Probate court order authorizing involuntary mental-health treatment; Due process; The procedures in the Mental Health Code (MHC); Waiver of a respondent’s right to be present at court hearings; MCL 330.1455(1); Clinical certificates requirement; MCL 330.1452; Testimony requirement; MCL 330.1461(2); Effect of a stipulation to the entry of an order for mental health treatment; MCL 330.1455(2); Waiver of argument as to the terms & duration of the treatment

Rejecting respondent’s challenges to the probate court’s order authorizing her involuntary mental-health treatment, the court affirmed. She argued the probate court erred in “accepting her waiver of her right to be present at a hearing, including a stipulation to mental-health treatment, without first ascertaining whether that stipulation was made knowingly and understandingly, and that this violated her due-process rights.” In addition, she contended it “violated her due process rights by issuing an involuntary mental health treatment order that was not supported by any record evidence.” The court disagreed, noting it “‘has previously held that the procedures embodied in the [MHC] and the court rules by accepting respondent’s signed waiver of her right to be present at the hearing before the probate court, and by accepting her stipulation to receive mental-health treatment. [She] was represented by appointed counsel who also abided by the [MHC]. The probate court was not required to engage with respondent personally before accepting her waiver and stipulation.” As to her argument about the clinical certificates, because she stipulated to the entry of an order for mental health treatment, the probate court “was not required to rely on any clinical certificates in order to enter the order for treatment.” In addition, the record showed “that the initial petition was accompanied by clinical certificates. MCL 330.1461(2) permits clinical certificates to be presented to the court ‘before or at the initial hearing.’” Finally, the court found that she waived her argument “that the probate court’s order was not permissible because it exceeded the treatment initially sought in the petition.” While the petition “only initially sought inpatient hospitalization for respondent, the accompanying clinical certificates recommended inpatient mental-health treatment followed by additional outpatient treatment. More importantly, respondent stipulated to a combination of inpatient and outpatient treatment, and the probate court’s order conformed to her stipulation.”