine Green regarding the findings and opinions she recorded in her evaluation. Since N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 122C-224.3(c) protects a minor\u2019s right to cross-examine witnesses regarding relevant medical records, we vacate the trial court\u2019s order, remand for further findings, and need not address C.W.F.\u2019s remaining arguments.\nVacated and remanded.\nJudges ELMORE and STEPHENS concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "CALABRIA, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Charlene Richardson and Special Deputy Attorney General Lisa Corbett, for the State.",
      "Appellate Defender Staples Hughes, by Assistant Appellate Defender David W. Andrews, for juvenile respondent-appellant.",
      "Miranda R. McCoy, for petitioner-appellee Jackson Springs Treatment Center."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "IN THE MATTER OF C.W.F.\nNo. COA13-444\nFiled 4 February 2014\nEvidence \u2014 reports\u2014non-testifying witness \u2014 right to confrontation \u2014 voluntary admission of a minor\nThe trial court erred in a hearing for review of a voluntary admission of a minor authorizing a continued admission for inpatient psychiatric treatment by admitting into evidence and relying upon three reports prepared by non-testifying witnesses. Admission of the reports violated the minor\u2019s right to confrontation.\nAppeal by juvenile respondent from order entered 22 August 2012 by Judge Don W. Creed, Jr. in Moore County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 25 September 2013.\nAttorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Charlene Richardson and Special Deputy Attorney General Lisa Corbett, for the State.\nAppellate Defender Staples Hughes, by Assistant Appellate Defender David W. Andrews, for juvenile respondent-appellant.\nMiranda R. McCoy, for petitioner-appellee Jackson Springs Treatment Center."
  },
  "file_name": "0213-01",
  "first_page_order": 223,
  "last_page_order": 227
}