below including the failure to use a substituted judgment standard even though there was clear evidence of her belief system and admission by telling her the mission by the testifying doctor that she would have made the same decision to refuse medication prior to his determination perfect competency and the failure of the circuit court to allow her to practice her fa and rely on prayer to heal any of the problems she was having at the time in violation of one zero two b of the middle health and developmental disabilities code and the failure of the states provide notice of the petition in hearing to her guardian although both the court but the state was aware that she had a guardian at the time and the failure of the state to prove by current convincing evidence the elements of one hundred seven point one  dell developmental know how to develop numbers abilities code including the failure to prove that she even had a mental illness by current convincing evidence and even if she had a mental illness that the mental he did the guardian is not mentioned in the petition is that the guardian it was not in the petition and the hospital knew there was a guardian it was not in the petition that the hospital filled out and the state's witness knew there was a guardian so so that and there was no notice of this guardian they also for a failed to prove that the actions of that were complained of attributing the onus work due to the fact that she was going through a very acrimonious divorce her husband was trying to take her children away from her she was found unfit and thrown into a mental institution and all these things were were going on in her life of the to her mental illness and it in a clear convincing out standard is very high as you know and in this record with all this other going on around her there was really no way to know  and convincing evidence what was causing her emotional outbursts and it could just as easily been attributed to the divorce the fact that she had an order of protection  her when two others had been denied so they could not prove their case to the standard that was required for this and as you know medication to force something anything into somebody's body is huge it's a huge assault on their liberty and it it's important that all the rules are followed it's important that the court makes the right decision in these cases didn't she make statements to the doctor that she was being abused in the supernatural warfare of some sort she did and that goes to the religious portion of her argument she was essentially an evangelical christian from from early childhood and those comments word choice are not unusual for somebody who believes in a literal interpretation of the bible because those types of the names are in the bible and now you say there were choices not unusual how would you know that i would know that already going on besides from the bible that the things that are in the bible and the things that daria speaks about that it is biblical and that those are the th that things that she said that seemed to really trip up the doctor and tripped up the judge because that was in the room with crafting especially but these are how she was describing what she believed was going on in her life including the fact that this church that they both had gone to she and her husband she believe that those people wanted this divorce between her husband and her and there was nothing that the doctor he could not disprove any of it hurt her statements on that were undisputed about any interference by the by the church members they also failed to prove that she lacked that she and agree that she had a mental illness and the poll there we see i don't think they have a model many don't and frankly some folks have had many diagnoses over the years and why should they believe one over the other it's not in this case this is the first time she'd been diagnosed with a mental illness she did fitness evaluation by the court was the first time anybody said that she had a mental illness preoccupation in the words she was using the fact that she could not rationally rationally explain these things to h and i think it's evident that record you weren't saying that the doctor has to have gone through are understood everything that the folks that he's treating are going through he doesn't have to have to be of the same religious background but he should be able to understand that that's her experience that's her religious experience it is all and he didn't do that you he just picked out some themes said she's not she doesn't understand she's not doesn't think she's mentally ill therefore she has no capacity but he did admit that she understood that he about the medication talked about it so that she understood he wanted her to take it and put under stand the ris benefits however i think the court agreed that if she doesn't make things she has a mill on this how can she see the benefit that he wants to get her she believed the player would give her the same result that the doctor was trying to get from the medication and under section one hundred two she should have been able to use that to get the same result especially when the doctor said that the medications the sensually are not going to make their religious beliefs which her behavior would conform that she would be able to essentially be quiet and comply and do what she supposed to do and that everything would be ok but she was railing against the things that was previously hospitalized a couple years a couple years before the divorce she was in swedish american hospital a voluntary only and she didn't want to take meds there no one took her to court to like you said this was of course experience with mental illness it was her first diagnosis that that was in this record she had checked herself into swedish american there's nothing on the record to show that  what the diagnosis if any there was she claimed that it was something that her husband had wanted her to do and we don't know what his motives were for that but she been checked herself out and she not want to take meds and there's no indication on this record that she was ever deemed incompetent in the doctors there let her go and didn't prescribe or make her take medication ms medication and did not take her course so this has to be here this has me thing was soon as she gets to mcfarland the doctor because she doesn't believe she has a mental illness and therefore has no way she must be incompetent to make that decision and competency is kind of a threshold because you know if she's competent even of mentally twice because she was upset on phone restrictions and she would get loud and whether or not she met there is no evidence in this record that she ever physically harmed anybody or tried to get physical with anybody so whether that was a proper use of emergency medicine frankly is unknown but she was given medication twice the phone restrictions on her kept her not only from calling people that she was trying to desperately get help from in this whole divorce child custody thing but it stopped her from calling her children when she found you had times she was trying to call the sheriff she believed that he would be able to help her she thought that the court in the course of the opi issues had made a mistake that spit on him and there were other people yes we spoke to them yes but was that because of a delusional disorder or was that because she's locked away from her kids people are making decisions about her life she's being financially ruined by her husband or is it because she has delusional disorder and that's not clear and if it's not clear if it could go either way why she's doing this then you know that shouldn't go to her mental illness those actions are what we role does can religion longly help religious police be a part of diagnosis some of mental illness and that's important and that's important for the substitute judgment issue it's important on the one of two issue and there's not a lot of life any out there on the role between someone's long held and essentially on the on the so the judgment issue enry c e c seems to the court was saying that it's