Involuntary mental health treatment; Mental Health Code; Probate court jurisdiction; Subject-matter jurisdiction; Alternative treatment report; MCL 330.1453a; MCL 330.1469a; “Person requiring treatment”

The court held that any alleged failure to consider the alternative-treatment report did not deprive the probate court of subject-matter jurisdiction and that respondent failed to establish any error affecting substantial rights. Respondent appealed an initial order for mental-health treatment, arguing the probate court did not properly consider a report on alternatives to hospitalization. The court first held that the claim was not jurisdictional because subject-matter jurisdiction means the power to hear a class of cases, and probate courts have “exclusive legal and equitable jurisdiction” over Mental Health Code proceedings. Thus, jurisdiction was “not dependent upon strict compliance” with the Code. The court next held that respondent failed to show clear or obvious error as to compliance with MCL 330.1469a. The probate court ordered the alternative-treatment report after receiving the petition and clinical certificates, received it before the hearing, and judges are presumed to know the law. The report described assisted outpatient treatment and stated that other alternatives were not applicable or not recommended, and nothing in the record suggested the probate court would have reached a different result had it expressly stated that it reviewed the report. Affirmed.