Mental-health treatment; Foreign language interpreter; MCR 1.111(B)

The court rejected respondent’s claim “that the probate court denied her right to a foreign language interpreter because it failed to determine whether she needed an interpreter.” She was subject to an identical mental-health proceeding in 9/23, “during which she made no request for an interpreter. Thus, she was familiar with the complexity of the mental-health proceedings before the hearing in this case.” On appeal, she conceded “that neither she nor her counsel indicated a need for an interpreter at any point. Accordingly, the probate court had discretion to examine respondent ‘to determine whether such services [were] necessary.’” But there was “no indication that the probate court had any reason to suspect such services were necessary. Respondent’s interactions with the probate court did not suggest that she lacked English proficiency. She testified and answered each question posed to her, clearly stated that she had never harmed anyone or herself, described her experiences with police, medical professionals, and the people who were allegedly stalking her and abusing her children, and stated her beliefs regarding the necessity of mental-health treatment—all in English.” Therefore, there was no evidence that she “was unable to meaningfully participate in the proceeding to the extent that the probate court should have appointed an interpreter.” Affirmed.