Involuntary mental-health treatment order; “Person requiring treatment” under MCL 330.1401(1); Clear & convincing evidence; Ineffective assistance of counsel; In re Londowski; Judicial bias; MCR 2.003; Cain v Department of Corrs; Alleged violation of the Thirteenth Amendment

The court held that clear and convincing evidence supported that respondent-DL “was a person requiring treatment under MCL 330.1401(1).” It also rejected his ineffective assistance of counsel, judicial bias, and Thirteenth Amendment violation claims. Thus, it affirmed the probate court’s order continuing his involuntary mental-health treatment. A doctor (H) “testified that DL had a mental illness—schizophrenia—which he described as ‘a substantial disorder of thought’ and which also impaired DL’s judgment. [H] explained that DL’s mental illness caused him to experience grandiose and paranoid delusions including that he owned U of M, that satanic murders were occurring on campus, and that he was poisoned while in jail on charges stemming from his trespass and arrest at U of M.” The court found that nothing in the record supported respondent’s assertion that the probate “court stated or implied that [H’s] testimony was more credible than DL’s written statements merely because of [H’s] credentials as an expert in psychiatry. But it was for the trial court as the finder of fact to determine whether it believed [H’s] testimony about DL’s mental illness or DL’s denial that he suffers from any mental illness.” The court noted that “DL was in a campus library trying to prevent satanic murders at U of M during one of his confrontations with police. DL has not shown that, as a former student, he was allowed to be in a campus library at that time. Further, his position is also contradicted by his repeated claims that he was not trespassing because he was awarded U of M in a federal court case in 2014. Considering DL’s various assertions about U of M alone, [H] was not incorrect that DL had delusional ‘episodes.’” The court concluded that documents admitted at the evidentiary hearing “supported petitioner’s view that DL required ongoing involuntary treatment because they showed that he had lasting delusional beliefs about the reasons for his arrest and commitment, and a continuing denial of any mental illness for which he needed treatment.”