In re C.G.

Summary

The Supreme Court of North Carolina addressed whether an involuntary-commitment hearing conducted without counsel for the State violated the respondent’s due process right to an impartial tribunal. The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals on the due process issue based on a companion case but reversed the commitment order because the record evidence and trial court findings did not support continued involuntary commitment. The opinion concerns the statutory requirements for proving mental illness and danger to self or others by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence.

Holdings

1. No due process violation occurred because the trial court's conduct in asking questions and eliciting evidence to determine whether the statutory commitment conditions were met did not cast doubt on its impartiality.
2. The findings were insufficient to support a determination that respondent was dangerous to himself because they did not actually find a reasonable probability that he would suffer serious physical debilitation within the near future absent involuntary commitment.
3. The Court declined to uphold or remand the commitment order on a dangerous-to-others theory because the trial court made no findings satisfying the statutory definition and the record did not provide clear, cogent, and convincing evidence of the required conduct and likelihood of repetition.

Questions Presented

1. Whether conducting the involuntary-commitment hearing without counsel for the State or Duke violated respondent's due process right to an impartial tribunal.
2. Whether the trial court's written findings and the record evidence established that respondent was dangerous to himself under N.C.G.S. § 122C-3(11)(a), including a reasonable probability of serious physical debilitation within the near future absent treatment.
3. Whether the trial court's findings and evidence supported commitment on the alternative ground that respondent was dangerous to others.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded