Order for involuntary mental-health treatment; Mootness

Holding that respondent’s appeal of the probate court’s order for his involuntary mental-health treatment was moot, the court dismissed the appeal. The case arose from “a series of orders for respondent to undergo involuntary mental-health treatment for schizophrenia.” The court noted that both the 1/25 order at issue and a subsequent 6/25 order had expired. He did not point to any “collateral legal consequences that might warrant judicial review of the” 1/25 order. Even if the court were “to address the merits of his appeal, respondent would still be subject to collateral legal consequences arising from the [6/25] order, which he elected not to appeal.” He also did “not point to any issues in this matter that are of public significance and likely to recur while escaping judicial review. Under the circumstances, the appeal presents only abstract questions of law without any practical legal effect on an existing controversy.” There was no relief that the court could grant in the matter.