1

Ru le 23 or der filed NO. 5-06-0677 February 11, 2008; Mot ion t o pu bli sh gr an ted I N THE April 2, 2008. AP PE LLA TE C O U R T O F IL LIN O IS FI FTH DI STRICT

________________________________________________________________________ In re KEVI N S. , aPer son Ass er te d t o Be ) Appeal f rom the Circuit Court

of Subjec t to Involunt ary Admis sion ) Randolph County. ) (The P eople of the State of Illinois, Petitioner- ) No. 06-MH-265 Appellee, v. K evin S., Respo ndent-Ap pellant). ) ) Honorable Ric hard A. Brown, ) Judge, presiding.

________________________________________________________________________ Modified Upon Denial of Rehearing JUST ICE D ON OV AN delivered the op inion o f the co urt: Ke vin S., respondent, appeals f rom the g rant of

the State' s peti tion seeki ng to c ontinue his involuntary commi tment i n ChesterM ental H ealth Cen ter pur suan t to the M ental H ealth and Developmental Disabilities Code (Code) (405 ILCS 5/3-813 (W est 2006)). Respondent contends he is e ntit led to a r eversal o f the co mmitm ent ord er bec ause the State fa iled to
com ply with the ma ndates of the Code and faile d to pro ve by clear and convi ncing evi dence that hospit aliz ation was t he least restrictive treat

ment settingalte rnati ve av ailable. Res pon dent a lso argue s he re ceived in effective a ssistanc e of co unse l. Respondent was invol untari ly admit ted to El gin MentalHealth Center (Elg in) on April 21, 2006. He subsequentl y was transf erred t o ChesterMe ntal Health C enter (Che ster)
on May 20, 2006, because he had severe b ehavior mana gement issues an d had a ttacked staff membe rs at Elg in. On November 16, 2006, a peti tion for continued inv oluntar y admissi on
was fil ed, accompani ed by two certifi cates of examination. The petiti on did notveri fy that
a copy of the pe tition had been pr ovide d to res pondent orthat a copy of his ri ghts had been prov idedor exp lai ned t o him.2

At the hearing on the petiti on, Jim Morri s, a cl inica l li censed soci al worker employed at Chester, testifi ed that

respondent

had a diagnosed m ental illness, schizoaffective disorde r, bipolar type, and an antis ocial personal ity di sorder. He further report ed that

respondent

had
a prior hist ory of hospi tali zati ons and that he had been plac ed in res trai nts on sev er al occasions. Mr. M orris als o testifi ed that when he intervie wed respondent , respondent was unab le to st at e the cu rr en t d at e o r g iv e h is own age and was expr essing d elusion s abo ut his kidne ys and urinary functi ons. He predic ted that if respondent

were to be pl aced outsi de of
a structu red se tting, his conditi on would deteri orate and he would reasonabl y be expected to impo s e s eri ou s ph ys i ca l har m t o h i ms el f or ot he r s i n t he ne ar f ut ure. Mr . Mo rri s concluded that resp ond ent w as a p erson subje ct to invo luntary adm ission a nd th at he sh ould be hospitalized for furthe r t rea tment. Other evi dence rev ealed that res pondent pres ented bizarre and gross ly illo gical c ont ent o f spe ech , he rep orte d re ceivi ng messa ges f rom the radio, he ex hibited verbal a nd p hysic al aggressio n, an d he w as no t respo ndin g well to his medications and con tinu ed to have auditor y halluc inati ons upon which he act ed. Respondent did not testify. The c ourt found that respond ent wa s a person s ubject to involuntary admission and that he was to be hospitalized with the Department of Human Services. Respondent fir st ar gues on appeal that the judgment of the t rialcourt mus t be rev ersed because the pe tition failed to com ply w ith the Cod e. Speci fical ly, re spondent contends the State violated s ection 3-81 3 of th e Code (40 5 IL CS 5/3-813 ( West 2006)) by fi lingthe petit ion for continuingcommitment after the expi rat ion of t he A ugust 7, 2006, order

for
com mitmen t. The State also v iolated section 3-602 of the Code (405 ILCS 5/3-602 (West 2006)), ac cordingto res pondent, by f ili ng cert ifi cati ons in support of

the petit ion in which the examinations were compl eted more t han 72 hours prior

to the f ili ng of t he recommit

ment petit ion. Res pon dent a lso find s fault w ith the State not p rovid i ng proof, in v iolat ion of secti on 3-609 of the Code (405 IL CS 5/3-609 ( West 2006)), t hat a copy of the petit

ion and3

re sp on de nt 's rig hts had been provide d to him w ithin 12 hou rs of filing the petition . Th e State counters that respondent di d not rai se any objec tions to the pe tition at the h earin g, that there is noth ing in the record to indic ate that the petition did n ot com ply w ith the Code, and that respondent

was not prej udiced by any alleged defici encies. The State there fore concludes that t he order of

commitment

should be af

firmed. Before ad dr es si ng th e m er it s, we must first a ddress t he issue of our j urisdi ction. The commitment

