Court Opinion

ID: 9856161
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:39:20.229567+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:26:11.010813
License: Public Domain

Bobbitt, J.,
dissenting in part. The factual question or issue is whether plaintiff is now a mentally disordered person in need of hospital custody and care. In my view, she is entitled to have this factual question or issue passed upon by a jury in accordance with the procedure prescribed in G.S. § 35-4 upon her own motion or upon motion of a relative or friend.
The controversy relates solely to the continued confinement of petitioner. No guardian or trustee has been appointed under G.S. § 35-2 *598and § 35-2.1 or under G.S. § 35-3. Thus, the termination of an existing guardianship or trusteeship is in no way involved.
In my opinion, it would be inappropriate to appoint a guardian on the ground of her alleged mental disorder to act for petitioner in a proceeding in which she asserts her competency. Hence, I dissent from the suggestion in the opinion that the appointment of such guardian for petitioner would be appropriate.