Factual basis for a petition for mental health treatment; MCL 330.1434 of the Mental Health Code; “Person requiring treatment” (MCL 330.1401(1)(b)); Incorporation of the parties’ agreement into the probate court order; Adult Protective Services (APS)

The court concluded that the probate “court did not err by holding the mental health hearing because petitioner adequately supported the petition with facts asserting that respondent required treatment.” In addition, the probate “court did not abuse its discretion by declining to make a ruling on the parties’ impromptu, informal agreement that the hospital refrain from contacting respondent’s father until the conclusion of an APS investigation.” Thus, the court affirmed the probate court’s order that respondent receive mental health treatment. The parties did “not dispute that respondent qualifies as a person requiring treatment.” Petitioner (a social worker) “checked the box in the petition indicating respondent was unable to attend to her basic physical needs which were required to avoid serious harm. Petitioner also asserted that respondent presented ‘very similar’ to her previous admissions for psychosis and delusional parasitosis. In addition to the petition, two clinical certificates were provided by two psychiatrists, as required by MCL 330.1434(3) and (4), who determined that respondent suffered from mental illness and diagnosed respondent with unspecified psychotic disorder. The certificates noted respondent’s paranoia and disorganization, inability to attend to her basic physical needs, and inability to understand her need for treatment. One certificate also determined that respondent posed a risk of unintentional harm. The certificates provided factual support for their conclusions, stating respondent’s paranoia, disorganization, isolation in her home, poor nutrition, and disheveled appearance. The facts stated in the petition were supported by the petitioner’s personal and professional observations as a social worker. The two clinical certificates also set forth facts that supported the petition with the doctors’ determinations.” Thus, the petition “met the statutory requirements and the probate court did not err by holding a hearing to determine whether respondent required mental health treatment.” Respondent also contended that it “erred when it refused to incorporate into its order requiring mental health treatment the parties’ agreement that the hospital refrain from contacting respondent’s father until after the APS investigation.” The court disagreed. The probate “court, in managing its own docket, had the discretionary authority to not consider an agreement the parties made minutes earlier at the hearing in which the trial court was tasked solely with determining whether the petition sufficed to warrant ordering respondent to undergo mental health treatment.” Affirmed.