Petition for involuntary mental health treatment; MCL 330.1452(1)(a); Report required under MCL 330.1453a; Adequacy of the report; Failure to provide alternatives to hospitalization; The Mental Health Code (MCL 330.1001 et seq.) requirement that a hospitalized person be informed of certain rights; MCL 330.1448(1) & 330.1453(2); Right to an independent clinical evaluation; Finding that respondent was a person requiring treatment as defined by MCL 330.1401(1)(b) & (c); “Mental illness”; MCL 330.1400(g); Effect of a finding a person requires treatment; MCL 330.1472a(1)

The court concluded that the probate court did not commit plain error by failing to properly consider hospitalization alternatives, and that respondent was informed of his right to an independent clinical evaluation. It also held that the record supported the probate court’s ruling that clear and convincing evidence showed he was a person requiring treatment, “and that hospitalization was the only adequate treatment available under the circumstances.” Thus, it affirmed the order granting the petition for “involuntary mental health treatment and ordering respondent to undergo mental health treatment for up to 180 days, with up to 60 days of hospitalization.” He argued that the report ordered by the probate court before making its dispositional ruling was “inadequate because it did not provide any alternatives to hospitalization.” He asserted that the fact entries as to hospitalization alternatives and residential accommodation availability were left blank constituted a failure to provide that information “rather than as an indication that there were no alternatives to hospitalization” in light of his condition. The court disagreed, noting that the form instructed the person filling it out “to give the name of the ‘agency, program, etc.’ that could provide alternative services, ‘if practical.’” It seemed likely that leaving these “entries blank indicated that respondent’s manic behavior, his grandiose and paranoid notions, his reported failure to understand his condition, and his refusal to take medication made alternatives to hospitalization impractical at the time.” Further, clear and convincing evidence showed he was a person requiring treatment under MCL 330.1401(1)(b) and (c). Evidence revealed that he “was getting less than two hours of sleep a night, that his appetite was poor, and that based on his extraordinary behavior he had been put on leave from work.” He also did not show clear error in the probate court’s findings that he did not understand his need for treatment, and that he showed “an unwillingness to voluntarily participate in treatment that was necessary to prevent deterioration of his condition[.]” The record also supported that he posed “a substantial risk of significant harm to himself.”