Order continuing involuntary mental health treatment; Effect of a hearing finding that respondent was still a person requiring treatment; MCL 330.1485a; Due-process rights; Creation of a mental health service plan; MCL 330.1712(1); Plain error review

The court held that a clinical psychologist’s (Dr. B) testimony supported the probate court’s findings that respondent was still a person requiring treatment, and it did not err in ordering that respondent remain hospitalized. Thus, the court affirmed the order that continued his involuntary mental health treatment order and his continued hospitalization. On appeal, he contended that the probate court abused its discretion in ruling that he should remain hospitalized. The court noted that he “effectively conceded on appeal that he was still a person requiring treatment, . . . and that he only objected to his continued hospitalization. Because the probate court found at the hearing that respondent was still a person requiring treatment, it was required” pursuant to MCL 330.1485a “to either continue [his] treatment order or issue a new continuing treatment order.” It elected to continue the treatment order, meaning “that respondent remained hospitalized. This decision was not an abuse of discretion. [B] testified that respondent had a history of nonparticipation with his previous court-ordered outpatient treatment and elopement from adult foster care facilities. He further testified that respondent showed improvement in the structured environment of the psychiatric hospital, but that he was not ready to be discharged, as evidenced by [his] multiple instances of threatening and assaultive behavior in the months before the hearing.” Respondent also asserted “that his due-process rights were violated because there was no evidence that petitioner created a mental health service plan or discussed it with” him. But he could not show “that petitioner should have known that respondent would raise the service plan issues for the first time at the hearing, and that it should have brought a witness to the hearing to testify about that issue as a result.” The court could not find that he met his burden of establishing that plain error occurred.