IN RE: D.K. (2021)

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.2021-07-06No. No. COA20-270

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court vacated the trial court's Disposition Order and remanded for the trial court to refer the juvenile to the area mental health services director for evaluation, as required by statute when evidence demonstrates the juvenile has mental illness or developmental disabilities.

A juvenile adjudicated delinquent for assault on a minor was ordered to complete twelve months of probation and cooperate with mental health services as deemed appropriate. The trial court found that the juvenile had mental health needs and incorporated assessment documents noting diagnoses of post-traumatic stress disorder and borderline intellectual functioning. On appeal, the court examined whether the trial court complied with a statutory requirement to refer the juvenile to the area mental health services director for evaluation. The court determined that the statute uses mandatory language requiring such a referral whenever evidence demonstrates that a juvenile has mental illness or developmental disabilities, regardless of whether mental health treatment has already been ordered as part of the disposition.

The appellate court rejected the argument that prior mental health treatment or the inclusion of mental health services in a disposition order could substitute for the mandatory referral process. Because the trial court made explicit findings of mental health needs and the predisposition records documented specific diagnoses, the court found that the trial court was required to make the referral but failed to do so. The court emphasized that the statutory mandate applies whenever any amount of evidence of mental illness is presented, and that courts cannot circumvent this requirement through alternative means.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether a trial court must statutorily refer a juvenile to a mental health services director when evidence of mental illness or developmental disability is presented
Whether prior mental health treatment or court-ordered mental health services can substitute for a mandatory referral requirement
Proper interpretation of mandatory statutory language in juvenile delinquency disposition proceedings

Procedural posture

The juvenile appealed from a Disposition Order entered by the trial court adjudicating her delinquent for assault on a minor under age twelve and ordering probation with mental health services.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

¶ 1 D.K. (“Juvenile”) appeals from a Disposition Order. D.K. was adjudicated delinquent for committing the offense of assault on a person under twelve (12).

I. Background

¶ 2 Juvenile was placed in Department of Social Services (“DSS”) custody in 2018. On 26 August 2019, petitions were filed against Juvenile alleging two counts of assault on a minor under the age of twelve (12). Juvenile admitted to one count of assault in exchange for dismissal of the other count. The trial court entered a Level 2 disposition, ordering twelve (12) months of probation and cooperation with “any mental health services deemed appropriate” and approved by the court and her juvenile court counselor. Additionally, the trial court found that “the juvenile does have mental health needs and is currently in DSS custody.” The trial court also incorporated Juveniles predisposition report, risk assessment, and needs assessment in its Disposition Order. Juvenile timely appealed to our Court.

II. Analysis

¶ 3 On appeal, Juvenile argues that the trial court erred by failing to refer her to the area mental health, developmental disabilities, and substance abuse services director (“mental health services director”)

for an evaluation under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-2502(c) (2019). We agree.

¶ 4 We review a trial courts alleged failure to follow a statutory mandate de novo. In re G.C., 230 N.C. App. 511, 515, 750 S.E.2d 548, 551 (2013). “Under a de novo review, the court considers the matter anew and freely substitutes its own judgment for that of the lower tribunal.” Id. at 516, 750 S.E.2d at 551 (citation omitted).

¶ 5 In cases of juveniles adjudicated delinquent, “the court may order that the juvenile be examined by a physician, psychiatrist, psychologist, or other qualified expert as may be needed for the court to determine the needs of the juvenile.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-2502(a) (emphasis added). However, our General Statutes require action on the trial courts part in specific cases:

If the court believes, or if there is evidence presented to the effect that the juvenile has a mental illness or a developmental disability, the court shall refer the juvenile to the area mental health, developmental disabilities, and substance abuse services director for appropriate action․ The area mental health, developmental disabilities, and substance abuse director is responsible for arranging an interdisciplinary evaluation of the juvenile and mobilizing resources to meet the juveniles needs.

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-2502(c) (emphasis added).

¶ 6 Our Court has held that “[t]he use of the word ‘shall’ indicates a statutory mandate that the trial court refer the juvenile to the area mental health services director for appropriate action, and failure to do so is error.” In re E.M., 263 N.C. App. 476, 478, 823 S.E.2d 674, 676 (2019). We have emphasized that “[f]aced with any amount of evidence that a juvenile is mentally ill, a trial court has a statutory duty to refer the juvenile to the area mental health services director for appropriate action.” Id. at 480, 823 S.E.2d at 677 (emphasis added).

¶ 7 Additionally, we have expressly rejected the theory that a trial court may escape the statutory mandate of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-2502(c) by relying on the fact that the juvenile has received mental health treatment in the past or by simply ordering treatment as a part of the juveniles disposition. Id. at 480, 823 S.E.2d at 677-78 (“It is possible that the trial court was under the misapprehension that such a referral was unnecessary, because [the juvenile] had already received significant mental health services prior to this disposition and because the trial court recognized that it could order mental health services during his commitment. However, the statute envisions the area mental health services directors involvement in the juveniles disposition[.]”).

¶ 8 Here, not only was the trial court presented with evidence that Juvenile was mentally ill and had developmental disabilities, but the court specifically made a finding that Juvenile “does have mental health needs.” The predisposition report noted that Juvenile had been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”) and borderline intellectual functioning, and had been receiving therapy for depression, anxiety, and medication management. Juveniles Needs Assessment Form noted her use of pornography on cell phones and sexually explicit language or gestures, and she was assigned a “Needs Score” of 14, a “Medium Needs” level.

¶ 9 In similar cases, our Court has concluded that the correct remedy is to vacate the Disposition Order and remand to the trial court for a referral to the area mental health services director. See In re E.A., 267 N.C. App. 396, 400, 833 S.E.2d 630, 633 (2019) (vacating and remanding trial courts Level 2 disposition of twelve months of probation for juvenile when presented with evidence of juveniles mental illness). Likewise, we conclude that the proper remedy here is to vacate the trial courts Disposition Order and remand for a referral to the area mental health, developmental disabilities, and substance abuse services director for an evaluation under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-2502(c).

III. Conclusion

¶ 10 We conclude that the trial court erred by failing to refer Juvenile to the area mental health services director under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-2502(c). Therefore, we vacate the trial courts Disposition Order and remand so that the trial court may make the proper referral.

VACATED AND REMANDED.

Report per Rule 30(e).

FOOTNOTES

. Our Court has noted that the named position of “area mental health services director” no longer exists as referenced in this statute. In re E.A., 267 N.C. App. 396, 400, n.3, 833 S.E.2d 630, 633, n.3 (2019). However, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-2502(c) has not updated its terminology, so we will use “mental health services director” in this opinion to refer to its current equivalent, the local management entity director. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 122C-3 (20c) (2019).

. Form CS 017 “North Carolina Assessment of Juvenile Needs” is prepared by the North Carolina Department of Public Safety, Juvenile Justice Section. A “Needs Score” ranges from 0-12 (Low Needs), 13-22 (Medium Needs), or 23+ (High Needs).

DILLON, Judge.

Judges ZACHARY and COLLINS concur.