order f rom which responde nt appeal s was issue d on November 22, 2006. I t was entere d for180 days and accor dingl y expiredon M ay 21 , 200 7. It is therefo re imp ossible for us to grant

any meaning ful relief, an d any decisio n w e rend er is esse ntially ad visory in natu re. Generall y, a court will not consider moot questions or render adv isory de cisi ons . In re Robert S. , 213 I ll. 2d 30, 45, 820 N.E.2d 424, 433 (200 4). Questi ons rai sed in an appeal that are capable of repeti tion, yet mig ht ev ade revi ew because of the short dur ation of the order , fal l under t

he excepti on of the mootness doctrine. In re John R. , 339 I ll. App. 3d 778, 781, 792 N.E.2d 350 , 353 (200 3). G iven that re spon dent h as a lon g history of civil commitment

and th at it is likely that the circumstances pres ent here may reoccur wit hout the opp ortun ity for a r esolution before the case is rendered moot by the expiration o f the order,
we will address respondent 's contentions. We furt her note t hat "[ a] trial c ourt' s determinati on of wh ether th e eviden ce is su fficient to continue i nvolunt ary commitment is giv en great deferenc e because i t had the opportuni ty to v iew the witnesses, determi ne thei r credi bili ty, and w eigh the ev idence." In re Clark , 246 I ll. App. 3d 362, 369, 615 N.E.2d 1244, 124 9 (1993). We are not to disturb the court' s ruling unless it i s agai nst the manifes t weig ht of t he evid e nce or, in ot

her words, t

he evi dence clearly es tabli shes that a contrary r esult was proper. In re Clark , 246 I ll. App. 3d at 369- 70, 615 N.E.2d at 1249. Turning fir st t o the is sue of whether the petiti on for continued inv oluntar y admissi on complie d with the C ode, we initially no te that the only com mitmen t order in the re cord is the4

one at issue here. From the rec ord, th erefor e, it is i mpossibl e to te ll whethe r the Novembe r 16, 2006, peti tion was untimely. Overlook ing t his fa ct, we note t

hat res pondent did not make any objection to t

he time lines s of

the petiti on, and we conclude that there i s no evi dence on the record t

hat res pondent was prej udiced by the all eged l ate fi ling . While inv olun tar y admissi on procedures implica te substant ial l iberty interests, these i nteres ts must be balanced against the dual objectiv es of involuntary admiss ions t o pr ovide care for those who are unab le to care for themselv es and to protec t society from the dan gerously men tally ill. In re Robinson , 151 Ill. 2d 126, 1 30-31, 6 01 N
. E.2 d 71 2, 71 5 (19 92). So ciety's intere st in provi ding treatme nt to the ment ally i ll whil e protec tingits citi zens from h armfu l cond uct is not jeopardi zed when the rec ord in an inv oluntar y admissi on hearingestabl ishes t hat the purposes of the s tatutory requi rements were met and the respondent did not obj ectto claimed errors in the proce eding. In re Robins on , 151 I ll. 2d at 131, 601 N.E.2d at 715. Section 3-81 3 w as de signed to preven t patie nt ne gle ct by ensuring t hat an involun tarily com mitted p atient's eligibili ty for commi tment was r eeval uated at regul ar intervals. In re Nau , 153 I ll. 2d 406, 422, 607 N.E.2d 134, 142 (1992). This purpose was not frust rated by t he minor del ay that

respondent

alle ges occurred he re. Respondent was not negl ected by the sy stem; he recei ved a ful l heari ng on the issue of his el igibili ty for continue d commitment . Moreover, had respondent objected to the ti meliness of the pet iti on forcontinui ng admis sion, t he peti tion coul d have been wit hdr awn and substi tuted wit h a petit ion for i niti al commit

ment. The same subst antiv e evi dence th at su pp or te d r es po nd en t's eligibility for continued commit ment would hav e support ed his admi ssion under an init ial petit ion as well. See In re Nau , 153 Il l. 2d at422-23 , 607 N.E.2d at 142. Giv en that
re sp on de nt 's elig ibil ity f or commitment was eva luate d under the proper standar d, respondent suffered no prejudi ce by the late fil ing. With no prejudi ce and responde nt' s fai lure to object to the unti meline ss of t he peti tion, we find no reas on to rev erse the order of continue d5

commitment

on this basis. While strict c omplianc e with st atutor y procedures in involuntary commitment

proc eedin gs is requ ired, a r eversal is n ot requ ired un less the respo nden t is in
some way prejudiced b y the failure to com ply with tho se statutory requirem ents. In re L ouis S. , 361 Ill. App. 3d 7 63, 768 , 838 N .E.2d 2 18, 222 (2005). Respondent also cl aims that the continui ng commit ment order

should be r evers ed because the ex amin ation of respondent occurred more than 72 hours prior to when the petit ion was draft ed. Sect

