1. NORTH CAROLINA CIVIL COMMITMENT MANUAL, 2ND EDITION, 2011
COMMITMENTS/ADMISSIONS OF CHILDREN Presented by Becky Zogry Office of Special Counsel (919)
RESOURCES:
N.C.G.S. Chapter 122C
NORTH CAROLINA CIVIL COMMITMENT MANUAL, 2ND EDITION, 2011

2. TWO MAIN WAYS FOR A MINOR TO BE ADMITTED TO A LOCKED FACILITY
Voluntary Admission of a Minor
application for admission by the minor’s “legally responsible person” (LRP)
Involuntary Commitment (IVC)

3. “VOLUNTARY” MENTAL HEALTH
Provisions governing the voluntary admission of a competent adult apply to the voluntary admission of minors (122C-221(a));
LRP seeks to admit a minor by appearing at the 24-hour facility with minor and signing a written application for admission;
Minor is evaluated to determine if the minor is in need of treatment for mental illness (MI) or substance abuse (SA).

4. LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE PERSON
122C-3(20)(ii): The LRP is “…when applied to a minor:
a parent,
guardian,
a person standing in loco parentis, or
a legal custodian other than a parent who has been granted specific authority by law or in a custody order to consent for medical care, including psychiatric treatment….”

5. RESPONSIBLE PROFESSIONAL
122C-3(32): The RP is the “…individual within a facility who is designated by the facility director to be responsible for the care, treatment, habilitation, or rehabilitation…” of the minor.

6. NOTICE TO BE GIVEN BY THE FACILITY
The facility must notify the LRP and the minor of:
Procedures for judicial review;
The LRP’s right to request, in writing, discharge within 72 hours; and
The facility’s ability to file IVC proceedings within the 72 hours, should the facility disagree with discharging the minor (122C-224(b)).
The facility must notify the Clerk of Superior Court of:
The admission of the minor within 24 hours;
The notice must request that a judicial hearing be scheduled; and
The notice must supply the names and addresses of the LRP and the RP (122C-224(c)).

7. DUTIES OF CLERK OF COURT (COC)
The COC must schedule the hearing for judicial review within 15 days of the minor’s date of admission (122C-224.1(b));
The COC must appoint counsel within 48 hours of receipt of the notice of admission (122C-224.1(a)); and
Not later than 72 hours before the hearing, the COC shall calendar the hearing and give notice of the time and place of the hearing to the minor’s attorney, to the LRP and to the RP (122C-224.1(b)).

8. DEADLINE TO MEET WITH MINOR CLIENT
122C-224.2(a) provides that: “The attorney shall meet with the minor within 10 days of his appointment but not later than 48 hours before the hearing….”

9. DISTRICT COURT HEARING ON VOLUNTARY ADMISSION
The District Court Judge (DCJ) must consider these criteria:
Is the minor mentally ill or a substance abuser:
Is the minor in need of further treatment; and
Is the facility the least restrictive mode of treatment available?
If the DCJ finds that the criteria were proven by clear, cogent and convincing evidence, he/she will “concur in continued treatment.” 122C-224.4

10. MENTAL ILLNESS
122C-3(21): “…when applied to a minor, a mental condition, other than mental retardation alone, that so impairs the youth’s capacity to exercise age adequate self-control or judgment in the conduct of his activities and social relationships so that he is in need of treatment.”
The court is required to find by clear cogent and convincing evidence that your client is mentally ill.
The General Assembly has defined MI. According to the NC Court of Appeals, this definition is not unconstitutionally vague as it is capable of being understood and objectively applied through the use of medical experts.
How does the judge understand and apply that definition? Through the testimony of a medical expert. This begs the question, “Who is the expert?” Mike Klinkosum has a presentation on experts today.
Suffice to say, during the district court hearing, the judge should only accept evidence of diagnosis from a qualified mental health expert, the treating psychiatrist, psychologist or licensed clinical social worker.

