Order for involuntary mental health treatment; Person requiring treatment; Whether a moot claim remains “publicly significant, likely to recur, and yet likely to evade judicial review”; Christenson v Secretary of State; Mootness; In re Tchakarova

Finding that respondent’s appeal involved an expired order, and that he failed to point the court to any practical legal consequences that might follow from it, the court dismissed his appeal as moot. The probate court found respondent was a person requiring mental-health treatment and entered an order for involuntary treatment. Since that time, the order expired. On appeal, the court rejected respondent’s argument that the probate court erred by entering the order, agreeing with petitioner that the appeal was moot. It noted that, not only had the order expired, but there were no “collateral legal consequences,” including his claim regarding his inability to possess a firearm lawfully. “In the mine-run of similar cases, this consequence might well be sufficient to overcome mootness, but here, (a) respondent has had multiple prior involuntary treatments/hospitalizations, (b) there is no record of those orders being appealed or otherwise challenged, and (c) the time for doing so has since lapsed.” As such, “even if respondent were successful in the present appeal, he would still not be able to possess a firearm lawfully.” Further, because he failed to provide any legal authority for his contention that “‘there are other potential downsides to having even an expired mental health order on one’s record which could potentially impact employment and other opportunities,’” he abandoned this argument. Finally, “the merits of respondent’s involuntary treatment will not, in a practical sense, evade appellate review, given [his] appeal of the probate court’s” order.