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UNPUBLISHED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: SWARTZLE, P.J., and REDFORD and YATES, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

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 participant in her treatment. Respondent 

maintains that the probate court erroneously determined that she required treatment. For the 

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

mental-health treatment.

I. RELEVANT FACTS AND 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. Shortly after, however, a registered nurse demanded a 

hearing because respondent refused to accept the prescribed treatment. At the hearing, petitioner 

testified that she served as respondent’s social worker and that she initially filed the petition 

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

testified that respondent reported that she had been sexually assaulted and that the sheriff’s 

department recorded and listened to her via satellite. The social worker emphasized that 

respondent failed to comply with taking her prescribed medications.

A psychiatrist 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 doing well

requiring use of other medication or an increased dosage of the medications that she was already 

taking. Respondent, however, refused to comply with any medication changes and would get 

“really very upset.” The psychiatrist maintained that respondent was “not well” and was “not able 

to take care of herself,” and expressed 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 foster care or alternative housing upon release. He testified further that 

respondent took the previously prescribed dosage but respondent remained “very ill.”

Respondent 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 she 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 Century 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 appointment scheduled and stated: “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.”

The probate court determined that clear and convincing evidence established that 

respondent “clearly suffers 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. The probate court ordered respondent to undergo initial mentalhealth 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 clearly 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 treatment 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 obtaining 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 petitioning 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, on 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 “person 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 recognize 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, the probate court found respondent a person with mental illness with impaired 

judgment and lack of understanding of the need for treatment and unwillingness to voluntarily 

participate and adhere to necessary treatment to prevent harmful deterioration and presented a 

substantial risk of harm to herself, as defined under MCL 330.1401(1)(c). The record reflects that

testimonies 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. The psychiatrist testified 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 stated 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 changed.

The witnesses’ testimonies established 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 watched her through hospital cameras. Other reported 

delusions included respondent’s belief that aliens raped her and that the Michigan militia shot at 

her. The clinical certificates noted 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 injure herself by refusing to take her medications and that she was not 

sleeping.

Respondent denied being delusional. She claimed to be traumatized and failed to 

acknowledge that she suffered from mental illness. She testified that she would adequately seek 

treatment with a private out-of-state facility. Respondent also testified that she would continue 

taking her previously prescribed medications but refused to alter her medication regimen, rejecting

increased dosage or prescription of other medications despite the clinical recommendations 

indicating the 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 

Portus, 325 Mich App at 397 (quotation marks and citation omitted). The probate court properly 

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

her condition to worsen because she refused proper medication. The 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 reported delusions, respondent denied delusional thinking. She also 

refused to alter her medications despite the evidence that her condition had worsened, impacting 

respondent’s ability to live her daily life. The record supports the probate court’s conclusion that, 

without proper treatment, respondent risked harm to herself.

The probate court correctly determined that clear and convincing evidence established

respondent’s noncompliance 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 ruling that respondent is impaired by a mental illness and requires mental-health 
-5-

treatment and properly ordered her hospitalization and treatment. Respondent, therefore, is not 

entitled to relief.

Affirmed.

/s/ Brock A. Swartzle 

/s/ James Robert Redford 

/s/ Christopher P. Yates