Order for mental-health treatment; Compliance with the Mental Health Code (MHC); Whether respondent was improperly detained (not discharged); Probate court order that petitioner file a new petition; Whether errors affected the outcome of the proceedings; Sufficiency of the evidence respondent was a person requiring treatment; MCL 330.1401(1)(a) & (c); Ineffective assistance of counsel; Prejudice

While the court concluded the probate court did not strictly comply with the MHC, it held that respondent failed to show that this affected the outcome of the proceeding and thus, did not show prejudice. It also held that there was sufficient evidence showing that she was a “person requiring treatment” under MCL 330.1401(1)(a) and (c). Finally, it rejected her ineffective assistance of counsel claims. She appealed the probate court’s initial order for mental-health treatment. The court agreed with her that she “was improperly hospitalized for the time between [7/28/25] (when the initial petition was dismissed) and [7/30/25] (when the second petition was filed). When a petition is dismissed, there are no grounds to involuntarily hospitalize an individual; therefore, the individual should be released.” Given that she was not released, “the probate court did not strictly comply with the [MHC]. Further, the error was clear and obvious because there is no part of the [MHC] that gave the probate court authority, in this case, to hospitalize respondent during that time. But because this issue” was not preserved, she had to also show “that the error affected the outcome of the proceedings.” She did not do so. While she asserted the outcome was affected “because she was unable to access her medical records when she was improperly detained,” she did not give any “indication of what medical records she needed access to or how [they] could have helped in her defense. It is just as likely that those medical records could have been detrimental to her defense.” And while she “was improperly deprived of her liberty for approximately 24 hours[,]” the court noted that “the clinical certificates and petitions filed before and after that detainment all supported the state’s interest in compelling mental-health treatment for respondent. Accordingly, considering the brief, improper hospitalization in light of significant evidence demonstrating that hospitalization was necessary, [her] improper detainment was reasonable.” The court also found that the probate court failed to strictly comply with the MHC “when it improperly ordered the petitioner to file a new petition.” But this error also did not affect the outcome given the circumstances. And it held that there was clear and convincing evidence that she posed “a risk of seriously injuring herself or others,” or presented “a significant risk of substantial harm to herself or others[.]” Affirmed.