Involuntary mental health treatment; Michigan Mental Health Code; Clinical certificate; Person requiring treatment; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Mootness; In re Tchakarova; Collateral legal consequences; In re Detmer/Beaudry

The court held that respondent’s appeal from an involuntary mental health treatment order was moot because the order had expired and no mootness exception applied. Respondent appealed an order requiring up to 180 days of combined hospitalization and assisted outpatient treatment, arguing his counsel was ineffective in several respects, including failing to challenge the lack of an initial clinical certificate and failing to pursue allegedly contradictory medical records. The court did not reach those claims because “[m]ore than 180 days” had passed since the order was entered, meaning it had expired. The court reasoned that a matter is moot when a ruling cannot have “a practical legal effect on the existing controversy,” and respondent identified no available relief the court could grant. It also held that the collateral-consequences exception did not apply because respondent pointed to “no collateral legal consequences” from the order. The court further held that the public-significance exception did not apply because respondent did not contend the issues were “of public significance and likely to recur while escaping judicial review.” Because the case presented only “abstract questions of law” with no practical legal effect, the appeal was dismissed as moot.