Involuntary mental-health treatment; “Person requiring treatment” under MCL 330.1401(1)(c); MCL 330.1465; “Necessary treatment”; “Mental illness”; MCL 330.1400(g); Lack of understanding of the need for treatment; Substantial risk of significant harm; “Substantial” or “significant”

Agreeing that petitioner failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that respondent was a “person requiring treatment” under MCL 330.1401(1)(c), the court reversed the probate court’s order requiring her to undergo involuntary mental-health treatment. She moved “to Michigan to join an unnamed spiritual or religious group.” While driving, respondent “began to experience fear because of her phobias of bridges and water.” She went to an ER “and voluntarily sought treatment because her mania, reduced sleep, and phobias were interfering with her ability to drive.” She was committed “to combined hospitalization and assisted outpatient treatment[.]” Respondent argued “that petitioner failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that she lacked an understanding of the need for treatment and that she presented a substantial risk of significant harm.” She did not dispute that Dr. R (a board-certified psychiatrist and her treating doctor) provided a competent clinical opinion. Instead, she argued that Dr. R “did not explain why the recommended treatment was necessary to prevent a relapse.” The court disagreed. The record indicated “that respondent went to the hospital because her mania, reduced sleep, and phobias were interfering with her ability to drive. [Dr. R] testified that he had been respondent’s treating doctor for over a week, and respondent continued to refuse the treatment necessary to address these symptoms. From these facts, the probate court determined that respondent’s symptoms had increased and that her current medications were not sufficient; thus, the recommended treatment was necessary.” Respondent argued “that she clearly understood the need for treatment, but she disagreed with the recommended treatment.” The court held that there “was clear and convincing evidence to support the probate court’s finding that [her] mental illness impaired her judgment such that she failed to understand her need for the necessary treatment and was unwilling to participate in that treatment.” But it noted that she “had no history of violence or altercations with others, and did not indicate inclinations toward self-harm. Further, there was no evidence that respondent’s noncompliance with the recommended medical treatment would result in decompensation of her mental illness to the extent that there would be an increased risk of respondent developing harmful tendencies (e.g., drug abuse or suicidal thoughts or actions) or that there was a risk that [she] would develop additional harmful symptoms of her disorder.” The only potential harm that Dr. R “described was the probability that respondent could be taken advantage of by a spiritual group.” The court noted that “MCL 330.1465 requires that a finding that an individual is a ‘person requiring treatment’ must be established by clear and convincing evidence. Petitioner failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that respondent presented a substantial risk of significant harm to herself or others.” Thus, the probate court abused its discretion by involuntarily committing her under MCL 330.1401(1)(c).