If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to 

revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

-1-

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

In re EMILY BATES.

VALERIE EVANS,

Petitioner-Appellee,

UNPUBLISHED

November 17, 2022

v No. 361062

Washtenaw County Probate Court

EMILY BATES, LC No. 22-000224-MI

Respondent-Appellant.

Before: GARRETT, P.J., and O’BRIEN and REDFORD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Respondent appeals as of right the probate court’s order that she receive mental health 

treatment. We affirm.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Respondent obtained mental health inpatient treatment at the University of Michigan 

Hospital (the hospital) in early April 2022, the most recent of a series of hospitalizations and 

emergency room visits for respondent between November 2020 and September, 2021. Doctors 

issued two clinical certificates1that specified respondent’s diagnosis as “unspecified psychotic 

disorder” and concluded that respondent was a person requiring treatment who lacked insight into 

her need for treatment.

 

1 A clinical certificate is “the written conclusion and statements of a physician or a licensed 

psychologist that an individual is a person requiring treatment, together with the information and 

opinions, in reasonable detail, that underlie the conclusion, on the form prescribed by the 

department or on a substantially similar form.” MCL 330.1400(a).
-2-

The first certificate provided facts for the determination: “[Patient] with psychotic 

symptoms including paranoia and disorganization that are resulting in reduced ability to function 

including isolating to her home in fear. [Patient] denies suicidal/homicidal ideation, intent or 

plan.” The certificate noted that, while respondent denied homicidal ideations, there was a “risk 

for unintentional harm to others given symptoms of psychosis.” The certificate determined that 

respondent could not care for her basic physical needs and reported the observation that she 

presented “notably disheveled, isolating to home, not buying groceries and decreased intake with 

reported weight loss.” The second certificate indicated that respondent was “disorganized, 

paranoid about father with decreased ability to function and attend to basic self care [sic].” The 

certificate did not determine that a likelihood of harm to others existed, but stated that respondent 

could not attend to her basic physical needs. The certificate noted that respondent presented

“[d]isheveled with decreased self care and reported decreased eating & weight loss.”

Petitioner, a social worker, filed a petition seeking mental health treatment for respondent. 

Petitioner signified that she believed respondent had a mental illness, and checked the box 

indicating “as a result of that mental illness, the individual is unable to attend to those basic 

physical needs that must be attended to in order to avoid serious harm in the near future, and has 

demonstrated that inability by failing to attend to those basic physical needs.” Petitioner based her 

conclusions on her personal observations, stating that “[respondent’s] presentation today is very 

similar to previous psychiatric admission for psychosis and delusional parasitosis.”

A court liaison, a registered nurse, prepared a report on alternative mental health treatment. 

The liaison recommended hospitalization for up to 60 days, and assisted outpatient treatment 

afterward, supervised by Washtenaw County Community Mental Health (WCCMH). The liaison

recommended that the assisted outpatient treatment involve respondent taking her prescribed 

medications, working with treatment teams, and giving permission to communicate with her 

family and all treatment providers, past, present, or future. The liaison acknowledged respondent’s 

objection to communication with her family, but also noted: “It has been shown that she does 

involve her father both when the relationship is resolved or in conflict[,]” and, at the time the 

liaison wrote the recommendation, respondent resided with her father. The proposed order 

indicated “WCCMH or appropriate hospitals” could speak with respondent’s family members, 

treatment providers, past, present, and future, and any other “contacts needed for collateral 

information and help with discharge planning.”

At the mental health hearing, Dr. Scott Mariouw, a staff psychiatrist at the hospital, and 

respondent’s attending psychiatrist at the inpatient psychiatric unit, testified regarding 

respondent’s treatment. Dr. Mariouw diagnosed respondent with unspecified psychotic disorder 

attached to respondent’s thoughts, as opposed to an unspecified psychotic disorder attached to 

respondent’s mood, and noted that respondent had “multiple psychiatric admissions in the past”

which included diagnoses of “various forms of psychotic disorders[,]” including unspecified 

psychotic disorder and ongoing delusional thoughts. Dr. Mariouw stated that respondent often 

went to hospitals complaining of parasites or insect infestations causing skin issues, but medical 

evaluations did not reveal any infestation or infection. Dr. Mariouw also expressed concern 

regarding respondent’s reports of abuse from “numerous family members” because it was difficult 

to determine if these reports were delusions. Respondent’s delusions impaired her ability to 

function, as evidenced by her frequent hospitalizations. While respondent had no suicidal or 
-3-

homicidal thoughts, Dr. Mariouw had concern that respondent’s delusions posed a risk of 

unintentional harm.

Dr. Mariouw stated that he needed to “clarify what [the] dynamic” between respondent and 

her father because the hospital wanted to respect respondent’s reports of abuse, but also needed to 

consider the fact that respondent’s father sought guardianship and previously served as

respondent’s guardian. Dr. Mariouw also noted that respondent lived with her father recently but 

planned to leave which sparked concern regarding her ability to function. Respondent did not 

understand her need for treatment, solely focused on treating her attention-deficit/hyperactivity 

disorder (ADHD), and only willingly took stimulants to treat her ADHD which worsened her 

mental illness. Dr. Mariouw confirmed that respondent expressed thatshe did not want the hospital 

to contact her father; and when respondent’s attorney asked if it would be possible to perform the

Adult Protective Services (APS) investigation first before contacting respondent’s father, Dr. 