11. DISPOSITION (Initial Hearing)
Inpatient: up to 90 days on initial admission;
One-Time Authorization: up to an additional 15 days if the DCJ finds there are “reasonable grounds to believe” that the admission criteria exist, but additional evaluation and diagnosis are needed;
Discharge 11

12. REHEARINGS
Rehearings are conducted pursuant to the same statutory provisions relating to the initial hearing;
RP must notify COC at least 15 days before the end of the approved stay if the facility is requesting an extension of the admission;
COC must schedule a rehearing prior to the expiration of the current admission; and
DCJ may authorize up to an additional 180 days stay at each rehearing (no 365 day admission allowed). 122C-224.4

13. INVOLUNTARY MENTAL HEALTH
AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION (122C-261)
Before Magistrate or Clerk
In County of residence or of location
Sworn, signed by Petitioner
Allegations: “mentally ill” and “dangerous to self or others”
Based upon personal knowledge or hearsay
May allege Mental Retardation
So now, IVC is the judicial procedure for forcing unwilling persons to receive mental health treatment, either on inpatient or outpatient basis. You’ll find that the process is begun by filing of an affidavit and petition. The first document to evaluate is the affidavit and petition.
The affidavit and petition can be filed by any person, lay person or expert alike. The layperson, typically a family member, will petition personally before a magistrate or clerk.
The standard for the magistrate to apply in allowing the petition and granting a custody order is the Reasonable Grounds standard. Are there reasonable grounds for finding that the information provided by the petitioner is true?
The Reasonable grounds standard has been found to be synonymous with probable cause. Anyone who has practiced criminal law understands how the probable cause standard has less to do with truth than it has to do with whether the affiant tells a good enough story to obtain the relief sought.

14. This next slide is the actual form affidavit and petition found in Appendix A of the manual. The form is AOC-SP-300. The forms sections satisfy all the requirements of the statute. It contains a section for the notary seal and the petitioner’s signature.
The medical doctor or qualified psychologist may complete this affidavit before a notary and may forward the affidavit to the magistrate via courier or fax without personal appearance. 122C-261(d) provides that the doctor or psychologist shall complete the affidavit in compliance with the requirements of an initial examination. The original must be mailed to the clerk within 5 days of the fax.
The medical doctor may also complete an emergency certificate along with a 5-72 which we’ll come back to in a moment.
Lets zoom in and discuss some other aspects of the affidavit and petition. 14

15. The second half of page 13 instructs that the Petitioner’s failure to sign before a clerk, magistrate or notary is a technical defect in the petition subjecting the petition to dismissal by the court.

16. (Read the slide)
Legal and medical conclusions that don’t constitute facts aren’t a sufficient basis for issuance of a custody order.

17. Lets look back at page 14 in the manual
Lets look back at page 14 in the manual. You’ll see that the allegations in the petition can be based upon hearsay. For example, one family member may relate what another person observed, or a doctor may repeat what a family member or friend told them.
According to the Zollicoffer case, it is perfectly reasonable In the IVC context to allow magistrates to order a 10 day detention based on hearsay evidence. Sounds like the respondent is going to Guantanamo. However, Zollicoffer makes clear that this allowance is based on the fact that there is a “mechanism to review the detainment within a reasonable period of time.”
The first and second evaluation and the right to a district court hearing within 10 days are the “mechanism” which is said to provide the respondent with an adequate assurance that she is not being improperly detained. So as advocates defending the liberty interests of our clients, we should jealously guard these rights on behalf of our clients.
Obviously, hearsay is inadmissible at the district court hearing. We’ll discuss this more in detail at slide 41.

18. MAGISTRATE’S HEARING The hearing is ex parte;
Respondent has no right to counsel;
Not subject to the Rules of Evidence;
May be based upon hearsay;
Procedural defenses to Affidavit:
Unsigned;
Unsworn;
failure of personal appearance by petitioner;
Admitted fabrication;
Conclusions alleged without supporting facts.
Of course, the magistrates hearing is where the affidavit is completed. The petition form is sometimes completed by the magistrate or in the handwriting of the petitioner. The hearing before the magistrate is ex parte. As I’ve previously said, the standard for the magistrate in evaluating the petition is the Reasonable Grounds Standard.
Chapter 122C provides little in the way of due process at the petition stage. As you can see from the slide, there is not much opportunity before the magistrate to parse out the allegations and get to the truth of the matter alleged. As an advocate insuring liberty interests, I want you to understand that it can be a kind of ambush by the petitioner.
Anyone can travel to the magistrate’s office at any time of the day or night and at no charge and petition for IVC of another person. This process doesn’t allow for a full, fair and adversarial hearing before an impartial fact finder for ten days from service of the custody order. That’s why a hearing within the 10 day period is critical.
By way of illustration, let me give you some points of reference, This process is one means available for a disgruntled spouse to get his or her valentine out of the house long enough to effect a de facto division of marital assets. Its also a means by which a disgruntled spouse gets the upper hand in a custody case. Lastly, it’s a means available to kick a respondent out of a group home after the staff has stolen some of the respondent’s valuables or before respondent can report staff’s open drug use to proper authorities. All of these have been suggested by my clients as reasons for petitioner’s statements to the magistrate.

