Order for continuing mental health treatment; Due process in civil commitment proceedings; In re Moriconi; Notice; MCL 330.1453(1); Sidun v Wayne Cnty Treasurer; A respondent’s right to be present at a civil commitment hearing; MCL 330.1453(2); Service of papers in civil commitment proceedings; MCR 5.734; Harmless error

Holding that respondent-patient’s due-process rights were violated because she was not given proper notice of the hearing where an order for her continuing mental health treatment was ordered, the court vacated the order and remanded. Petitioner sought an order for respondent’s continuing mental health treatment for schizophrenia. Respondent was personally served with the petition and notice of hearing. However, the hearing was repeatedly rescheduled and no proof of service was filed indicating respondent was provided notice of the eventual hearing. She was absent for the hearing where an order requiring another year of mental health treatment was entered. On appeal, the court agreed with respondent that she was denied her right to due process because she did not receive proper notice of the hearing at which the order was entered, noting it was “clear that the probate court did not comply with the notice and service requirements.” The record showed “that during the period of time when the hearing was repeatedly being rescheduled, respondent was served with notices of hearing by mail three times. At least two of these notices appear to have been returned as undeliverable. In any event, because personal service is required and because there is nothing in the record suggesting that respondent waived her right to personal service, these instances of attempted service by mail were in violation of MCR 5.734(A).” In addition, although the “probate register requested that respondent receive personal service of the notice of hearing at an upcoming” medical appointment, there “is simply nothing in the record to suggest that this occurred.” As such, there was “no record basis to conclude that respondent was personally served with notice of the . . . hearing as required by MCR 5.734(A), or that she was provided actual notice of the hearing.” The court concluded that there was “a wholesale failure by the probate court to comply with the notice and service requirements governing civil commitments, i.e., the procedural safeguards ensuring respondent’s rights to be present and heard. This was a significant error that cannot be deemed harmless.”