it please the court so my name is laurel spawn i'm one of the attorneys from the legal advocacy service division of the illinois guardianship and advocacy commission and i'm one of the attorneys for the appellate alfred h h illinois reviewing courts have applied exceptions to move innes and mental health cases for over thirty years and almost every case mental health cases always involve questions of compliance they are not just factual disputes when there are questions about the sufficiency of the evidence like an alfred ages case that is a question of compliance was there sufficient evidence to meet the clear and convincing standard but quoted by the mental health code to take away our for his liberty to say that sufficiency of the evidence questions do not meet any of the established exceptions to has the effect of excluding an entire class of mental health respondents from their right to appeal this court has said that such a result would notify a mental health respondents right to appeal because of the short duration of the orders the fourth district has been alone in dismissing mental health cases as moot and even that district has not been consistent since the african h h decision  disturbing case that has come out of the fourth district since africa each age has has been a case where the fourth district affirmed a case involving a commitment and a medication order not on the merits but because the respondent could not overcome mootness so the most recent case from the fourth district post alfred h h involves of affirming a commitment and involuntary medication order not because the trial court was correct but because the respondent could not overcome mootness no other district has been doing this each of the other districts has decided sufficiency of the evidence cases in mental and mental health appeals since the al name of the people of the state the state is always a party there is the higher standard of proof clear and convincing evidence the result is an adjudication of mental illness and then  yes yes your honor mental health cases have a couple of purposes one is to protect the public the other is to afford treatment to mental health respondents who meet the  and this treatment starts with the court process with aspects of their pubic jurisprudence giving the respondents all the rights and protections they are entitled to starting with the court  concept of therapeutic jurisprudence i did not find a specific reference to that arvo there are a lot of references to the idea that  commitment an order for commitment or an order for voluntary treatment has a stigmatizing effect illinois courts have used the term stigma ostracism there is recognition in illinois and  that a commitment or in a true in order for involuntary treatment is going to stay with that person and it's going to always be an ominous presence in any future action between the respondent and the legal system there's a chance for  increased or repeat commitments because of an earlier commitment or because of an earlier involuntary treatment order so there is that language in illinois and elsewhere hoarding permissibly relied on previous hospitalisation no in this case this is an alpha they just case involves the question of whether there was sufficient evidence to meet the statutory requirement of clear convincing to find him subject to commitment there's also a question in the at the appellate level as to whether there was sufficient evidence to show that happened well according to after they change any case involving whether the evidence is sufficient to meet the clear and convincing standard those cases would be considered moot and would not be subject to rev through in every case to find whether or not a mental health case is within the exceptions maybe because of the time frame we would have you want a first order of business would  not raised at the time turning to the three exceptions there's public interest capable of that petition yet even review and collateral consequences the public interest exception has three components the public nature of the issue the need for authoritative guidance and the likelihood that the issue of occur first the public nature of the issue involuntary mental health orders are considered serious deprivations of a person's liberty and this deprivation is pursued by the people the public interest here has often just been assumed in the illinois cases and that makes sense how are persons with mental illness being treated in the name of the state the need for authoritative guidance but decisions in these cases have an impact on the lawyers and the judges and the roles that they have in these proceedings and case specifically there is a need for authoritative guidance what are the boundaries for using indirect evidence to commit someone what amounts to clear and convincing evidence on police by the person to the hospital based on the report of another person the likelihood that the it the issue of occur or questions of what will satisfy the statutory standard for clear and convincing evidence i likely to rec and these questions do come up at a time and we know from the case law for example what needs to be shown to prove that an individual is not able to provide for their basic needs we know from case matt mental health orders are short duration generally they're ninety days the second part of capable of repetition yet evading review has to do with whether the same action can be repeated in case it has been repeated and capable of repetition at evading review can apply to virtually every one to hoth respondent now the exception here is if the respondent dies during the  public in the in butler number one that the appellate court dismissed a mental health case as moot saying there are no collateral consequences from butler number two we know that the supreme but the supreme court reinstated the appeal and then the first district decided the case on the merits when the first district decided the case the first district reversed the appeal and said there was not sufficient evidence to take away this individual's liberty there are specific collateral consequences that can result from a first commitment and alfred a