In re: L.T.Â, 17-235

Background

Four minors (P.S./Paul, L.T./Luke, N.J./Natalie, R.J./Robert) were voluntarily admitted to Strategic Behavioral Health, a 24-hour inpatient facility, in spring 2016.
Strategic discovered in a self-audit that each lacked the district-court hearing required within 15 days under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 122C-224, discharged them, then reevaluated and readmitted them in late May/early June 2016.
On 14 June 2016 consolidated motions to dismiss were filed arguing (among other things) that the readmissions were unlawful because the initial admissions violated statutory and due-process requirements; the trial court denied the motions and held readmission hearings.
The trial court concurred in readmissions for Paul, Robert, and Natalie after hearings; Luke expressly consented and the court accepted his consent without a full hearing.
On appeal, petitioners challenged (1) denial of motions to dismiss, (2) subject-matter jurisdiction based on adequacy of admission-authority signatures, (3) whether verbal consent suffices, and (4) whether a formal colloquy/written waiver was required when a minor consents.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiffs' Argument	Defendants' Argument	Held
1) Did the trial court err in denying motions to dismiss based on initial failure to hold §122C-224 hearings?	Initial statutory violation tainted all later readmissions and required dismissal.	Subsequent rehearings on readmission cured the defect; dismissal would improperly deny needed treatment.	Denied — rehearings upon readmission satisfied the statute; motions to dismiss were properly denied.
2) Does the court lack subject-matter jurisdiction unless the admission form is independently verified as signed by a legally responsible person (Paul, Luke, Robert)?	Court must independently confirm that signatures were from legally responsible persons before jurisdiction vests.	Where written forms on their face show parent/guardian signatures, court may presume validity; presumption can be rebutted.	Rejected — where facially signed forms exist, court may presume validity; subject-matter jurisdiction vested for these three.
3) Does verbal authorization (documented by facility staff) suffice as the required signature on an admission form (Natalie)?	Verbal authorization recorded by staff satisfies consent requirement.	Statute requires a legally responsible person’s signature; verbal consent documented by staff is insufficient.	Vacated — Natalie’s form had no parent/guardian signature (only staff notation of verbal consent), so the court lacked jurisdiction to concur in her readmission.
4) When a minor expressly consents (Luke), must the court use a formal colloquy or obtain a written waiver to satisfy due process?	A detailed colloquy or written waiver is required to ensure voluntariness and informed consent.	No statute prescribes such a procedure; a brief on-the-record colloquy is sufficient absent legislative requirement.	Denied — although a fuller colloquy is better practice, no statutory requirement existed and Luke’s brief on-the-record consent did not violate due process.

Key Cases Cited

In re T.H.T., 185 N.C. App. 337 (2007) (standards for reviewing findings and conclusions in involuntary/voluntary commitment appeals)
In re McCabe, 157 N.C. App. 673 (2003) (unchallenged findings supported by competent evidence are binding)
In re J.S.L., 177 N.C. App. 151 (2006) (conclusions of law reviewed de novo)
In re Wolfe, 803 S.E.2d 649 (N.C. Ct. App. 2017) (district court lacked jurisdiction where statutorily required written guardian application was never filed)
In re Lynette H., 323 N.C. 598 (1988) (recognition of need to balance mental-health treatment and individual rights)
In re Long, 25 N.C. App. 702 (1975) (parental/guardian rights in admission context)
In re Webber, 201 N.C. App. 212 (2009) (procedural defects in initial commitment not always reviewable via recommitment appeal)
In re K.U.-S.G., D.L.L.G., & P.T.D.G., 208 N.C. App. 128 (2010) (subject-matter jurisdiction is a question of law reviewed de novo)
In re T.R.P., 360 N.C. 588 (2006) (statutory limits on court procedure affect jurisdiction)
In re H.L.A.D., 184 N.C. App. 381 (2007) (subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived and may be raised on appeal)
In re J.M.D., 210 N.C. App. 420 (2011) (courts should not judicially rewrite statutes to add procedural requirements)