{ "id": 2564565, "name": "IN THE MATTER OF LYNETTE H., a minor child", "name_abbreviation": "In re Lynette H.", "decision_date": "1988-12-08", "docket_number": "No. 252PA88", "first_page": "598", "last_page": "603", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "323 N.C. 598" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C.", "id": 9292, "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "368 S.E. 2d 452", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1988, "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "90 N.C. App. 373", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8524546 ], "year": 1988, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/90/0373-01" ] }, { "cite": "22 S.E. 2d 450", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1942, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "453" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "222 N.C. 200", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8629449 ], "year": 1942, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "204" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/222/0200-01" ] }, { "cite": "316 S.E. 2d 59", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "61" }, { "page": "61-62" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "311 N.C. 230", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4682052 ], "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "234" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/311/0230-01" ] }, { "cite": "301 S.E. 2d 98", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "99-100" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "308 N.C. 187", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4710288 ], "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "189" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/308/0187-01" ] }, { "cite": "318 S.E. 2d 348", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "352" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "69 N.C. App. 701", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8526932 ], "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "706" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/69/0701-01" ] }, { "cite": "74 L.Ed. 2d 987", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "459 U.S. 1139", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6528068, 6528196, 6528138, 6528010, 6528267 ], "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/459/1139-02", "/us/459/1139-04", "/us/459/1139-03", "/us/459/1139-01", "/us/459/1139-05" ] }, { "cite": "306 N.C. 565", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8573122, 8573110 ], "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/306/0565-02", "/nc/306/0565-01" ] }, { "cite": "293 S.E. 2d 127", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "130-31" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "306 N.C. 394", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8571007 ], "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "400" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/306/0394-01" ] }, { "cite": "368 S.E. 2d 452", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1988, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "90 N.C. App. 373", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8524546 ], "year": 1988, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/90/0373-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 596, "char_count": 10529, "ocr_confidence": 0.804, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.5143155108775747e-07, "percentile": 0.8108660002957702 }, "sha256": "02ac379d5ccd484e8b123869d26711af5ff444e84bb5755aa28aeb61bc2d15c4", "simhash": "1:4abcc527363a2452", "word_count": 1710 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:25:25.148086+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "IN THE MATTER OF LYNETTE H., a minor child" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "WHICHARD, Justice.\nThis is a special proceeding to determine whether the respondent, a minor, is mentally ill and in need of treatment. On 24 January 1987 respondent\u2019s parents requested her admission to Holly Hill Hospital, a mental health facility in Wake County (hereafter \u201cthe facility\u201d), pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 122C-221 to -224, the statutes governing voluntary admission and discharge of minors from facilities for the mentally ill. A qualified physician determined that respondent suffered from a mental illness and was in need of treatment. She then was admitted to the facility on a temporary basis at the request of her parents. Admission at the request of a minor\u2019s parents is a voluntary admission under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 122C-221.\nOn 27 January 1987, within the required ten day period, the District Court, Wake County, held a hearing to determine whether the minor respondent was mentally ill and in need of further treatment at the facility. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 122C-223 (1986). The court found that the evidence presented at the hearing did not support a finding of mental illness as defined in N.C.G.S. \u00a7 122C-3\u00cd21). It specifically ruled in open court as follows: \u201cAfter a full hearing, this Court finds as a fact that the Respondent is not suffering from a mental condition as defined by Section 122C-3(22) [sic].\u201d The court stated: \u201cI will find that that [ie., respondent\u2019s behavior depicted by the evidence] does not constitute any type of ... is not due to a mental condition.