Continuing order for mental health treatment; In re Portus; Whether respondent’s requested transition to an independent, community-based setting with team support was supported by a preponderance of the evidence; MCL 330.1469a

The court held that the probate court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that “a preponderance of the evidence did not support respondent’s transition to an independent, community-based setting with support from an Assertive Community Treatment Services team." Thus, the probate court’s continuing order for mental health treatment at his current placement for up to 365 days was affirmed. Respondent was found not guilty of murdering his mother by reason of insanity in 2001 and subsequently received mental health treatment at various facilities. A 2021 petition seeking the continuation of the probate court’s mental health treatment order alleged that he “continued to be a person requiring treatment and that [he] needed combined hospitalization and assisted outpatient treatment for a period of one year.” At a hearing on the petition, his psychiatrist “opined that respondent could transition to a community-based treatment setting where he would receive treatment from an Assertive Community Treatment Services team.” But the probate court entered a continuing order for mental health treatment “based upon its finding by clear and convincing evidence that respondent continued to be an individual having a mental illness requiring treatment because, as a result of his mental illness, he could be expected to intentionally or unintentionally seriously physically injure himself or others.” The court noted that the probate court had “considered the record evidence and found that a preponderance of the evidence did not support respondent’s transition to an independent, community-based setting with support from an Assertive Community Treatment Services team. Although evidence indicated that respondent had made progress, evidence supported the probate court’s finding that it could not be predicted whether respondent would engage in violent behavior in the future.” After reviewing the entire record, the court held that this decision was correct. Thus, it also found that “the probate court did not abuse its discretion when making its dispositional decision based upon a preponderance of evidence in the record.”