Involuntary mental health treatment; “Person requiring treatment” under MCL 330.1401(1)(c); Whether a respondent presents a substantial risk of significant physical or mental harm to herself or others; Principle that when the probate court’s oral & written findings conflict, the written findings control; Cassidy v Cassidy

The court held that the probate court did not err by finding respondent, who suffered from schizoaffective disorder, was a “person requiring treatment” and ordering involuntary hospitalization. On appeal, the court rejected her argument that she did not qualify as a “person requiring treatment” because the probate court did not find that she presented “a substantial risk of significant physical or mental harm” to herself or others. It noted that she ignored the remainder of the probate court’s oral and written findings, in which it found “by clear and convincing evidence that [she was] a person requiring treatment because she has a mental illness, and her judgment is so impaired by that mental illness and lack of understanding of the need for treatment, has caused her to demonstrate an unwillingness to voluntarily participate in or adhere to treatment that is necessary on the basis of competent clinical opinion to prevent a relapse or harmful deterioration of her condition, and presents a substantial risk of significant physical or mental harm to herself or others.” The probate court also “checked the box indicating that, by clear and convincing evidence, respondent satisfied the criteria for Subsection (c), for which the language is nearly identical with that of [its] oral finding at the hearing, including that respondent ‘presents a substantial risk of significant physical or mental harm to herself or others.’” The court concluded that the probate court did not err in its findings, noting that both the psychiatrist and “the clinical certificates submitted in support of the petition that were prepared by a physician and a psychiatrist after they had examined” her, found that her “lack of understanding regarding her need for treatment presented a substantial risk of significant harm to herself or others.” Affirmed.