Opinion
No. 2022-41-Appeal. MH-21-341 No. 2022-278-Appeal. MH-22-257
06-08-2023
IN RE L.Z.
Thomas J. Corrigan, Jr., Department of Behavioral Healthcare, Developmental Disabilities and Hospital, for Petitioner. George J. West, Esq., for Respondent.
Thomas J. Corrigan, Jr., Department of Behavioral Healthcare, Developmental Disabilities and Hospital, for Petitioner.
George J. West, Esq., for Respondent.
ORDER
This order concerns two consolidated appeals that came before the Supreme Court pursuant to an order directing the parties to appear and show cause why the issues raised should not be summarily decided. On appeal, the respondent, L.Z., challenges orders granting petitions for civil certification and instructions. The respondent asserts that the hearing judges erred in finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that she was unable to care for herself and conduct her own affairs and that she posed a risk of harm to herself or others, among other things, and that these matters are not moot because they are capable of repetition yet evade review. After considering the parties’ written and oral submissions and reviewing the record, we conclude that cause has not been shown and that these cases may be decided without further briefing or argument. For the reasons set forth herein, we dismiss the appeals.
Each case involved separate District Court proceedings, with different evidence, attorneys, testimony, and hearing judges.
The respondent contends that these matters should be addressed by this Court, even if moot, because they raise questions of important public policy that are capable of repetition yet will evade review. The respondent further asserts that the hearing judges erred in granting the motion of respondent's attorney to withdraw and denying respondent's motion for new counsel; in denying respondent's motion for a continuance; and in denying respondent's objection to testimony based on hearsay, thereby violating her constitutional and statutory right to cross-examine witnesses. Finally, respondent contends that the hearing judges erred in finding by clear and convincing evidence that she was unable to care for herself and conduct her own affairs and that she posed a risk of harm to herself or others.
This Court has consistently held that "a case is moot if the original complaint raised a justiciable controversy, but events occurring after the filing have deprived the litigant of a continuing stake in the controversy." Rhode Island Department of Behavioral Healthcare, Developmental Disabilities and Hospitals v. L.Z. , 208 A.3d 242, 242-43 (R.I. 2019) (mem.) (quoting Hallsmith-Sysco Food Services, LLC v. Marques , 970 A.2d 1211, 1213 (R.I. 2009) ).
When the appeal from the first order was docketed with this Court on February 8, 2022, the District Court no longer retained jurisdiction to amend or extend the original order appealed from, which expired by its own terms on February 28, 2022. See Thompson v. Thompson , 973 A.2d 499, 513 (R.I. 2009) ("It is well established that once an appeal has been docketed in this Court, the lower court no longer has jurisdiction."). Further, the order appealed from in the second case expired on February 28, 2023. It is undisputed that the orders appealed from have expired by their own terms. Therefore, we deem them to be moot. While these matters are clearly capable of repetition yet evade review, counsel candidly acknowledged that there is no relief that this Court can confer upon his client and any opinion would be advisory in nature. We decline to do that.
This Court previously dismissed, on the ground of mootness, an appeal by this respondent from an order granting the petitions of the Department of Behavioral Healthcare, Developmental Disabilities and Hospitals (BHDDH) for civil court certification and for instructions. See Rhode Island Department of Behavioral Healthcare, Developmental Disabilities and Hospitals v. L.Z. , 208 A.3d 242, 243 (R.I. 2019). Additionally, in appeal No. 2018-265-A, the parties stipulated to the dismissal of a similar appeal based on mootness, pursuant to Article I, Rule 18B of the Supreme Court Rules of Appellate Procedure. Finally, this Court denied and dismissed respondent's appeal from another order granting BHDDH's petitions for civil court certification and for instructions as moot in appeal No. 2020-226-A.
The nature of these civil certification cases presents a unique challenge for ensuring that justice is carried out in the face of the fast-approaching mootness deadline, which looms over the cases and often prevents them from being heard on appeal. We are hopeful that respondent remains on her current path as it has been represented that she is no longer being medicated, is cooperating with the Providence Center and has been living in a "supervised apartment." In the unfortunate circumstance that a similar petition is filed against respondent in the future, we direct petitioner, the Department of Behavioral Healthcare, Developmental Disabilities and Hospitals (BHDDH), to ensure that a stenographer is provided for any hearing. Furthermore, we deem it necessary for respondent to have, at least, standby counsel in these hearings going forward.
According to BHDDH, the Providence Center provides supervision of the apartment at all times and offers social services to their clients, which includes case management, budgeting and medication assistance, and socially integrative activities.
We are mindful of the arguments made by the respondent's counsel with respect to the hearings in these matters, particularly as to the absence of the doctor who signed the petition, as well as BHDDH bearing the burden of proof. See G.L. 1956 § 40.1-5-8(i). A respondent has the opportunity to challenge the proffers made by the state and to present evidence on his or her own behalf. See id. We further recognize that in order to meaningfully challenge these petitions, a respondent may need to waive the six-month expiration period so that an active order is in place, thereby creating the existence of a justiciable controversy to allow for appellate review.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals.
Entered as an Order of this Court this 8th day of June, 2023.