19. CUSTODY ORDER
Magistrate finds “reasonable grounds to believe facts alleged are true.”
Allows LEO to take respondent into custody for first examination
Order must be served within 24 hours or new order required
Allows LEO to use reasonable force necessary to take custody (122C-261(b))
If the magistrate finds reasonable grounds, she will issue a custody order. Once the order is issued, the Deputy has 24 hours within which to serve the order or a new set of papers must be sworn and issued.
How do we use our manual to evaluate the custody order? Lets see what the checklist for attorneys requires and then look at an actual custody order.

20. This is the actual form custody order
This is the actual form custody order. As I pointed out earlier it is one of the four basic IVC documents. Lets zoom in and take a look. 20

21. Pay attention to the admonition regarding “Return of Service
Pay attention to the admonition regarding “Return of Service.” (Read 4th bullet)

22. FIRST EXAMINATION Performed by physician or psychologist;
Performed within 24 hours after arrival at local facility;
Must be a personal examination;
Examiner determines if Criteria are met: MI/SA, Dangerous;
Also considers Survivability, Resources, Capacity (122C-263(c))
Now we’ve just discussed an exception to the usual method of petitioning an individual for IVC. Now lets get back to the standard petition before the magistrate. As you remember, the magistrate has issued the standard custody order. The LEO will then provided transportation to a local facility, a hospital ER or a mental health crisis station for a First Examination.
The first examiner must be a physician or a psychologist. This probably goes without saying, but a physician’s assistant is not a physician. A Social Worker is not a psychologist. Pay attention to the designation of the individual completing the examination report. These reports are designated as “5-72’s”. You’ll be surprised at some of mental health professionals who complete these things. More on this in a moment.
The first examiner is required to delve into and consider in detail the areas of MI, dangerousness survivability if the client is released back into the community, the client’s resources in terms of friends and family, and whether the client is capable of making informed decisions as to medical treatment or whether the respondent has a court appointed guardian.
This exam is required to be a personal examination.

23. A psychiatrists opinion whether at first or second examination or at any review hearing is provided on a form It contains basic identifying information about your client. An important cross reference to keep the state honest on its time line is section requiring the examiner to indicate the date and time of examination.
At the first examination, the doctor provides information about the respondent’s condition. Conversely, the doctor may simply regurgitate the factual basis listed on the affidavit and petition. When preparing for hearing, review the first exam narrative and any notes. Its quite a rich source for cross examination questions. If the first examiner merely repeats the allegations of the petition, you may have an argument that safeguards against wrongful detention have failed. Otherwise, the narrative may fill in the blanks left by the petitioner’s allegations before the magistrate.
Also you should note that the examiner is required to consider whether the respondent is capable of surviving safely in the community with available supervision. If so, the examiner may recommend outpatient commitment instead of and inpatient commitment.
Lastly, if you’ll notice, the examiner is required to consider whether the respondent would be better served by a substance abuse commitment rather than a commitment for mental health.