teacher's case this   his third commitment so we must look at the broader consequences related to a first commitment a second commitment a third commitment or more that are not so easily measured adjudication of mental illness and subject to commitment as i said a few minutes ago is considered an ominous presence in any interaction between the individual and the legal system and this is from the case of people versus no multiple commitments can end up to fighting a person and no one can say at what point the number of commitments renders a person's reputation you know if you mumble that's also from the nun case and this is where when the respondent is indicated lose the respondent knows that his case was reviewed by a higher court and that the higher court found that the trial court's order that the trial courts sufficiency of the evidence has it his commitment order at that time was affirmed but one justice dissented and here's what that justice said mental health proceedings are part of the court process they are meant to be adversarial the state bears a heavy burden of proof this scanty record and the hearing conducted ought not pass muster in a free society so there is value to not to health respondents said having their peals decided on the merits i understand your argument very quickly your arguments really with the fourth district i it does seem that this is only a problem with the fourth district dismissing these cases as moot since the by brick age decision about ten years ago mental health appeals decisions of mental health cases generally have some brief moved this analysis before that before the by a great case there were many years where mental health cases were decided on the merits with no discussion of moving aside all other cases other cases in illinois are decided without a moment's determination in which case in the criminal context if a claim on appeal challenges the validity of a conviction our vote the sentence is completed that case is not considered moot and and i would i would suggest to the court that the sticking off court ordered involuntary mental health treatment is as pervasive as the stigma of a criminal conviction is respond as much as your argument favors  per se exception to the moon is for the mental health cases it would appear that the argument is framed by the state that the state's position version virtually would mean that no has been properly framed as to whether or not because of the brief duration of these orders whether or not it would be advisable this or to just have a bright line per say forget about movements in a mental health case versus the state position which says that you know these these cases are such that that probably the exceptions the movement should apply a lot of instance does it make any sense i mean are we face are we faced at least an argument with both ends well i am asking for a person able the state is saying let's continue to do a case by case let's do this on a case by case basis which would permit at least in the fourth district sufficiency of the evidence cases to be excluded from appellate review and really one of the moon ice or all of the moon as exceptions the public interest capable of repetition yet evading review the collateral consequences are going to play apply in virtually every mental health case put distinguishing sufficiency of the evidence from other issues of of compliance and mental health care proceedings is not correct in mental health cases the facts are the facts what is argued on appeal  what is argued at the trial level to do these facts presented by the state do these facts meet the standard required by the mental health code to find someone subject to commitment or to find someone subject to treatment and take away their liberty take away their liberty and commitment to take away their autonomy in medication or a like to confess of therapy case so these are still issues of compliance and this court has said in the case of mary and p that both the procedures and the proof the level of proof that are required these are natters of substantial public concern so for the fourth district to say if we have a sufficient sufficiency of the evidence case we're not going to bother with it that's an insult to the respondent that's an insult to the the whole court process i'd like to point out too that expediting mental health cases does not solve this problem expediting is a possibility under rule three eleven but it is discretionary even if the court does grant an expedited appeal schedule it can be difficult to obtain transcripts and the record quickly that may not be the case in every district but i can tell you that it's hard to get those things even within the timeframe in cook county respondent has thirty days to decide whether or not to appeal if the respondent waits till the end of that time period and that's a good thing to have that thirty day period because as i mentioned in the opening brief that thirty day period what can happen in the life of mental health respondent the respondent may be expired thank you you justice or others may please the court i am assistant attorney general richard jose counsel for the people of the state of illinois and i urge the court not to adopt a per se rule that final orders in mental health cases can never be dismissed as moot and i want to go directly to justice thomas question and i'd like to clarify that it is not the state's position that you have a choice between essentially per se rules of never deciding these appeals or or you know always deciding them the state's position is that there should be a case by case approach to each of these and it may well be that in many of these cases that one of the movements as exceptions would apply we are not suggesting that any less significance should be attached to the questions that arise in these cases under a public interest exception analysis then should apply in other cases before the court and that this would be informed by the fact that some of these questions might not otherwise get decided it clarifying the law given the short nature of these orders that's a factor that should be weighed into the public interest  or the propriety of the trial