Order requiring mental health treatment; The Mental Health Code (MHC); “Person requiring treatment”; MCL 330.1401(1)(a) & (c); “Mental illness” (MCL 330.1400(g)); Clear & convincing evidence; In re ASF

Holding that the probate court did not err in finding “respondent was a person requiring treatment under MCL 330.1401(1)(a)” and (c), the court affirmed the “order requiring that she receive treatment for mental illness pursuant to” the MHC. As to subsection (a), at the petition hearing, a clinical psychologist (Dr. A) testified “that respondent’s particular disorder can significantly impair her judgment, behavior, capacity to recognize reality and ability to cope with the demands of life. He also stated: ‘[T]his hospitalization began because [respondent] was expressing suicidal ideation with plans to harm herself, saying that she wanted to die.’” He additionally “testified that, within the near future, if she did not receive treatment, she could reasonably be expected to either intentionally or unintentionally injure herself or another and also testified that her impaired judgment and lack of understanding presented a substantial risk of physical harm to herself or others. He agreed that the treatment she was receiving was necessary to prevent relapse or harmful deterioration of her condition.” While A thought respondent “would probably be able to get out of the hospital sooner than the full 60 days, he believed that 60 days was the appropriate recommendation, just in case it was needed, due to her extensive mental health history and the fact that she had already been hospitalized three times that year.” The court concluded the facts here “produced a firm conviction that respondent could reasonably have been expected within the then near future to intentionally or unintentionally seriously physically injure herself or another individual.” As to subsection (c), there was testimony that she “refused ‘to see a psychiatrist or physician’” and refused medications when not hospitalized. The court found “that the facts produced a firm conviction that respondent was a person requiring treatment; indeed, her judgment was so impaired by . . . mental illness, her lack of understanding of the need for treatment had caused her to demonstrate an unwillingness to voluntarily participate in treatment that was necessary, per competent clinical opinions, to prevent a relapse or harmful deterioration of her condition, and she presented a substantial risk of significant physical or mental harm to herself or others.”