Person requiring treatment; MCL 330.1401(1); In re Portus; Reasonable effort for exam; MCL 330.1434; In re MAT; Protective order limits; MCL 700.5401; Swain v Morse

The court held that the probate court properly denied respondent’s request for a protective order but erred by approving an examination and transport petition because the record did not support statutory findings required by the Mental Health Code. The proceedings involved repeated family petitions over many years, culminating in a 2/25 petition alleging respondent was hearing voices, talking to herself, and fighting with family members. The court emphasized that civil-commitment procedures must be strictly followed and that the Code’s safeguards are “not mere technicalities.” It found the probate court’s risk-of-harm determination unsupported because the petition and hearing lacked developed facts tying any alleged conduct to a near-future risk of serious physical injury. And once the petitioner said the respondent was “not a harm, she’s not danger,” the trial court should have inquired further. The court also reversed because the petition’s one-word explanation (“Refused”) for the lack of a clinical certificate did not establish reasonable efforts to obtain an examination, and the probate court did not elicit the concrete steps required to satisfy the statute. Separately, the court affirmed denial of respondent’s protective order request because the relief sought was unavailable under MCL 700.5401, and the record contained no findings of misconduct that would justify invoking inherent sanction authority to restrict future filings.