court's ruling that in the propriety of any given commit in order your position seems to be that it's going to be very difficult at least to show no interest or your position is that there probably is no interest of the public and no party will be able to demonstrate that the i don't know the question is likely to rise again so you're saying at least in those type of orders very it's going to be difficult to meet the mandates of any moves on a straight sufficiency of the evidence appeal where there is not a claim of a collateral consequences exception to movements which obviously goes beyond the issue s presented to the court but yes to the enemy eating purpose of those exceptions to movements as that there's some discrete legal issue that resolving it in that appeal even though the case is moot will provide helpful guidance for the courts or the parties in future disputes the one for anybody in the public generally if that speed is likely to recur and the latter the capable and let us all or should i was trying hard to leave to say that at least that issues frame for us provides i think a good illustration of why per se rule eliminating lewdness from these orders goes too far the the appellant in this case has not identified any discrete legal issue that he presents that would provide guidance in future cases the opponent argues that there's a benefit of therapeutic jurisprudence and i don't know that the you know any court has ever adopted that principle we are talking about the court's jurisdiction and limited exceptions to jurisdiction and jurisdiction is not to be presumed it has to be established in the exceptions i think the court has repeatedly said have to be guarded carefully and construed narrowly so that they don't swallow the rule when the court isn't in the business of providing all sorts of advisory opinions especially where as here what you have is simply a quarrel with whether the testimony of the of the expert cycle just in this case benefit to the simple bright line rules i mean you know everybody has to drive on the right side of the road makes a lot of sense but there are other situations in which a bright line rule incurs tradeoff costs and this would be one of them to the courts certainly have a lot of a business to tend to when they conscientious lee apply their resources to the cases before them but to create a mood is exceptional for some category of cases where nothing is at stake any more the reality is that it's undisputed this case is milked the request that you know for a court of appeal to order him discharged comes too late he was discharged five and a half weeks after six weeks or so after the original commitment order there's nothing left to be done there's no practical consequence in this case in to impose upon the courts the duty to to decide those cases regardless of any real world consequence i suppose creates the benefits of simplicity but it also burdens the courts and essentially issuing advisory opinions when they don't really otherwise have jurisdiction so i would i would advocate against that i'm not i'm not rooting that courts should readily find it no exceptions to move miss in these cases i think that the that the courts have should cut she ensure slee take an approach which looks to see whether some exception does apply and i just urge the court on the facts of the case before it that the appellant has not met his bow of demonstrating the applicability of any of the relevant exceptions to motives of the public interest exception the capable of of repetition but evading review exception or collateral consequences case is the poster child for the proposition that the court should not adopt a per se rule that forces appellate courts to decide cases where nothing is anymore at stake between the parties and there's no life left to be appealed but they want the vindication of knowing that the trial court's order was right or wrong even though it doesn't really matter in the real world due process doesn't require appeals and i understand that sometimes party want the courts to handle the matter those are potentially severe and i don't want to suggest otherwise and what we have indicated is that although this case doesn't present it in the court may then not want to specifically decide it but the situation is different when you have a first involuntary commitment order if you have never been involuntarily committed before you have been adjudicated mentally ill and a danger to yourself or others and even though that order may have expired by the time the appeal comes up that is a different kettle of fish than the one we have in front of us where the appellant has a felony conviction he has repeated hospitalisations and he has multiple prior involuntary commitments against him and so for him to say as they do in their reply brief that there are indelible permanent consequences from an involuntary commitment order essentially disproves the grounds for arguing that there's some incremental stigma from this one which is you know i don't know his age thirty commitment and at least the third involuntary one because if there was an indelible stigma attached to the first one then there was no incremental material negative effect from this one and i have been careful in our brief to try and present the various types of legal disabilities that may arise from a commit in order there are certain professional licenses that would be automatically suspended there are certain other civil disabilities that would attach but this is not a case in which any of those an argument can be made that any of those results from the commitment word that was issued here because of the felony conviction and the prior involuntary commitment orders collateral consequences should not be treated lightly and there are you know not withstanding the the burden upon the the person seeking to invoke the court's jurisdiction there are you know the difficulties of addressing those questions in cases i don't want to minimize those although it's not enough to make some type of speculative remote argument that they're that they're of collateral appellant couldn't for example say that he plans to be an f b i agent and therefore