Order for involuntary mental health treatment; In re Londowski; The Mental Health Code (MHC); MCL 330.1468(2); Holding a second-demand hearing; MCL 330.1455(8); MCL 330.1452(1)(d); Clear & convincing evidence; “Person requiring treatment”; MCL 330.1401(1)(a) & (c); Requiring medication as part of the treatment plan

The court concluded in this civil-commitment proceeding under the MHC that the probate court did not abuse its discretion in holding a second-demand hearing. It further determined that the probate court’s findings “that respondent satisfied the definition of ‘person requiring treatment’ under MCL 330.1401(1)(a)” and (c) were supported by the record. And it found that the probate court’s “order to require medication as part of” her treatment plan was proper. Thus, it affirmed the probate court’s order for involuntary mental health treatment under MCL 330.1468(2). As to respondent’s procedural argument regarding the holding of the second-demand hearing, she did “not cite any support for the notion that it was erroneous for petitioner to initiate the demand for hearing, rather than respondent herself. MCL 330.1452(1)(d) and MCL 330.1455(8) do not explicitly limit which party must notify the court that a hearing should be convened, and MCL 330.1455(8) explicitly states that a demand for hearing may be filed ‘[i]f the individual, at any time during the period in which the hearing is being deferred, refuses the prescribed treatment or requests a hearing . . . .’” The record reflected “that respondent refused her prescribed treatment during the deferral period.” The court also rejected her assertion that the probate court erred in “ordering involuntary mental health treatment, including medication, when respondent was experiencing adverse side effects.” A doctor (K) testified at the hearing “that respondent was an individual with a mental illness, specifically, ‘bipolar disorder, manic with psychotic features,’ which is a mood disorder. [K] explained that, based on her mental illness, respondent was unable to make good decisions at that time. During the first few days of her hospitalization, [she] was ‘very focused’ on attempting to call and communicate with her former boyfriend, who had a restraining order against her for stalking. [K] believed that respondent’s behaviors posed a substantial risk of intentional or unintentional physical injury to respondent or” the former boyfriend. The court held that “the probate court properly determined that there was clear and convincing evidence that respondent was a ‘person requiring treatment’ under MCL 330.1401(1)(a)” and (c).