Civil commitment; Whether the trial court erred by not confirming with respondent whether she met with her attorney before the hearing as required by MCL 330.1454

Disagreeing “that the trial court erred by not confirming with respondent whether she met with her attorney before the hearing as required by MCL 330.1454[,]” the court affirmed the “order requiring her to undergo involuntary mental-health treatment[.]” On appeal, respondent did “not argue that the trial court erred by finding that she was a person requiring treatment under MCL 330.1401(1)(a) and (c).” Rather, she contended, “for the first time on appeal, that she did not meet with her attorney before the hearing as required by MCL 330.1454 and that the trial court erred by failing to confirm whether she met with counsel before the hearing.” The court concluded “that the trial court did not err by ordering respondent to undergo mental-health treatment without doing more to confirm that she met with her attorney before the hearing on the petition.” Respondent argued “that the trial court should have explicitly asked her whether she met with her attorney before the hearing, but MCL 330.1454 does not contain any such requirement and respondent does not point to any caselaw that supports such an interpretation of the statutory requirements.” Thus, the court held that she “failed to establish that the trial court plainly erred by ordering respondent to mental-health treatment without explicitly asking her to confirm that she met with her attorney before the hearing on the petition.”