most important about the and these are very important liberty interests  dangerous and that we want to find out what this person would want that's why the mental health and developmental disabilities code allows a mental health decoration to determine what someone wants that's why a power of attorney for health care can go ahead and make decisions for someone even if the person is incompetent and the court seemed to follow that line of reasoning that on the substitution judgment issue  at you know what standard should to court use why shouldn't they be more likely to use a substitute judgment standard than the best interest and it seems from the cases i read that the substituted judgment is like well the court didn't say you have to use it but in re c e o he was pretty clear that if that if you if there's no evidence to prove what that person would have done when competent then you go to the best interests but because they're not wanting to take any sort of medication and there needs to be a determination about is that a hierarchy should the courts look at that first and henry c e seem suggest that they should but the cases i've seen don't seem to do that and i think that it's important to get that a determination on what the circuit court should do in these kind of cases individual would want to have happen on the circumstances and here is the evidence of that yes and an array c e i don't believe it makes it some sort of written declaration but court has said that intent for treatment what the person would intend isn't darrius case which is what we're arguing can be found in the knowledge of the person's value system so this whole case was about her value system what she would have done and the doctor here admitted she she would have refused them anyway so  clear evidence of her intent even if even if the court were to to agree with the doctor that she was incompetent at the time of the hearing or at the time she came to  also it's public interest to be some sort of determination on section one of two which seems to suggest that unless you're in some sort of religion that has a practitioner a certified practitioner that will pray over the person or use some sort of healing that one of two wouldn't apply and ray see didn't seem to go that far but the statute itself would seem to to express that and in that case you would have you know religions like scientology that don't believe in psychiatry and would have their own way to heal alleging mental illness if someone was a native american and there was the holy spirit and so does one or two not protect those people and that's something that needs some determination as well cited several cases about the guardian notification issue and that aside those were admission cases and there seems to be a little different standard on those whether strict compliance especially on the treatment and medication issues was for parity her guardian was a public guardian it was scott and i cannot recall his last name f home here yes from her home county and she had an attorney also that she was working with but that she did have that  imposing the doctor just that she wasn't acting rationally or reasonably was a reasonable the way she was acting daria should have been given the benefit of the doubt daria should have been able to affect her mental care or emotional care she said she was grieving her being away from her children for a link the period of time she was frustrated at every turn and she just attribute everything she's doing to mental prayer being a cure that that's the wish issue is not if there is no doubt about or come up with this she refused medication the doctor said she never told him that she was refusing medication based or religious same one that had been made four months earlier when shoes fellow did stand trial because she was unable to assist understand the proceedings for two sisters through the request medications it is argued the benefits of this medication out we deficit problem in this case the judge the expert testified that this drug would allow that were being exacerbated by her contact where were she writing letters to the court making repeated phone calls everybody making outrageous claims to please this apartment that the lady who's super in a nutshell her are the argument is this lady is super religious and her religious beliefs are being held against the doctor testified that his diagnosis not based solely that her own test will i say if she just showed that she was completely out of touch with reality and that is the th ongoing problem which is what responded with this supposedly reacting to the fact that this is the first diagnosis of the middle sorter rush to the swedish hospital three years ago this not see anything of her past at this particular time three years later once he's unfit for trial where she's making no progress in l there is a rational basis for distinguishing between a group that has the treatments counsellors and somebody off the on a waiver issue in the matter provinces specifically said that the failure to object and medication proceedings does not amount to a waiver that's again the court's higher seemingly a higher standard on the medication issues than some of the admission issues and in fact an admission there are there are things that even that arch can be held harmless error analysis even so if a person is kept an hour later than the twenty four hours without a search they shall be released forthwith so there but other things on admission cases are more amenable to a harmless error analysis but this is a medication case and the notice to her guardian was not given even though the state witness knew there was a guardian on the expert opinion this court is as is free to ignore any expert opinion that is not based in fact just because  person is an expert the court does not have to accept their opinion and in this case daria's diagnosis does not have a factual basis to the extent that it's current events in that that's what was going on or that's what was causing her behavior counsel suggested that she was out of touch with reality as it is to then that she has no capacity really in this case the only element from an re israel about capacity that would go against daria was the unfitness was the fact that she was involuntary she understood why she was there she understood the legal system she didn't like what was happening to her but there's nothing in this record this says she doesn't understand she's going through this divorce she has no p you know these things that are done to her she saying they were done unlawfully and that's where the crime comes in where counsel says that it's part of her irrational behavior that she complains about there being crime and that's why she was calling sheriff she believed that the opi was based on perjured testimony and it very well make that could have been we don't know she's the only one that was there and it was interesting in her testimony and it's in the transcript that the people at this church the kingdom sending center that she believed would benefit from her course and again whether that's reality or not  well known that when there are forces people to take sides and it her attributing something to a curse i don't know that she said that those three people at kingdom sending center placed a curse she said there she believes what w with her was part of the curse but in her testimony she also was not blaming the woman that was currently living with her husband and she was not divorced at the time of this hearing she could rationalize that no this was different this isn't somebody who was attempting to get my marriage to fall apart and that i thought was very telling that she could she could differentiate between those two things and again it's only her testimony that we know and so there was nothing but the state put out  for the court to show that anything she said was not true everything she said was based on her biblical beliefs was based on her feeling of injustice and that what was happening to her unlawful was just and she was essentially a seder and she wanted those things to be fair and it was not fair what was happening and the