Mariouw had responded: “We’re happy to do that. Yes.”

Respondent’s counsel explained that respondent only objected to the order requiring mental 

health respecting the provision allowing the hospital to contact respondent’s father. Respondent 

pointed to Dr. Mariouw’s agreement to refrain from contacting respondent’s father until after the 

APS investigation concluded and asked the trial court to “fashion a remedy that allows that to 

happen.” The probate court determined that petitioner established by clear and convincing 

evidence that respondent was a person requiring treatment because of her inability to attend to her 

basic physical needs, noting her poor nutrition and isolation. The trial court acknowledged that 

respondent did not understand her need for treatment, which increased her chances of relapse and

“present[ed] a substantial risk of significant physical or mental harm to herself or others.” The 

court granted the petition but refused to restrict the hospital’s ability to contact respondent’s father. 

It explained that it understood that respondent believed she suffered abuse at that hands of relatives 

and others but declined to direct the hospital regarding how to treat her and in what order, leaving 

such decisions to the hospital. The court expressed approval to Dr. Mariouw’s plan on how to 

proceed.

II. PRESERVATION

“Generally, to preserve a claim of error for appellate review, the party claiming the error 

must raise the issue in the trial court.” Redmond v Heller, 332 Mich App 415, 430; 957 NW2d 

357 (2020). Respondent preserved her argument regarding the trial court’s refusal to incorporate 

the parties’ agreement into its order by requesting that the trial court include in its order a 

requirement that the hospital refrain from contacting respondent’s father until it completed its APS 

investigation. Respondent, however, admits that she did not raise the issue of the petition’s factual 

deficiency to the trial court, and therefore, this issue is not preserved for appellate review.

Although this Court need not address an unpreserved issue, it may overlook 

preservation requirements when the failure to consider an issue would result in 

manifest injustice, if consideration is necessary for a proper determination of the 

case, or if the issue involves a question of law and the facts necessary for its 

resolution have been presented. [Gen Motors Corp v Dep’t of Treasury, 290 Mich 

App 355, 387; 803 NW2d 698 (2010) (citation omitted).]
-4-

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

“This Court reviews for an abuse of discretion a probate court’s dispositional rulings and 

reviews for clear error the factual findings underlying a probate court’s decision.” In re Portus, 

325 Mich App 374, 381; 926 NW2d 33 (2018) (quotation marks and citation omitted). “An abuse 

of discretion occurs when the probate court chooses an outcome outside the range of reasonable 

and principled outcomes.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). “We review de novo matters 

of statutory interpretation.” Id. “A probate court’s finding is clearly erroneous when a reviewing 

court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made, even if there is 

evidence to support the finding.” Id. “The probate court necessarily abuses its discretion when it 

makes an error of law.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). “A lower court’s error is not 

ground for granting a new trial, for setting aside a verdict, or for vacating, modifying, or otherwise 

disturbing a judgment or order, unless refusal to take this action appears to the court inconsistent 

with substantial justice. MCR 2.613(A).” Portus, 325 Mich App at 396 (quotation marks omitted). 

“An error is harmless if it did not affect the outcome of the proceeding.” Id.

“We review unpreserved issues for plain error.” Demski v Petlick, 309 Mich App 404, 

426-427; 873 NW2d 596 (2015). Specifically: “To avoid forfeiture under the plain error rule, 

three requirements must be met: 1) the error must have occurred, 2) the error was plain, i.e., clear 

or obvious, 3) and the plain error affected substantial rights.” Id. at 427 (citations and quotation 

marks committed). “Generally, an error affects substantial rights if it caused prejudice, i.e., it 

affected the outcome of the proceeding.” In re Utrera, 281 Mich App 1, 9; 761 NW2d 253 (2008). 

IV. ANALYSIS

A. FACTUAL BASIS FOR PETITION

Respondent first argues that the petition was factually deficient and the trial court erred by 

holding the mental health hearing. We disagree.

The trial court did not err by holding the mental health hearing because petitioner 

adequately supported the petition with facts asserting that respondent required treatment. MCL 

330.1434 of the Mental Health Code, MCL 330.1001 et seq., states the procedural and substantive 

requirements for a petition for mental health treatment as follows:

(1) Any individual 18 years of age or over may file with the court a petition 

that asserts that an individual is a person requiring treatment.

(2) The petition shall contain the facts that are the basis for the assertion, 

the names and addresses, if known, of any witnesses to the facts, and, if known, the 

name and address of the nearest relative or guardian, or, if none, a friend, if known, 

of the individual.