you know he's disqualified from that because of of this i mean that's you know that's just talk so to speak but if there is any meaningful showing of the potential of collateral consequences in a case especially if it were in a situation unlike this one where there's a first involuntary commitment order the state is not in this case arguing that the court should shut the courthouse door on the ability of somebody to reestablish their reputation in society and their ability to seek gainful employment and to obtain government benefits and privileges that attach to the licenses that could be affected by that type of thing these are serious cases we do not by any means tend to diminish the importance of the public interest in this category of proceeding we are simply advocating that illinois should not be a jurisdiction i i believe would be the first jurisdiction to declare a per se exception to moodiness for mental health orders under some any of the theories that have been invoked in this case and although a formal or informal rule that would x but i appeals in these cases in the court has done that in other proceedings it may not be a total solution to the potential problem of unresolved appeals that expire from mental health orders the state  not only does not oppose any such will by the court but we encourage the court to consider the adoption of a rule because we are concerned about the fact that these orders are very short of duration and the only meaningful relief from a challenge to some aspect of the case whether it's a statutory matter or a constitutional matter or even a sufficiency of the evidence of the matter if the only way to obtain meaningful appeal is to have that appeal expedited we certainly are not opposing that know if i could have a minute just to look through the questions that the court presented during the appellant's opening argument in my notes  before relinquish in the rest of my time unless the court has any other questions yes very briefly i did want to say that two things one that with respect to the potential stigma attached the fourth district although it  probably said collateral consequences should never be considered in these cases that is not the state's position here we have said you should not always conclusively presume collateral consequences or force the state who doesn't have ready access to the relevant information to disprove the possibility of collateral consequences and then finally on the butler case the posing counsel has cited that case and other supervisory orders by the by this court  o stand for the proposition that these types of cases should generally never be considered moved in and that somehow collateral consequences that the first district's decision in that case was reversed on that basis we don't know what the court's reasoning was and i don't think it's principles of stari decisis suggest that any presidential affection be given to the other supervisor orders that cited or to the unpublished supervisory order in the butler case but i do want court necessarily concluded that there were collateral consequences there were other arguments made by the defendant in that appeal that could've potentially justified a move in the succession and i see from the first reported decision that was submitted by the opponent that there was an argument that there was a violation of the right to due process because of the denial of a right to a hearing and whether he was suffering from this mental illness and disease at the time of trial unlike what happens in other cases in which a similar thing attaches there was also an equal protection argument with respect to the criminal proceeding as opposed to a separate mental health proceeding and there were significant issues that were presented they may have been the basis for the  reversal of that decision and remained and i don't think anything can be read into that decision this case presents the question squarely before the court there is some conflict among the appellate districts on this issue many of them and is generally doesn't apply to this category of cases the fourth this has said it least insufficiency of the evidence cases we are going to look at moving this to determine whether we still have jurisdiction and i urge the court again to adopt a case by case approach  including all the app of the moon this exceptions but to reject the theory that there should be a perception to move this from final orders in these cases thank you very much for has yes you're on indicated that the fourth district is treating us differently routinely recognize an exception to the move this doctrine in cases involving involuntary mental health admission and involuntary mental health treatment however given the supreme court's clear consistent and recent at here and to the  exact same issue and as i've tried to set forth in the state's brief the exact same action formula is i believe a shorthand description of situations in which the relevant legal issue is again likely to come up involving the same party the newspaper cases involving access to criminal proceedings in juvenile proceedings or ones in which the constitutional rights first amendment access were ones that were going to come up again it wasn't just the mere likelihood that another suit would be brought on similar grounds involving the same party because the animating principle of that exception yet is that even though the case is moot deciding dead issue will provide guidance for future disputes or potentially avoid future disputes by providing that guides but that principle doesn't apply when the issue that somebody asking the court to decide has no bearing on a potential future dispute it's sort of like the reverse of a you know bait and switch type principle what's the point of getting a case decided simply because you've got your foot in the door on one issue if resolving an issue is going to have no relevance to a future dispute involving the party in a future case and i think what i've what i've suggested is that the same action again principle is another way of referring to the same legal issue and i want to be careful to qualify the bias by recognizing that the same legal