IN THE MATTER CIVIL COMMITMENT OF R.W.R.

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3124-05T23124-05T2

IN THE MATTER OF THE CIVIL

COMMITMENT OF R.W.R. SVP-229-02

 

Argued May 16, 2006 - Decided June 13, 2006

Before Judges Kestin and Hoens.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, SVP-229-02.

Patrick Madden, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant

(Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender, attorney).

Mark Singer, Senior Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent (Zulima V. Farber, Attorney General, attorney).

PER CURIAM

R.W.R. appeals from the order of February 9, 2006, continuing his involuntary civil commitment to the Special Treatment Unit (STU) as a sexually violent predator under the New Jersey Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA), N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.24 to -27.38. We affirm.

R.W.R.'s criminal record, which includes sexual offenses dating from 1998, is described in relevant part in our previous decision continuing his civil commitment. We therefore decline to repeat it here. In re Commitment of R.W.R., SVP-229-02, No. A-4595-03T2 (App. Div. 2004). The well-settled standards, however, which guide our analysis of the issues raised on appeal, bear repeating. An involuntary civil commitment can follow service of a criminal sentence or other disposition when the offender "suffers from a mental abnormality or personality disorder that makes the person likely to engage in acts of sexual violence if not confined in a secure facility for control, care and treatment." N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.26.

The State must prove "a threat to the health and safety of others because of the likelihood of [the committee] engaging in sexually violent acts." In re Commitment of W.Z., 173 N.J. 109, 132 (2002). It must demonstrate, "by clear and convincing evidence," id. at 130, "that the individual has serious difficulty in controlling sexually harmful behavior such that it is highly likely that he or she will not control his or her sexually violent behavior and will reoffend." Id. at 132. The trial court must address the committee's "present serious difficulty with control over dangerous sexual behavior." Id. at 132-33. See also In re Civil Commitment of J.H.M., 367 N.J. Super. 599, 608-10 (App. Div. 2003), certif. denied, 179 N.J. 312 (2004).

During the hearing conducted on January 24, 2006 and January 26, 2006, the State presented the testimony of Dr. Friedman, a psychologist who is a member of the Treatment Progress Review Committee (TPRC), and Dr. Zeiguer, a psychiatrist who had examined R.W.R. Dr. Freidman testified that although R.W.R. had made progress in his treatment, he had evidenced regressions in his behavior at STU that demonstrated continuing behaviors consistent with the pattern of his prior offenses. Dr. Friedman also testified about statements made by R.W.R., as evidence of R.W.R.'s continued lack of insight, to the effect that one or more of his teenaged victims had invited his advances or had blackmailed him into engaging in the sexual encounters for which he had been convicted. He opined that R.W.R. is in need of further treatment at STU before he could be released.

Dr. Zeiguer testified that he had diagnosed R.W.R. as suffering from paraphilia, not otherwise specified, which he also referred to as hebophilia in light of the evidence that R.W.R. was sexually attracted to pubescent boys and girls, depressive disorder, not otherwise specified, a history of alcohol and substance abuse, and a personality disorder not otherwise specified with narcissistic, antisocial and borderline features. He testified that although R.W.R. had participated in therapy and had made progress, he remained highly likely to sexually reoffend if released. Of particular concern in Dr. Zeiguer's opinion was evidence that R.W.R. had engaged in a sexual relationship with another resident of STU, who was of limited cognitive development. That relationship was of concern because it demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to abide by the STU's rules. Moreover, it was significant because it fit the pattern of manipulative and deceitful behaviors which R.W.R. had previously utilized in his offending activities with children and adolescents.

R.W.R. presented the testimony of Dr. Foley, a psychologist who had examined and evaluated him. Dr. Foley described R.W.R.'s participation in treatment as being very consistent, demonstrating insights into his behaviors and showing a commitment to continuing treatment. In addition, Dr. Foley disputed the propriety of the diagnosis of paraphilia and testified that because the DSM-IV does not separately recognize hebophilia, it was an inappropriate diagnosis which could not be a basis for commitment. Moreover, Dr. Foley opined that hebophilia, described as a sexual attraction to pubescent boys or girls, is not uncommon and is not evidence of any mental disorder. He testified that R.W.R. did not suffer from any "mental abnormality or personality disorder which predisposes him to committing acts of sexual violence" and that R.W.R. was not highly likely to commit a sexual offense if released.

Judge Freedman expressed the reasons for his decision and his order continuing R.W.R.'s commitment on the record on February 2, 2006. In particular he rejected Dr. Foley's opinions about R.W.R.'s diagnosis, finding that those opinions were unsupported by the factual record. The judge accepted the contrary opinions respecting the appropriate diagnosis and treatment status of R.W.R. offered by the State's witnesses as being well-supported by the evidence in the record. He set forth the basis for those findings in detail and we need not repeat that analysis here.

The scope of our review in matters of this kind is "extremely narrow." In re Civil Commitment of V.A., 357 N.J. Super. 55, 63 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 177 N.J. 490 (2003). Apart from more generally applicable standards of review, we must defer to the trial court's determination unless the record "reveals a clear abuse of discretion." Ibid.; In re Commitment of J.P., 339 N.J. Super. 443, 459 (App. Div. 2001). We can make no such determination on the record before us. Rather, based on our review of the record, we are in substantial agreement with Judge Freedman's factual findings and with his conclusions as he articulated them on the record in this matter.

Affirmed.

 

(continued)

(continued)

5

A-3124-05T2

RECORD IMPOUNDED

June 13, 2006