In re A.N.B., 232 N.C. App. 406

Background

A.N.B., a minor, was voluntarily admitted by his guardian to Jackson Springs, a private inpatient (24-hour) psychiatric facility, on October 2, 2012; an admission evaluation was filed the next day.
Respondent was appointed counsel and moved (Oct. 8) for state funds to retain an independent psychiatric expert; the motion was deferred and then denied at the Oct. 29 hearing.
Two Jackson Springs employees (Freida Green and Leah McCallum) testified as experts; the trial court concurred with continued voluntary admission for the statutory maximum of 90 days.
Respondent appealed, raising five issues: denial of expert-fee funds, qualification of the facility witnesses as experts, admissibility of expert opinion, requirement of a physician evaluation within 24 hours, and sufficiency of the court’s findings.
The Court of Appeals considered the appeal despite mootness because the 90-day orders are "capable of repetition, yet evading review" and implicate public interest in juvenile admissions.

Issues

Issue	Respondent's Argument	State's Argument	Held
1) Denial of funds for independent expert	Needed funds so counsel could prepare and potentially obtain contrary expert testimony	Funding is discretionary; Respondent presented no particularized need showing expert would be materially helpful	Denial was not an abuse of discretion; no compelling fact-specific need shown; funds discretionary
2) Qualification of Green and McCallum as experts	They were not properly qualified to give expert opinions	Both had relevant education, licensure, experience, and responsibilities at Jackson Springs	Trial court did not abuse discretion in qualifying them as experts
3) Admissibility of McCallum’s opinion (reliance on clinical staff)	Her opinion unlawfully parroted staff conclusions and lacked independent analysis	Rule 703 permits experts to rely on data and staff records if expert forms independent opinion	Admission proper: McCallum conducted her own assessments and relied on typical sources; opinion admissible
4) Requirement of physician exam within 24 hours	Statute requires physician evaluation within 24 hours for facilities with medical care integral to treatment	Jackson Springs is not shown to be a facility where medical care is an integral component; alternate 30-day/12-month rules apply	No statutory 24-hour physician requirement shown; argument fails
5) Sufficiency of trial court’s findings for continued admission	Trial court failed to explicitly find minor was "in need of further treatment" at the facility	Court’s checked findings showed mental illness and that less restrictive measures were insufficient; need for further treatment was inferable	Reversed: court must expressly find minor is in need of further treatment under §122C-224.3(f) for continued admission

Key Cases Cited

Thomas v. N.C. Dept. of Human Resources, 124 N.C. App. 698 (discusses mootness and exceptions including capable of repetition yet evading review)
Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (1979) (standard and distinct nature of proof in civil commitment proceedings)
Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979) (parental role and due process protections in juvenile commitment)
Goetz v. Crosson, 967 F.2d 29 (2d Cir. 1992) (no absolute due process right to state-funded consulting psychiatrist absent compelling fact-specific need)
In re Hardy, 294 N.C. 90 (discretionary nature of statutory "may" for court-ordered fees)
In re D.R., 172 N.C. App. 300 (funding expert testimony discretionary; material assistance test)
Howerton v. Arai Helmet, Ltd., 358 N.C. 440 (trial court’s broad discretion on expert admissibility)
State v. Black, 111 N.C. App. 284 (expert may rely on facts reasonably relied upon by similar experts under Rule 703)
In re Hiatt, 45 N.C. App. 318 (mandatory nature of explicit findings for continued voluntary commitment)