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 DMF

BRANDIE SMITH

,

Petitioner

- Appellee, UNPUBLISHED March 14, 2024

v No. 367994

Branch Probate Court
DMF, LC No. 00

- 030956

- MI

Respondent

- Appellant.

Before: S WARTZLE

, P .J., and R EDFORD and Y ATES , JJ.

P ER C URIAM

.

Respondent appeals by right the probate court ’s initial order after hearing on petition for

mental

- health treatment. Respondent argues on appeal that the probate court erroneously granted

the order because insufficient evidence failed to establish that respondent did not understand her need for treatment or that respondent was not a voluntary pa rticip ant in her treatment. R espondent maintains that the probate court erroneously determined that she requir ed treatment. For the

reasons stated in this opinion , we affirm the probate court’s order granting the petition for initial

mental

- health treatm ent.

I. RELEVANT FACTS A ND PROCEEDINGS

A clinical social worker filed a petition for the initial mental

- health treatment of respondent supported by two clinical certificates

. The trial court scheduled a hearing but before the hearing respondent agreed to accept treatment. S hortly after, however, a registered nurse demanded a hearing because respondent refus ed to accept the prescribed treatment

. At the hearing, petitioner

testified that she served a s respondent’s s ocial worker and that she initially filed the petition

because respondent suffered from “mental health concerns” and “delusions.” The social worker

testified th at respondent reported that she had been sexually assaulted and that the sheriff’s department r ecord ed and listen ed to her via satellite. The social work er emphasized that respondent failed to comply with taking her prescribed medications

.

A psychiatr ist testified that respondent was a former patient and that he evaluated respondent for the petition

. The psychiatrist explained that respondent suffered from “schizo

-- 2

-

affective disorder bipolar type

, ” a “mental illness.” The psychiatrist provided detailed testimony regarding respondent’s reported delusions and explained that respondent was not d oing well requiring use of other medication or an increase d dosage of the medications that she was already taking. R espondent , however, refus ed to comply with any medication changes and would get “really very upset. ” The psychiatrist maintained that resp ondent was “not well” and was “not able

to take care of herself

, ” and express ed concerns for respondent’s ability to manage daily life

. Further, the psychiatrist explained that respondent’s home was “not livable” and that she would have to go to adult fos ter care or alternative housing upon release. He testified further that respondent took the previously prescribed dosage but respondent remained “very ill.”

R espondent testified that she did not need an order for mental

- health treatment

. Respondent testified that she would only take her previously prescribed medications. Respondent

stated that she would not take Ativan because of the addictive characteristics of the medication and her alcohol addiction recovery. Further , respondent testified that s he would not take Zyprexa because she was taken off the medication “after being sodomized and raped and burned in the
crotch and beaten in the face.” She explained that “they have pictures” of her assault since her birth and that “[t]hey were shown at Cen tury Bank,” and to her spouse. Respondent testified that
she was “not delusional” but had “been traumatized.”

Respondent explained that she contacted a private psychiatrist and that she planned to move to Indiana with her daughter. Respondent testified regarding the name of her proposed doctor, the office address, and the office phone number. Further, respondent testified regarding a private bus that would be her transportation to and from her appointments. Respondent explained that she had

an intake a ppointment scheduled and stat ed : “I’m very well aware of all the abuse that has gone on. I’m aware my daughter knows about it, and it has caused her many anxiety moments. ”

T he probate court determined that clear and convincing evidence established that

r espondent “clearly suffer s from mental illness , that being schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type ”

that impaired her judgment and understanding causing a deterioration in her condition presenting

a substantial risk of harm to her

. T he probate court ordere d respondent to undergo initial mental

health treatment consisting of a maximum of 60 days of hospitalization and 180 days of assisted outpatient treatment

. Respondent now appeals.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review a probate court’s dispositional decisions for an abuse of discretion. In re Tchakarova , 328 Mich App 172, 182; 936 NW2d 863 (2019) . A court abuses its discretion if its decision “falls outside of the range of reasonable and principled outcomes. ” In re Conservatorship of Brody , 321 Mich App 332, 336; 909 NW2d 849 (2017) (quotation marks and citation omitted). This Court reviews a probate court’s factual findings for clear error. In re Tchakarova , 328 Mich App at 182 . A court’s findings are cl early erroneous if the reviewing court is left with a definite

and firm conviction that a mistake was made. In re Bibi Guardianship , 315 Mich App 323, 329; 890 NW2d 387 (2016)

.- 3

- III. ANALYSIS

Proceedings seeking an order of involuntary mental

- health trea tment under the Mental Health Code, MCL 330.1001 et seq ., for an individual because of mental illness generally are

referred to as civil

- commitment proceedings. In re Portus , 325 Mich App 374, 382 ; 926 NW2d 33 (2018). The specific procedures for obtainin g orders of hospitalization or other forms of

treatment because of a person’s mental illness are contained in various provisions of Chapter 4 of the Mental Health Code, MCL 330.1400 et seq

. Id

. Any adult may initiate civil

- commitment proceedings by petit ioning a probate court to find that an individual is a “person requiring
treatment” under the Mental Health Code. MCL 330.1434(1)

. MCL 330.1401(1) provides, in relevant part, that the phrase “person requiring treatment” means:

(c) An individual who has mental illness, whose judgment is so impaired by that mental illness, and whose lack of understanding of the need for treatment has caused him or her to demonstrate an unwillingness to voluntarily participate in or adhere to treatment that is necessary, o n the basis of competent clinical opinion, to prevent a relapse or harmful deterioration of his or her condition, and presents a substantial risk of significant physical or mental harm to the individual or others.

