If this opinion indicates that it is “F OR 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 ALW

.

LANCE WORKMAN,

Petitioner

- Appellee, UNPUBLISHED July 1, 2021

v No. 355586

Mecosta Probate Court

ALW

, LC No. 20

- 002013

- MI

Respondent

- Appellant.

Before: S TEPHENS

, P .J., and B ECKERING and O’B RIEN , JJ.

P ER C URIAM

.

Respondent appeals as of right the probate court ’ s order for involuntary mental health

treatment. 1 We affirm.

I. BASIC FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Respondent ’ s father filed a petition for mental health treatment, alleging that respondent

had a “ dual personality ” and believed she needed to be “ killed by suicide via a person named ‘ Karl ’ in Chicago. ” The petition also alleged that respondent “ talks to someone not there. ” The day before, a physician examined respondent and diagnosed her with “ Brief Psychotic Disor der. ” The next day, Dr. Puneet Singla, a licensed psychiatrist, examined respondent and diagnosed her with

“ Bipolar Disorder, I, Manic with Psychosis. ” Both doctors stated that respondent reported she wanted to go to Chicago to have assisted suicide thro ugh “ death soleil. ”

At the hearing on the petition for mental health treatment, Dr. Singla testified that respondent told him she needed to find a river because that is where the procedure was performed

.

1 In light of the sensitive nature of the discussion of respondent’s health information , we do not identify her by name.- 2

-

Dr. Singla testified that respondent believed she would “ go the other side ” after the procedure was performed and that someone named “ Adona ” “ talks to her and tells her about this. ” Dr. Singla testified that although he spoke with respondent about why he believed it was important for her to take antipsyc hotic medication, respondent believed she only needed medication to help her sleep. Dr. Singla did not believe the sleep medication was helping respondent.

Respondent testified that “ Adona ” was “ the one from seven wonders, ” spoke to her

“ through this hol e on the other side of the conscious, ” and told her to “ refer to suicide. ” Respondent testified that she believed she was already dead and that Chicago was “ where people go to render themselves over. ” Respondent testified that she only needed “ sleeping pills. ”

At the conclusion of the hearing, the probate court found that clear and convincing evidence

demonstrated t hat respondent was a person requiring treatment under MCL 330.1401(1)(a), (1)(b), and (1)(c). The court ordered that respondent undergo men tal health treatment for up to 180 days, with up to 60 days of hospitalization. This appeal followed.

II. ANALYSIS

Respondent argues that the probate court erred by finding that there was clear and convincing evidence she was a “ person requiring treatment ” under MCL 330.1401(1). We disagree.

We review for an abuse of discretion a probate court’s dispositional rulings and review for clear error the factual findings underlying a probate court’s decision. In re Portus , 325 Mich App 374, 381; 926 NW2d 33 (201 8). “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). “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 . (quotation marks and citation omitted).

Before a probate court may order an individual to receive involuntary mental health treatment, it must find that the individual is a “ person requiring treatment ” under MCL

330.1401 (1) . MCL 330.1401(1) provides:

As used in this chapter, “ person requiring treatment ” means (a), (b), or (c):

(a) An individual who has mental illness, and who as a result of that mental illness can reasonably be expected within the near future to intentionally or unintentionally seriously physically injure himself, herself, or another individual, and who has engaged in an act or acts or made significant threats that are substantially supportive of the expectation.

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

illness is unable to attend to those o f 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.- 3

- (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 trea tment 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.

“ ‘ Mental illnes s ’ means 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

. . . shall not find that an individual is a person requiring treatment unless that fact has been established by clear and convincing evidence. ” MCL 330.1465.

On appeal, respondent does not dispute that s he has a mental illness. Rather, she contends that clear and convincing evidence was not prese nted to establish that she was a person requiring treatment under MCL 330.1401(a) on the basis that she did not have a “ suicide plan. ” Dr. Singla testified that respondent expressed an interest in going to Chicago to “die.” “She reported that she’s tryin g to get to death soleil, that she

– that it’s a suicide way out of soul.” She told Dr. Singla that she was trying to get somewhere in Chicago to a person called “Card” 2 who she “believes will perform this procedure on her, in which she will die, and her d eath will go to the other side.” She also believed that they are doing this procedure in the basement of a local hospital and that “she

has to die.” She believed that s he was already dead, and that her soul had to be rendered through this procedure. Res pondent correctly notes in her appellate brief that she testified at the hearing that she believed someone in Chicago would perform the procedure and that she was already dead. Respondent also testified that she wanted to go to Chicago to “render [herself ] over” and that “Adona” told her to “[r]efer to suicide.” She also discussed “deceasement” and “mercination at

the end.” The trial court did not clearly err in finding that as a result of her mental illness, respondent had a suicide plan, although she d escribed it as rendering herself over, and that t here was clear and convincing evidence to establish that it could reasonably be expected within the near

future that she could “ intentionally or unintentionally seriously physically injure

. . . herself ” and

that she “ made significant threats that are substantially supportive of the expectation. ” 3 MCL 330.1401(1)(a).

Affirmed.

/s/ Cynthia Diane Stephens /s/ Jane M. Beckering

/s/ Colleen A. O’Brien

2 Although the hearing transcript identifies the person as “Card,” this presumably refers to the person identified as “Karl” in the petition.

3 Because an individual need only qualify as a person requiring treatment under one clause of MCL 330.1401(1), we need not address respondent’s arguments with respect to the probate court’s findings under MCL 330.1401(1)(b) and (c).