\u201d The State did not enter notice of appeal, either by oral notice at the hearing or by written notice filed within ten days thereof. See N.C.G.S. \u00a7 1-279 (1983); N.C.R. App. P. 3.\nOn 6 August 1987, over six months following the hearing, the trial court signed a document entitled \u201cMemorandum Opinion and Order.\u201d A notation on the order, following the 6 August 198\u2020 date and apparently in the trial judge\u2019s handwriting, states: \u201cNunc pro tunc Jan. 28, 1987.\u201d This order declares that the statutory definition of mental illness as applied to minors, N.C.G.S. \u00a7 122C-3(21)(ii), \u201cmust fail for vagueness.\u201d It recites that the statute \u201cfails to give ... a standard that protects against arbitrary and discriminatory action.\u201d It further recites: \u201cMinors would therefore be treated differently depending on the draw of the Judge or, for that matter, the attending physician. Such probability is inherently unfair.\u201d The State entered notice of appeal from the 6 August 1987 order.\nOn appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the order. In re Lynette H., 90 N.C. App. 373, 368 S.E. 2d 452 (1988). The State entered notice of appeal, pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-30(1), on the ground that the decision of the Court of Appeals involves a substantial constitutional question. It simultaneously petitioned for discretionary review. On 28 July 1988 we allowed discretionary review. For reasons that follow, we now vacate the opinion of the Court of Appeals and remand the case to that court with instructions to vacate the 6 August 1987 order.\nAs noted, on 27 January 1987 the trial court ruled in open court that respondent was not mentally ill within the meaning and intent of that term as used in N.C.G.S. \u00a7 122C-3\u00cd21 )(ii). Upon that determination, respondent was entitled to be released from the facility. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 122C-223(b) (1986) (\u201cIf the court finds that these requirements [\u00bfe., mental illness and need for further treatment] have not been met, it shall order that the minor be released.\u201d (Emphasis added.)). The announcement of that determination in open court constituted entry of judgment for purposes of determining when notice of appeal had to be given, even if a formal written order was not filed until a later date. In re Moore, 306 N.C. 394, 400, 293 S.E. 2d 127, 130-31, reh\u2019g denied, 306 N.C. 565 (1982), appeal dismissed sub nom. Moore v. Guilford County Dept. of Social Services, 459 U.S. 1139, 74 L.Ed. 2d 987 (1983); Brooks, Com\u2019r of Labor v. Gooden, 69 N.C. App. 701, 706, 318 S.E. 2d 348, 352 (1984); N.C.G.S. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 58 (1983). The State neither gave oral notice of appeal at the hearing nor filed a written notice of appeal within ten days following the ruling. By thus failing to give timely notice, the State lost its right to appeal\u2014 N.C.G.S. \u00a7 1-279 (1983); N.C.R. App. P. 3 \u2014 and the Court of Appeals had no jurisdiction to hear the case. \u201cFailure to give timely notice of appeal in compliance with [N.C.] G.S. 1-279 and Rule 3 of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure is jurisdictional, and an untimely attempt to appeal must be dismissed.\u201d Booth v. Utica Mutual Ins. Co., 308 N.C. 187, 189, 301 S.E. 2d 98, 99-100 (1983).\nFurther, the trial court\u2019s ruling that respondent was not mentally ill within the meaning and intent of the statute, announced in open court on 27 January 1987, concluded the case or controversy between the State and the respondent. As noted, upon that determination respondent was entitled to be released from the facility. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 122C-223 (1986). The court thus had no case or controversy before it and no jurisdiction to enter the subsequent order, on wholly different grounds from those announced in open court, declaring the statute unconstitutional.\nBecause the court had concluded the case or controversy by finding the respondent not mentally ill, thus entitling her to release from the facility, the subsequent order was, in effect, a mere declaratory judgment on the constitutionality of the statute. \u201c[T]his Court has held on a number of occasions that Courts have jurisdiction to render declaratory judgments only when the pleadings and evidence disclose the existence of an actual controversy between parties having adverse interests in the matter in dispute.\u201d Gaston Bd. of Realtors v. Harrison, 311 N.C. 230, 234, 316 S.E. 2d 59, 61 (1984). \u201c[A]n actual controversy [is] a \u2018jurisdictional prerequisite\u2019 for a proceeding under the Declaratory Judgment Act .... [T]he . . . Act does not \u2018require the court to give a purely advisory opinion which the parties might, so to speak, put on ice to be used if and when occasion might arise.\u2019 \u201d Id. at 234, 316 S.E. 2d at 61-62 (quoting Tryon v. Power Co., 222 N.C. 200, 204, 22 S.E. 2d 450, 453 (1942)). Having concluded the case or controversy by finding the respondent not mentally ill, the trial court lacked jurisdiction in this proceeding to declare N.C.G.S. \u00a7 122C-3(21)(ii) unconstitutional. Its order of 6 August 1987 thus should be vacated.\nFor the foregoing reasons, the opinion of the Court of Appeals is vacated. The cause is remanded to the Court of Appeals with instructions to vacate the 6 August 1987 order of the District Court, Wake County.\nVacated and remanded.