A respondent need only qualify as a “pers on requiring treatment” under one subdivision of

MCL 330.1401(1) to support a probate court’s order for mental

- health treatment. “Mental illness” is a “substantial disorder of thought or mood that significantly impairs judgment, behavior, capacity to reco gnize reality, or ability to cope with the ordinary demands of life.”

MCL 330.1400(g) . A judge or jury must find that an individual is a person who requires treatment by clear and convincing evidence. MCL 330.1465

. In In re Pederson , 331 Mich App 445, 472; 951 NW2d 704 (2020) (quotation marks and citation omitted), this Court explained that clear and convincing evidence

produces in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established, evidence so clear, direct and weighty and convincing as to enable the factfinder to come to a clear conviction, without hesitancy, of the truth of the precise facts in issue.

In this case, t he probate court found respondent a person with mental illness wi th impaired judgment and lack of understanding of the need for treatment and unwillingness to voluntarily participate and adhere to necessary t reatment to prevent harmful deterioration and presented a

substantial risk of harm to herself

, as defined under M CL 330.1401(1)(c)

. The record reflects that

testimoni es of both the social worker and psychiatrist established respondent’s mental illness and strong opposition to needed medication. The social worker testified regarding respondent’s history

of delusions and how they persisted up to the time of the hearing. Further, the social worker testified regarding respondent’s refusal to take her medications despite respondent’s previous agreement to comply with the new medication regimen. T he psychiatrist testifi ed regarding respondent ’s “schizo

- affective disorder bipolar type” diagnosis and explained respondent’s treatment history

. The psychiatrist explained how her delusions and thoughts were increasingly “occupied with strange experiences” and that her serious mental illness impacted her ability to- 4

-

function in her daily life. Further, the psychiatrist stat ed that respondent refused to alter her medication regimen and that she would not be able to adequately and safely function if her medications were not chang ed.

T he witnesses’ testimonies establish ed the facts alleged in the petition and stated in the clinical certificates submitted to the probate court. The petition noted that respondent had delusions that people were coming into her home and injecting her with substances, sodomizing her, and that the sheriff ’s department watch ed her through hospital cameras. Other reported delusions included respondent’s belief that aliens raped her and that the Michigan militia shot at

her. T he clinical certificates note d several instances of respondent’s delusional behavior and how respondent’s delusions occupied her thoughts. Further, the clinical certificates noted that respondent was likely to injur e herself by refusing to take her medications and that she was not

sl eeping.

R espondent denied being delusional . She claimed to be traumatized and failed to acknowledge that she suffered from mental ill ness

. She testified that she would adequately seek treatment with a private out

- of

- state facility. R espondent also test ified that she would continue taking her previously prescribed medications but refuse d to alter her medication regimen

, rejecti ng increase d dosage or prescription of other medications despite the clinical recommendations indicating th e necessity for respondent’s mental health.

The record reflects that the probate court considered the conflicting evidence to determine whether respondent understood her mental illness and respondent’s willingness to comply with

treatment. We defer to the probate court “on matters of credibility, and will give broad deference to findings made by the probate court because of its unique vantage point regarding witnesses, their testimony, and other influencing factors not readily available to the reviewing court.” In re

P ortus , 325 Mich App at 397 (quotation marks and citation omitted)

. T he probate court properly

determined that the evidence established that respondent ’s noncompliance with treatment caused

her condition to worsen because she refused proper medicat ion . Th e record demonstrates that the probate court understood respondent’s history of mental

- health treatment and that respondent had gone back and forth between agreeing and disagreeing with her recent treatment plan. Despite her diagnosis and numerous reporte d delusions, respondent denied delusional thinking. S he also

refused to alter her medications despite the evidence that her condition had worsen ed , impacting respondent’s ability to live her daily life . The record supports the probate court’s conclusion that, without proper treatment, respondent risk ed harm to herself.

T he probate court correctly determined that clear and convincing evidence established respondent’s noncomplianc e and the present and future consequences of her noncompliance which

made her a “person requiring treatment” as defined under MCL 330.1401(1)(c)

. The probate court

did not err by rul ing that respondent is impaired by a mental illness and requires mental

- health- 5

-

treatment and properly order ed her hospitalization and treatment . R esponde nt , therefore, is not

entitled to relief.

Affirmed.

/s/ Brock A. Swartzle

/s/ James Robert Redford /s/ Christopher P. Yates