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

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4184-05T24184-05T2

IN THE MATTER OF THE CIVIL

COMMITMENT OF D.W.D. SVP 353-03

_________________________________

 

Argued September 25, 2006 - Decided October 12, 2006

Before Judges S.L. Reisner and Seltzer.

On appeal from the Superior Court of

New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County,

Docket No. 353-03.

Patrick Madden, Assistant Deputy Public

Advocate, argued the cause for appellant (Ronald K. Chen, Public Advocate, attorney).

Lisa Marie Albano, Deputy Attorney

General, argued the cause for respondent

(Anne Milgram, Acting Attorney General,

attorney).

PER CURIAM

D.W.D. appeals from an order of March 31, 2006, continuing his involuntary civil commitment to the Special Treatment Unit as a sexually violent predator under the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA), N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.24 to -27.38. We affirm substantially for the reasons stated in Judge Perretti's oral opinion set forth on the record on March 31, 2006.

An involuntary civil commitment can follow service of a sentence, or other criminal 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. "[T]he State must prove that threat [to the health and safety of others because of the likelihood of his or her engaging in sexually violent acts] by demonstrating 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." In re Commitment of W.Z., 173 N.J. 109, 132 (2002). The court must address "his or her present serious difficulty with control," and the State must establish that it is highly likely that the committee will reoffend by clear and convincing evidence. Id. at 132-34; see also In re Civil Commitment of J.H.M., 367 N.J. Super. 599, 608-11 (App. Div. 2003), certif. denied, 179 N.J. 312 (2004). After thoroughly reviewing the record and considering argument of counsel, we are satisfied that the State has met its burden in this case.

The hearing presented a credibility contest between D.W.D.'s expert, Dr. Fulford, and the State's expert, Dr. McAllister. Dr. Fulford diagnosed D.W.D. as suffering from "alcohol abuse in institutional remission, . . . pedophilia,

attracted to adolescent boys, exclusive type, [and] impulse control disorder NOS" Nevertheless, Dr. Fulford opined that D.W.D. had responded favorably to treatment and that "his level of risk which does exist is not sufficient to make him in need of continued involuntary commitment . . . ."

Dr. McAllister agreed substantially with Dr. Fulford's diagnosis and also agreed that D.W.D. had made some progress in therapy. Dr. McAllister, however, noted that D.W.D.'s progress was retarded by his rigidity and "his difficulty in being able to use feedback and confrontation from his peers." Dr. McAllister believed that if D.W.D. became "more open minded to the treatment program," he might eventually progress sufficiently to merit "some type of discharge." At the time of the hearing, however, Dr. McAllister believed that D.W.D.'s risk "to sexually reoffend" was "great" and that he could not "be successfully treated and managed in a community versus here."

Judge Perretti found Dr. McAllister's testimony to be more credible and, in a detailed and cogent opinion, she concluded that despite his progress in therapy, D.W.D. continues to suffer "from abnormal mental conditions and personality disorders that influence his cognitive[,] emotional[,] and volitional capacities so as to predispose him to commit sexually violent acts."

The record is sufficient to support Judge Perretti's determination to continue D.W.D.'s commitment. Our scope of review is "extremely narrow," and we must defer to the trial court's determination unless the record "reveals a clear abuse of discretion." In re Commitment of J.P., 339 N.J. Super. 443, 459 (App. Div. 2001) (citing State v. Fields, 77 N.J. 282, 311 (1978)); see also In re Civil Commitment of V.A., 357 N.J. Super. 55, 63 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 177 N.J. 490 (2003).

Affirmed.

 

(continued)

(continued)

4

A-4184-05T2

RECORD IMPOUNDED

October 12, 2006