Petition for initial mental-health treatment; “Person requiring treatment”; MCL 330.1401(1)(c)

The court concluded that the probate court did not err by holding that respondent was “impaired by a mental illness and requires mental-health treatment and properly ordered her hospitalization and treatment.” Thus, it affirmed the probate court’s order granting the petition for initial mental-health treatment. Respondent argued that “insufficient evidence failed to establish that respondent did not understand her need for treatment or that respondent was not a voluntary participant in her treatment.” The court found that the “probate court properly determined that the evidence established that respondent’s noncompliance with treatment caused her condition to worsen because she refused proper medication.” The record demonstrated “that the probate court understood respondent’s history of mental-health treatment and that respondent had gone back and forth between agreeing and disagreeing with her recent treatment plan. Despite her diagnosis and numerous reported delusions, respondent denied delusional thinking. She also refused to alter her medications despite the evidence that her condition had worsened, impacting respondent’s ability to live her daily life.” The court held that the record supported “the probate court’s conclusion that, without proper treatment, respondent risked harm to herself.” The court concluded that the “probate court correctly determined that clear and convincing evidence established respondent’s noncompliance and the present and future consequences of her noncompliance which made her a ‘person requiring treatment’ as defined under MCL 330.1401(1)(c).”