(3) Except as provided in subsection (7), the petition shall be accompanied 

by the clinical certificate of a physician or a licensed psychologist, unless after 

reasonable effort the petitioner could not secure an examination. If a clinical 

certificate does not accompany the petition, the petitioner shall set forth the reasons 
-5-

an examination could not be secured within the petition. The petition may also be 

accompanied by a second clinical certificate. If 2 clinical certificates accompany 

the petition, at least 1 clinical certificate must have been executed by a psychiatrist.

(4) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (7) and section 455, a 

clinical certificate that accompanies a petition must have been executed within 72 

hours before the filing of the petition, and after personal examination of the 

individual.

(5) If the individual is found not to be a person requiring treatment under 

this section, the petition and any clinical certificate shall be maintained by the court 

as a confidential record to prevent disclosure to any person who is not specifically 

authorized under this chapter to receive notice of the petition or clinical certificate.

(6) The petition described in this section may assert that the subject of the 

petition should receive assisted outpatient treatment in accordance with section 

468(2)(d).

(7) A petition that does not seek hospitalization but only requests that the 

subject of the petition receive assisted outpatient treatment is not subject to 

subsection (3) or (4).

MCL 330.1401(1)(b) explains a “person requiring treatment” is:

An individual who has mental illness, and who as a result of that mental 

illness is unable to attend to those of his or her basic physical needs such as food, 

clothing, or shelter that must be attended to in order for the individual to avoid 

serious harm in the near future, and who has demonstrated that inability by failing 

to attend to those basic physical needs.

The parties do not dispute that respondent qualifies as a person requiring treatment. 

Petitioner checked the box in the petition indicating respondent was unable to attend to her basic 

physical needs which were required to avoid serious harm. Petitioner also asserted that respondent 

presented “very similar” to her previous admissions for psychosis and delusional parasitosis. In 

addition to the petition, two clinical certificates were provided by two psychiatrists, as required by 

MCL 330.1434(3) and (4), who determined that respondent suffered from mental illness and 

diagnosed respondent with unspecified psychotic disorder. The certificates noted respondent’s 

paranoia and disorganization, inability to attend to her basic physical needs, and inability to 

understand her need for treatment. One certificate also determined that respondent posed a risk of 

unintentional harm. The certificates provided factual support for their conclusions, stating 

respondent’s paranoia, disorganization, isolation in her home, poor nutrition, and disheveled 

appearance. The facts stated in the petition were supported by the petitioner’s personal and 

professional observations as a social worker. The two clinical certificates also set forth facts that

supported the petition with the doctors’ determinations. The petition, therefore, met the statutory 

requirements and the probate court did not err by holding a hearing to determine whether 

respondent required mental health treatment.
-6-

B. INCORPORATION OF PARTIES’ AGREEMENT

Respondent also contends that the trial court erred when it refused to incorporate into its 

order requiring mental health treatment the parties’ agreement that the hospital refrain from 

contacting respondent’s father until after the APS investigation. We disagree.

“A trial court has the inherent authority to control its own docket.” Baynesan v Wayne 

State Univ, 316 Mich App 643, 651; 894 NW2d 102 (2016). “A court possesses inherent authority 

to enforce its own directives.” Walworth v Wimmer, 200 Mich App 562, 564; 504 NW2d 708 

(1993). A trial court also has the express authority to direct and control the proceedings before it. 

MCL 600.611 provides that “[c]ircuit courts have jurisdiction and power to make any order proper 

to fully effectuate the circuit courts’ jurisdiction and judgments.” “An exercise of the court’s 

inherent power may be disturbed only upon a finding that there has been a clear abuse of 

discretion.” Colen v Colen, 331 Mich App 295, 304; 952 NW2d 558 (2020) (quotation marks and 

citation omitted). “An abuse of discretion occurs when a court chooses an outcome outside the 

range of principled outcomes.” Id. Once the party seeking to add a new argument exceeds the 

temporal window of amendment by right, the trial court has authority to refuse to consider a new 

issue. Similarly, here, the trial court, in managing its own docket, had the discretionary authority 

to not consider an agreement the parties made minutes earlier at the hearing in which the trial court 

was tasked solely with determining whether the petition sufficed to warrant ordering respondent 

to undergo mental health treatment.

Further, the trial court indicated that it would not dictate the manner in which the hospital 

treated respondent and would not limit the hospital’s ability to speak to respondent’s family “in 

the order that they think is most appropriate to her . . . wellness.” Dr. Mariouw indicated he would 

refer for investigation respondent’s abuse allegations and would wait to discuss respondent’s 

treatment with her father until after the APS investigation concluded. Further, because respondent 

was hospitalized at the time, the hospital could protect her from any alleged abuse. The hospital, 

however, may need to speak with respondent’s family and other treatment providers to gain insight 

into respondent’s condition and treatment history to properly ascertain how her treatment should 

proceed. Contact with respondent’s father may be especially significant, considering his past 

guardianship and his interest in reinitiating guardianship. The trial court did not abuse its 

discretion by declining to make a ruling on the parties’ impromptu, informal agreement that the 

hospital refrain from contacting respondent’s father until the conclusion of an APS investigation.

Affirmed.

/s/ Kristina Robinson Garrett 

/s/ Colleen A. O’Brien 

/s/ James Robert Redford