24. Page 2 of the exam form the physician lists any medical issues affecting your client and a list of the current meds. Incredibly, the medical conditions listed on this form may result in the basis of a finding that your client is dangerous to herself. For example, If she has diabetes that she refuses or neglects to treat, she may suffer serious physical debilitation without the care and supervision of others not available in the community.
The first examiner may indicate an actual number of days of inpatient care recommended in Section III. If so it may enable you to ask some probing questions of the treating psychiatrist as to the difference between his recommendation and that of the first examiner. Now, as promised back at slide 27, I’ll mention some exigencies that may arise during the process of moving the respondent between the first and second examination.
When inpatient commitment is recommended, the facility is contacted for approval to send the respondent to the 24 hour facility. The facility may refuse to accept the respondent for second examination due to its diversion policy. Essentially, diversion policy kicks in when the facility is at 110% of capacity. Diversion is even more likely in the current climate than previously. Its my opinion that, in the past, state facilities have been asked to do more and more with less staff. This has resulted in some rather tragic conditions which have been reported recently in the popular press.
The effect of diversion is that your client may have to spend an inordinate amount of time in a local community hospital ER until bed space becomes available. Clearly, though its better if your client is made to wait if conditions are not optimum for her admission.
In addition to diversion delay, your client’s transfer for second examination may be delayed while waiting for medical clearance. It’s a violation of federal law (EMTALA) for a hospital to transfer a patient that is medically fragile until such time as the patient becomes medically stable. For example your clients blood work may have indicated that she is having heart problems. This dangerous condition would have to be stabilized prior to her transfer.

25. Second Examination Transport to 24 hour Facility for Admission
A physician must perform a second exam;
Physician cannot be first examiner nor psychologist;
Failure to perform is fatal procedural error, vacating commitment;
Admission as involuntary inpatient subjects respondent to Restraints and Seclusion (122C-60);
Read slide

26. DISTRICT COURT HEARING
Must be held within 10 days of custody on involuntary admission;
Closed to Public;
Criteria: Mentally Ill and Dangerous;
May be continued;
Release pending hearing results in dismissal of action;
Initial commitment is up to 90 days; then up to 180 days for all subsequent hearings for minors;
Split commitment possible.
At last, we have reached the opportunity provided for the respondent, now your client, to have her day in court. (read slide) We’re leaving the pre-hearing process and procedure and we’re moving to your client’s actual day in court.
An involuntary commitment proceeding is civil in nature. It allows all the rules of civil procedure to be brought to bear against your opponent, including discovery and various civil motions. However, the special nature of an IVC proceeding prevents the luxury of extensive requests for production, admissions and interrogatories due to the brief 10 day interim between custody and adversarial hearing.
The state will present evidence on the elements of MI and dangerousness. Much of the state’s evidence will be based upon the medical record established during the previous 10 days. The medical record is maintained in the form of a medical chart which is put together by the psychiatrist, psychologist, nursing staff and social worker from the time of your client’s admission to the hospital.
Fortunately, G.S. 122C-54(c) requires the 24 hour facility to turn over documents as an exception to the confidentiality requirements of 122C-52.

27. N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, R. EVID. 702
If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence, or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training or education may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.
The legal standard for establishing a witness as an expert is contained in G.S. 8C-1, Rules The rule requires that a witness be qualified as an expert prior to providing an opinion based upon specialized knowledge. You must have an understanding of the knowledge, skill, experience, training or education required for the witness to be qualified as an expert.

28. QUALIFYING AS AN EXPERT
Academic Training
Graduation with a Degree
MD or DO for medicine/psychiatry
PhD or PsyD for Psychology (possibly EdD)
LCSW masters degree
Accredited Program
Supervised Experience
Internship
Residency
Specialty Fellowships
Member of Treatment Team
Licensure
Board Certification
In the State facility setting, psychiatrists have testified numerous times before each of the district court judges. Therefore, there is usually shorthand testimony that the doctor is a “staff psychiatrist” at Cherry Hospital and the “treating psychiatrist” for the respondent.
Your experience may be similar in that you are seeing the same psychiatrists in each of your cases. However, when confronted with someone for whom you are unfamiliar, you will need to satisfy yourself. The witness will have to satisfy the judge as to the witnesses qualification to offer an opinion as to the mental status of your client.
If the judge finds that the witness to be an expert, you’ll need to question whether the evidence is competent to be considered on the ultimate issue of mental illness. To be such, you’ll need to ask questions to determine if the expert offering her opinion failed to review the results of testing or failed to spend an appreciable amount of time evaluating your client.
Even when the psychiatrist’s opinion is allowed by the court, it is for the judge to determine the weight to be given to psychiatric evidence. Unfortunately for us, the legal usefulness of the psychiatrists testimony will be based less upon its exactness than upon its supposed “wisdom.”
The law recognizes that psychiatry is not an exact science. As an advocate, you must remember, No on really understands how the brain works. Essentially, psychiatrist have been trained to recognize certain behaviors which indicate illness. For the testimony to be “wise,” the psychiatrist must observe.
If you can show the court that your client was given a cursory mental status exam or wasn’t provided a personal examination at all, you might get the judge to think twice about the doctor’s testimony.

