Mental-health treatment; Mental Health Code; Timeliness of petition & clinical certificates; MCL 330.1438; Harmless error; In re Eddins; In re Jestila; “A person requiring treatment”; MCL 330.1401(1)(a) & (1)(c)

The court concluded “that the trial court complied with the Mental Health Code and correctly determined that respondent was a person in need of treatment. The trial court did not abuse its discretion or otherwise err by entering the” 2/4/25 mental-health order. Respondent first argued the trial court erred by entering the 2/4/25 “order because the hospital failed to comply with the statutory requirements for clinical certificates and hearings.” Although he “was not discharged as the trial court’s dismissal order required,” the court concluded “that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by entering the” 2/4/25 order. The court noted that 1/28/25, was “the date on which the petition and certificates were received,” and the trial court conducted a hearing within seven days, on 2/4/25. Thus, “the trial court did not abuse its discretion by granting the petition and entering the” 2/4/25 order. “To the extent the trial court’s decision did not strictly comply with the statutory requirements of MCL 330.1438, [the court concluded] such noncompliance does not warrant relief in this case.” Rather, the court noted that it “has applied harmless-error review to consider whether instances of statutory noncompliance with the Mental Health Code necessitated relief.” The court found that respondent did “not expand his due-process argument beyond his assertion that he was denied his right to a speedy trial under MCL 330.1452(1)(a).” It concluded that “any noncompliance with MCL 330.1438 does not necessitate relief.” The court found that from the record “the probate court safeguarded respondent’s rights from any noncompliance during his hospitalization and respondent is not entitled to relief.” Also, the “evidence clearly and convincingly supported a finding that respondent was ‘a person requiring treatment under’” both MCL 330.1401(1)(a) and (1)(c). As to (1)(a), the court concluded that given “the escalation, the hallucinations, and ongoing medical refusal, clear and convincing evidence supported a finding that respondent will, intentionally or unintentionally, cause serious physical injury to himself or others in the near future and that [he] qualified as a person requiring treatment.” As to (1)(c), “the trial court had clear and convincing evidence demonstrating respondent’s ‘unwillingness to voluntarily participate in or adhere to treatment.’” Also, respondent “admitted to multiple previous hospitalizations and acknowledged signing a stipulation for mental-health treatment in 2022.” These admissions, together with a licensed psychiatrist’s “opinion that respondent’s delusions place him at high risk of harming himself or others, establish impaired judgment, ‘lack of understanding of the need for treatment,’ unwillingness to accept necessary care, and ‘a substantial risk of significant physical or mental harm’ to himself or others.” Affirmed.