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

RECORD IMPOUNDED

                     NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
                   APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
  This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."
   Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the
     parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.




                                    SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
                                    APPELLATE DIVISION
                                    DOCKET NO. A-4360-15T5


IN THE MATTER OF THE
CIVIL COMMITMENT OF
W.C. SVP-282-02.
_____________________


           Submitted November 15, 2017 – Decided December 11, 2017

           Before Judges Koblitz and Manahan.

           On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
           Law Division, Essex County, Docket No. SVP-
           282-02.

           Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney
           for appellant, (Susan Remis Silver,
           Assistant Deputy Public Defender, of counsel
           and on the brief).

           Christopher S. Porrino, Attorney General,
           attorney for respondent (Melissa H. Raksa,
           Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Amy
           Beth Cohn, Deputy Attorney General, on the
           brief).

PER CURIAM

     W.C. appeals from an April 26, 2016 order continuing his

commitment to the Special Treatment Unit (STU) under the Sexually

Violent Predator Act, 
N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.24 to -27.38.                  W.C. was

first involuntarily committed on April 22, 2003.               On appeal from
this initial commitment order, we affirmed in an unpublished

opinion. In re Civil Commitment of W.E.C., No. A-5115-02 (App.

Div. April 21, 2005).     We also affirmed the August 9, 2006 order

continuing his commitment.    In re Civil Commitment of W.E.C., No.

A-1625-06 (App. Div. June 21, 2007).     We now affirm his continued

commitment in the STU, based on the clear and convincing findings

of Judge Philip M. Freedman that W.C. has a high likelihood of

future dangerousness.

     W.C. committed a sexual offense against his three-year-old

niece in 1989.   The predicate offense involved a 1999 conviction

for second-degree sexual assault against a ten-year-old girl who

he knew through church.      
N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(b).   He was sentenced

to a four-year term of imprisonment, which he served at the Adult

Diagnostic and Treatment Center.

     Judge Freedman heard the testimony of three expert witnesses.

Dr. Roger Harris, the State's psychiatrist, testified that W.C.

denied his guilt in the 1999 crime, although he had acknowledged

in the past having sexual interactions with young girls.         W.C.

takes anti-psychotic medication that control his schizophrenia,

has some cognitive limitations, and continuing seizures in spite

of anti-seizure medication.       He has a history of using illegal

substances.   Dr. Harris opined that, although, "he's attempting

to address his deviant arousal," W.C. "remains strongly in the


                              2                              A-4360-15T5
throes of his arousal to children at this time, which he is unable

to really modulate and regulate." W.C. cannot control his urges

when viewing girls on television who are from five to ten years

old.    Dr. Harris stated that W.C. could progress if he remained

at STU.     He diagnosed W.C. as a pedophile unable to control his

behavior whose use of illegal drugs would enhance the likelihood

of acting upon his attraction to young girls.        Dr. Harris opined

that W.C. would have "serious difficulty controlling his sexual

offending    behavior   if   released."   Dr.   Harris   stated   that    a

conditional discharge to the program sought by W.C. would offer

insufficient safeguards.

       Psychologist Dr. Paul Dudek also testified for the State,

reporting on W.C.'s progress in treatment, which has been slow due

to his intellectual limitations and refusal to acknowledge fully

his deviant attraction to young girls.     Dr. Dudek opined that W.C.

would be "highly likely to reoffend" and the program offered by

W.C. would not reduce the risk sufficiently.

       W.C. presented the testimony of psychologist Dr. Timothy

Foley who opined that W.C. would not benefit from further treatment

at the STU and should be released to the Amani House center.           Dr.

Foley did not believe W.C.'s "volitional controls are currently

compromised," and said that W.C. was "less than highly likely" to

pose a risk to the community if discharged.


                                3                                 A-4360-15T5
     Judge Freedman allowed the program director of Amani House

to testify over the objection of the State.         She explained that

people staying at Amani House typically go to a special treatment

program called "Phoenix" every morning, and return to Amani House

around 3:30 p.m.    She testified that the doors at Amani House are

always locked and people cannot enter or exit without being "buzzed

out" by security.    Amani House provides housing and food for its

residents, and offers Bible study, meetings held by non-profit

groups in the area, and various other activities and workshops to

entertain and educate the residents.

     Judge Freedman found significant that until recently, W.C.

felt that the ten-year-old victim had been aggressive toward him.

W.C. is only beginning to realize that "the child might have been

afraid of him."    The judge found, based on Harris' testimony, that

W.C. continues to be aroused by young children and is "ambivalent

. . . about learning how to control his arousal because he does

not want to let go of it.     He . . . finds it pleasurable."          The

judge also noted W.C.'s history of cocaine use and his admission

to abusing two other victims.       Judge Freedman found that W.C.'s

personality disorder and substance abuse issues greatly increase

his risk of reoffending.

     Judge   Freedman   concluded   "[t]here   is   really   no   dispute

between the State's expert and Dr. Foley that [W.C.] does suffer


                              4                                   A-4360-15T5
from a mental abnormality and a personality disorder that does

predispose him to engage in acts of sexual violence, and that he

could not be released . . . without a conditional discharge plan."

The judge disagreed with Foley that putting W.C. on the proposed

conditional discharge plan at Amani House would reduce his risk

of reoffending "below highly likely."            The judge also found that

W.C. was continuing to benefit from the treatment at the STU.

       The judge found W.C. was predisposed to and highly likely to

engage in acts of sexual violence.             Judge Freedman did not find

that W.C. "will not be likely to engage in acts of sexual violence

because [he] is amenable to and highly likely to comply with a

plan to facilitate [his] adjustment and reintegration into the

community so as to render involuntary commitment as a sexually

violent predator unnecessary."         
N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.32(c)(1).           Thus,

Amani House was not an option.

       The   standard   governing     our   review   of   the    trial    court's

commitment decision is well settled.              We must give the trial

court's decision the utmost deference; the court's decision should

only   be    modified   where   the   record   reveals    a     clear    abuse   of

discretion.     In re Civil Commitment of V.A., 
357 N.J. Super. 55,

63 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 
177 N.J. 490 (2003).                       We are

satisfied that the record amply supports Judge Freedman's findings

and conclusions.        We thus affirm substantially for the reasons


                                  5                                       A-4360-15T5
expressed by Judge Freedman in his oral opinion delivered from the

bench on May 5, 2016.

     Affirmed.




                            6                              A-4360-15T5