29. MENTAL ILLNESS
122C-3(21): “…when applied to a minor, a mental condition, other than mental retardation alone, that so impairs the youth’s capacity to exercise age adequate self-control or judgment in the conduct of his activities and social relationships so that he is in need of treatment.”

30. DANGEROUS TO OTHERS G.S. 122C-3(11)b
Within the Relevant Past;
Inflict or Attempt to inflict Serious Bodily Harm (SBH) on another;
Threatened to inflict SBH on another;
Creates a substantial risk of SBH;
Engages in extreme destruction of property;
There is a reasonable probability that this conduct will be repeated;
Homicide is prima facie evidence
In addition to proof of Mental Illness, the petitioner will be required to present evidence of either dangerousness to others or dangerousness to self:
Here’s the statutory definition of “dangerous to others” (read slide)
The statutory requirement that dangerousness have occurred within the relevant past implies that evidence of the behavior not be so remote as to be more prejudicial than probative.
The case of Michael Charles Hayes is discussed in the manual at page It demonstrates that the relevant past could be as much as eleven years prior to the hearing date. You’ll recall that Hayes was a spree killer that was successful in his use of the insanity defense. He shot nine passersby from the centerline of a darkened road in July He was tried on 4 counts of first degree murder, 5 counts of felony AWDW and 2 counts of ALEO.
At a recommitment hearing in 1999, the court determined that he remained dangerous to others. The judge stated that the probative value of Hayes extremely violent behavior in 1988 far outweighed any prejudice due to remoteness in time to the hearing.
The case illustrates that your client will be held responsible for extremely violent behavior in a civil setting whether or not he is legally responsible in a criminal sense. In the event Hayes is cited to refute your claim of remoteness, you should be able to distinguish your clients behavior from Mr. Hayes behavior quite easily by pointing out how your client’s behavior didn’t rise to the extreme level of dangerousness associated with Hayes.

31. DANGEROUS TO SELF G.S. 122C-3(11)a
Suicide, Mutilation;
Needs supervision or assistance in conduct of daily affairs and social relations; or
Needs assistance in feeding, clothing, securing medical care, shelter, self protection, safety; and
Reasonable probability of suffering serious physical debilitation without treatment
This element “dangerous to self” appears self explanatory. However, it is not as simple as it appears. Obviously a person who has attempted self mutilation or suicide is dangerous to herself.
The more difficult aspect of this definition is in overcoming an allegation that your client simply lacks the ability to take care of herself and as a result will suffer serious physical debilitation without inpatient care. In many cases, the hospital’s witness will allege that your client is homeless, she is undernourished, suffers from diabetes or heart disease and has been noncompliant with her medication regimen due to her alcohol or drug use.
Without evidence of an actual dangerous situation, the hospital is alleging that, if left to her own designs, your client might find herself in a condition that could be dangerous. If you’ll look on pages of the manual you’ll find a discussion of this dilemma and some possible relief in the event you encounter these allegations. Through discussion of the cases Monroe, Crainshaw, Frick and Hogan you’ll essentially get the impression that the threshold for proof of this element is very low.
There are some factual differences in each of these cases that may be helpful when you attempt to distinguish your case. However, my experience has been that you can encourage the court to help your client in spite of this type evidence.
First, you might be able to refute the hospital’s evidence by presenting your client’s tenacity and independent living skills. I have represented an individual who within 3 days had made his way from the corner of 9th Ave. and 42nd Street at the Papaya Dog in Manhattan to an overpass on I95 near Roanoke Rapids where he was picked up by law enforcement. The judge was enamored by this guy’s rugged independence. He was essentially a survivalist. He was on his way to Florida for the winter. The judge just didn’t believe that this guy wouldn’t make it on his own.
Second, If you essentially become a social worker you may find some options for outpatient services which have not been considered by the treatment team. Through cross examination, you may at least get the judge to see that all is not lost. If so, the judge may be willing to shorten any impatient commitment dramatically and direct the doctor to look at these options and report back to the court.