\n. This statute provides:\n\u201cMental illness\u201d means: . . . (ii) when applied to a minor, a mental condition, other than mental retardation alone, that so lessens or impairs the youth\u2019s capacity either to develop or exercise age appropriate or age adequate self-control, judgment, or initiative in the conduct of his activities and social relationships as to make it necessary or advisable for him to be und\u00e9r treatment, care, supervision, guidance, or control.\nN.C.G.S. \u00a7 122C-3(21)(ii) (1986).\n. The record is not altogether clear as to whether respondent was in fact released at this time. The \u201cStatement of the Proceedings\u201d states that upon making the determination that the evidence did not support a finding of mental illness, the trial court \u201centered a verbal order discharging respondent from [the facility].\u201d Counsel for the State stated in oral argument that respondent was in fact discharged at this time; counsel for respondent did not dispute this assertion.", "type": "majority", "author": "WHICHARD, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Lacy H. Thornburg, Attorney General, by Wilson Hayman, Assistant Attorney General, for the State, appellant.", "Elisabeth P. Clary for respondent-appellee.", "Sumner & Hewes, by William E. Sumner and David A. Webster, and Roberts Stevens & Cogbum, P.A., by William Clarke and Glenn S. Gentry, for The Highland Clinic, amicus curiae.", "Hunton & Williams, by Christopher G. Browning, Jr., for The North Carolina Civil Liberties Union Legal Foundation, amicus curiae.", "Deborah Greenblatt for Carolina Legal Assistance, Inc., amicus curiae.", "Abigail English for National Center for Youth Law, amicus curiae.", "Albert J. Singer for Durham Child Advocacy Commission, amicus curiae.", "Katherine S. Holliday and Anna C. Stowe for The Children\u2019s Law Center, amicus curiae.", "Jordan, Price, Wall, Gray & Jones, by William R. Shenton, Stephen R. Dolan and Steven Mansfield Shaber, for The North Carolina Hospital Association, amicus curiae.", "Adams, McCullough & Beard, by Renee J. Montgomery, for The North Carolina Charter Hospitals, amici curiae.", "Smith, Anderson, Blount, Dorsett, Mitchell & Jernigan, by Julian D. Bobbitt, Jr. and Thomas B. Haller, Jr., for North Carolina Medical Society, North Carolina Psychiatric Association, North Carolina Psychological Association, North Carolina Council of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, North Carolina Alliance for the Mentally III, National Association of Social Workers \u2014 North Carolina Chapter, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, amici curiae." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "IN THE MATTER OF LYNETTE H., a minor child\nNo. 252PA88\n(Filed 8 December 1988)\nInsane Persons \u00a7 13\u2014 statute defining mental illness as applied to minor \u2014 order declaring unconstitutional \u2014 entered without jurisdiction\nThe Court of Appeals erred by affirming a trial court order declaring unconstitutional the statute which governs voluntary admission and discharge of minors from facilities for the mentally ill, N.C.G.S. \u00a7 122C-3(21)(ii), where the trial court had already concluded the case or controversy by finding the respondent not mentally ill. The announcement of that determination in open court constituted an entry of judgment, even if a formal written order was not filed until later, and the State lost its right to appeal by failing to give timely notice; furthermore, the trial court then had no case or controversy before it and no jurisdiction to enter the order declaring the statute unconstitutional.\nOn discretionary review and appeal of right pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-30G) from a decision of the Court of Appeals, 90 N.C. App. 373, 368 S.E. 2d 452 (1988), which affirmed an order entered by Leonard, J., in District Court, Wake County, on 6 August 1987, nunc pro tunc, 28 January 1987, declaring N.C.G.S. \u00a7 122C-3(21)(ii), the statute which defines \u201cmental illness\u201d as applied to minors, unconstitutional on the ground of vagueness. Heard in the Supreme Court 14 November 1988.\nLacy H. Thornburg, Attorney General, by Wilson Hayman, Assistant Attorney General, for the State, appellant.\nElisabeth P. Clary for respondent-appellee.\nSumner & Hewes, by William E. Sumner and David A. Webster, and Roberts Stevens & Cogbum, P.A., by William Clarke and Glenn S. Gentry, for The Highland Clinic, amicus curiae.\nHunton & Williams, by Christopher G. Browning, Jr., for The North Carolina Civil Liberties Union Legal Foundation, amicus curiae.\nDeborah Greenblatt for Carolina Legal Assistance, Inc., amicus curiae.\nAbigail English for National Center for Youth Law, amicus curiae.\nAlbert J. Singer for Durham Child Advocacy Commission, amicus curiae.\nKatherine S. Holliday and Anna C. Stowe for The Children\u2019s Law Center, amicus curiae.\nJordan, Price, Wall, Gray & Jones, by William R. Shenton, Stephen R. Dolan and Steven Mansfield Shaber, for The North Carolina Hospital Association, amicus curiae.\nAdams, McCullough & Beard, by Renee J. Montgomery, for The North Carolina Charter Hospitals, amici curiae.\nSmith, Anderson, Blount, Dorsett, Mitchell & Jernigan, by Julian D. Bobbitt, Jr. and Thomas B. Haller, Jr., for North Carolina Medical Society, North Carolina Psychiatric Association, North Carolina Psychological Association, North Carolina Council of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, North Carolina Alliance for the Mentally III, National Association of Social Workers \u2014 North Carolina Chapter, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, amici curiae." }, "file_name": "0598-01", "first_page_order": 630, "last_page_order": 635 }