issue doesn't mean that there has to be exactly identical precisely the same fashionable circumstances that that bring that issue before the court and somehow color the nature of the question presented that would be too narrow an interpretation of the principle and it has been rejected by the u s supreme court and by this court but that doesn't mean that you swing to the other extreme and ignore the reason for the exception which is that legal issue properly defined in its scope will likely come up again and so resolving it now makes sense to avoid having to resolve it again or never being able to resolve it because of the short duration of the types of waters that would be out there thank you so much your honour's i urge the court to affirm the judgment dismissing the appeal and to adopt a rule pursuant to which there would be no per se exception to move this from final orders in mental health ca have the respondents it was hard for me to listen to a representative from the attorney general's office blithely state but nothing is at stake anymore for a mental health respondent like africa h future often a later commitment we hash is everything from the first commitment these cases meet each of the exceptions to move us there could be narrow situations where a man as exception does not apply with the deceased respondent as i said in my opening argument of course that the  know mental health cases are important i just like to point out some aspects of mental health cases that this court has has talked about over the years mental health cases are dependent on subjective determinations and predictions but could be wrong that's from the stevenson case both the procedures that must be followed and the proofs that must be made before a court can take away respondents liberty i'm matters of a public nature and of substantial public concern that's from marion p there is stigma spread and ostracism stevenson related to an adjudication of mental illness and a finding of subject to commitment or involuntary treatment mental health proceedings can be used as tools of oppression and so there must be a protection against that one protection against that is a public review of the trial court's orders to apply mootness under the circumstances would leave mental health respondents with no legal recourse to challenge the trial from a from our research yes illinois could be the first state to create a purse a rule to say that mental health cases are not going to be a do not need to have a move mr terminations they are going to be decided on the merits but illinois has tended to be at the forefront of mental health law and has been recognized by other states cited by other states cited in mental health in a mental health raw treat us as being a progressive state that is known to not dismiss mental health cases as moot until until after  h there have been past cases in illinois just just a handful that we could find where mental health cases were dismissed in the moot dismissed as moot and that was really long ago and those cases that stand on the books as good for dismissing mental health cases moot they do not appear to have been brought to this court those cases that have been brought to this court once an appellate court has found the cases moot and dismissed them this court has reinstated the cases and the appellate courts have decided that the case is on the merits a fast discharge is something this court needs to consider too i ran out of time in my opening argument but when when there is talk of expedited appeals please consider that sometimes are responding is committed and then they're discharged a week later two weeks later and offer to take his case about five weeks later how is that going to be expedited within that amount of time and yet the trial court may have decided this case as stevenson talks about on wholly subjective determinations on predictions that may have been wrong that cases entitle to review the mental health code provides for a there is a new commitment standard that became effective in june of two thousand and eight and if this court decides a rule that  allows for each case to be dismissed as moot if there is going to be a case by case analysis in the fourth district will cases never be decided on this new standard well sufficien y of the evidence cases never be decided this is not the time to for guard appellate review the fourth district a few years ago issued an opinion and dorothy j n where there was a special opinion and the court pointed out in that special opinion that there are a lot of problems with mental cases that the courts noticing and the court urged the the state's attorneys the defense counsels the trial judges to become fully h has three appeals of commitments the record shows that he has had other hospitalizations he had a hospitalization around one thousand nine hundred ninety three then he did not have another one until about ten to twelve years later and alfred h h is a man in his early sixty's he did not exhibit symptoms of mental illness until later in life i do not have any information to say that he has other than three commitments so i think that he has had more than three hospitalizations but to say eight or ten commitments is isn't correct  yes there are certain consequences that stem from a first commitment and those have to do with possessing firearms and serving on better juries and in illinois even being able to get a driver's license those are things the stem from a first commitment but the collateral consequences reach beyond the first commitment and with each commitment there are consequences they are hum and they come back each time a person faces the possibility of a mental health order if a person has been committed once and their return to the hospital it's almost a guarantee that there's going to be another petition and two certificates completed because this person is known this person was committed in the past this person didn't cooperate and sign a voluntary so we're going to have to commit that person so there are consequences stemming from additional commitments it's not just the first commitment but again i would ask the court to reverse the fourth district in al