32. DANGEROUS TO SELF (Cont.)
Prima Facie Inference of Inability to Care for Self:
Grossly irrational behavior;
Uncontrollable behavior;
Grossly inappropriate behavior;
Severely impaired insight.
Be careful that the court is not giving undue weight to the doctor’s opinion of what is best for your client. The statute doesn’t allow the court engage in a best interest analysis.
When the discussion turns from how your client is harming herself to how your client might be harmed by others, argue that the danger posed by others is a risk to which we are all exposed. Attempt to steer the court away from its tendency to act in your client’s best interest rather than deciding the case based strictly on clear cogent and convincing proof of danger.

33. DISPOSITION Inpatient: up to 90 days on initial commitment;
Outpatient: up to 90 days on initial commitment;
Split Commitment: combination inpatient and outpatient equal to 90 days (e.g. “30/60” split)
Outpatient/Release Pending Hearing: Court must find criteria by “clr/cog/con evidence.”
Discharge

34. COLLATERAL CONSEQUENCES
Firearm Ownership and Possession;
Federal Law;
State Legislation;
Restrictions on Patient Rights;
Forced Meds/Restraint/Seclusion;
Visitors, Personal Property, Phone Calls; Worship;
Expunction of Minor’s Record of IVC;
Chapter 12 of the manual begins on page 145. You’ll see that involuntary commitment impacts numerous rights and aspects of a respondent’s life. Armed with this chapter, you will be able to meet the community standard for advising your client as to these collateral consequences.
There are many collateral consequences of commitment. The list is contained at page 145. The primary consequences which I will cover today are prohibition against purchase, possession or transfer of firearms and ammunition and the potential for loss of driving privileges on a commitment for substance abuse.

36. ADVISING YOUR CLIENT Commitment Result Is right lost?
Inpatient or Split Commitment Yes
Substance Abuse Commitment Probably
Outpatient Commitment Probably
Conversion to Voluntary before Hearing Maybe
Direct D/C before Hearing Maybe
D/C by DCJ at Commitment Hearing Maybe
Voluntary from Start to Finish No
* Waldron v. Batten, 191 N.C.App. 237, 662 S.E.2d 568 (2008), addresses the gun permit question. The North Carolina Court of Appeals held that the patient should not have been denied a hand-gun permit based on a commitment to a mental institution where the statutory requirements for IVC, including the initial 10-day hearing, were not met.

37. Mechanism for Enforcement: NICS
National Instant Criminal Background Check System;
Established as part of Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act 1998;
Maintained by FBI;
Until December 1, 2008, Clerks of Court were not required to report;
2008: NICS Improvement Act;
Clerk now reports inpatient commitments.
History: Early in 2008, Congress passed the NICS Improvement Act which provided that a state may establish procedures which restore an individuals right to firearms after removal of those rights pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(4). Then, in May, 2008, Sen. Basnight introduced SB-2081 in conjunction with an AG task force on campus safety. The task force recommended that the General Assembly require the Clerks of Court to notify NICS of a commitment block. Previously, there was no statutory requirement that Clerks report this information. The task force also recommended that there be a state process to grant relief to individuals who had been previously involuntarily committed and were seeking to purchase a gun.

38. LEGISLATION Effective Dec. 1, 2008
122C-54(d)(1):Clerk shall notify NICS of R who
is IVC as inpatient;
is IVC as outpatient and Found Dangerous;
a non-statutory result: see 122C-266(a)(2);
Is NGRI;
Is Incapable of Proceeding to Trial;
122C-54.1: Restoration of Rights by DCJ
R no longer suffers from condition requiring IVC;
R no longer represents danger relative to firearms.

39. I promised the checklist and here it is. Page 51
I promised the checklist and here it is. Page 51. It will give you all you need to evaluate the pre-hearing procedures used by the state. I’m going to zoom in to the relevant portion regarding the petition. 39

40. The End Procedural Defenses: Substantive Defenses:
Review Basic Documents for errors;
Zollicoffer “mechanism” against unlawful detention;
Be critical of the petitioner and the examiner.
Substantive Defenses:
“Mental Illness” requires Competent Expert Testimony;
Demand Clear, Cogent, Convincing and Relevant evidence of “Dangerousness”
Demand right to confront and cross examine witnesses;
Counsel clients re: Collateral Consequences;
Advocacy for those alleged to be MI and Dangerous.