Involuntary mental-health treatment; Mental Health Code; 60-day hospitalization; MCL 330.1472a(1)(a); Due process; Right to notice & presence; MCL 330.1453; Waiver of attendance; MCL 330.1455(1); Counsel consultation; MCL 330.1454(7)-(9); Foreign language interpreter; MCR 1.111(B)(1)

The court held that respondent’s due-process rights were not violated when the civil-commitment hearing proceeded in his absence and without the interpreter remaining after he refused to participate. Petitioner sought 60 days of involuntary mental-health treatment for respondent, who had schizophrenia and a history of hospitalization, and respondent’s counsel stated at the hearing that respondent did not want to appear. The trial court confirmed respondent was not present in the hospital videoconference room, dismissed the Korean interpreter, heard testimony from the attending psychiatrist, and ordered treatment. On appeal, the court held that respondent’s presence was waived under MCL 330.1455(1) because “counsel placed the waiver on the record ‘in open court at a scheduled hearing,’” and his presence was also “considered waived” because he received notice, had the required consultation with counsel, and did not attend. The court rejected respondent’s claim that the trial court had to investigate the reason for his absence or obtain a knowing and voluntary waiver because those procedures are not required by the Mental Health Code, which “satisfy a respondent’s due-process rights as a matter of law.” It also held that the interpreter was unnecessary once respondent was absent because no real-time translation was needed for him to “meaningfully participate.” Affirmed.