ion 3-813( b) states, "T he pr ovisions of this c hapte r wh ich ap ply whenever an i niti al order is soug ht shallapply whenever an additional period of treat ment is sought ." 405 I LCS 5/3- 813(b) (West 200 6). Resp ondent sug gest s that secti on 3-602, which requires the ex amination of a n individual by a p hysician, qualifie d examiner, or clini cal psyc holo gist not mo re than 72 h ours p rior to an initial involu ntary a dmis sion to a mental health facility, sh ould therefo re app ly to co ntinue d com mitmen t proce dure s as w ell. The 72-hour time li mit f or examinat

ions cont ai ned in secti on 3-602 appli es only t o initial involuntary admissi ons, however . An examination just before initial involuntary commitment

is impo rtant an d nec essary to learn abou t the me ntal health of th e pers on to
ensure that t

he commitme nt is actual ly needed. A person alrea dy committed has been under the care of ment al heal th doctor s for at least 90 days pri or to t

he filing o f a peti tion f or continui ng co mmi tm en t. Con se que nt ly , wh en the p etition fo r con tinuing c omm itment is fil ed, a current

treat ment pla n, incl uding a n eval uationof the pers on's progr ess, i s also f iled. 405 I LCS 5/3 -81 3(a ) ( West 2 006) . Th ere is no requirement i n secti on 3-813 that the examination be within 72 hour s of the fil ing of the petiti on. W e therefore reje ct re sp on de nt 's argument

that hi s peti tion di d not comply wit h the Code. For his last c laim, resp onden t contends tha t there is no evidence in the record establ ishi ng that he had been gi ven a copy of the petiti on and notic e of his ri ghts within 12 hours of the i ssuance of the petiti on. We agai n note tha t respondent did not obj ect t o the6

all eged omissi on , nor was he prej udiced by i t in any e vent . I t is well est ablis hed that an involuntary adm ission o rder is not inv alid e ven if t he record f

ails to contain aff

irmative proof that t he respo nden t received forma l notice of the p rocee dings w hen it is evi dent that he or she recei ved act

ual noti ce of

the procee dings. In re Luker , 255 Ill. App. 3d 367, 370, 627 N.E.2d 1166, 1168 (1993); see also In re Nau , 153 Ill. 2d at 4 18-1 9, 60 7 N .E.2 d at 14 0; In
re Splett , 143 Ill. 2d 225, 2 30-31, 5 72 N .E.2d 8 83, 885 -86 (199 1). "[T]he State's failure to strictly comply with pr ovis ions of the Code may be excused i f the record est ablis hes that t he purposes of the statute have been achieved." In re Robins on , 151 I ll. 2d at 131, 601 N.E.2d at 715. The peti tion here, fi led on November 16, 2006, cont ains within t he peti tion a c opy of the "Rig hts of A dmittee." While the certi ficat ion that respondent

had been gi ven a copy of the pet

iti on within 12 hour s of it s iss uance and that he had received a cop y of h is rights is not si gned , respondent and his at

torney appe ared at

the hearing a s schedul ed and parti cipat ed in it . At no time pri or to t he heari ng or at t

he heari ng did eit

her res pondent or his attorney complai n that t hey had not been g ive n a copy of the petit ion in a t imely manne r or that they were unabl e to prepare the c ase. As noted in In re Luker , "The purpose of the petit ion is to adv ise [ the] respondent of the proce eding s which have be en commenced against him in order

that he may prepare e vide nce and arg ument for the hearing ." In re Luker , 255 Il l. App. 3d at 371, 627 N.E.2d at 1169. "Par ties should not

be permit

ted to t ake part in a hearingon the meri ts and t hen, if they do not p revail, obtain a new hearing by complai ning of a pr oce dur al de fect ' "th at co uld and sho uld have been obje cted to imme diately , cou ld have been easi ly cured i f ti mely obje cted t o, and made no dif ference any way." ' " In re Luker , 255 Ill. App . 3d at 37 1, 6 27 N .E. 2d a t 11 69 ( quo ting In re S plett , 143 Il l. 2d at

231, 572 N. E.2 d at 8 86 ( quo ting I n re J .W
. , 87 Ill. 2d 56, 62, 429 N.E.2d 50 1, 504 (1 981))). W hile a timely objection mig ht have resu lted i n ad ditio nal p roc eed ings, it w oul d no t have resul ted in any be nefit to respond ent. See In re Luker , 255 Il l. App. 3d at 371, 627 N.E.2d7

at 116 9. H aving waived a ny objections t o the al leg ed flaws i n the petiti on for continued
com mitmen t, respondent is not entitled to a

rever sal of his o rder fo r con tinued com mitmen t. Respondent next takes i ssue with t he evi dence supporting t he conclusi on that hospit aliz ationwas the least restr ic ti ve tr ea tm en t s et ti ng in th is in st an ce . A tr ia l c ou rt 's decisi on that hos pital ization is the le ast r estricti ve al ternat ive shou ld not be set

aside, how ever, unless it is clearly erroneo us. In re Dav id D. , 307 Ill. App. 3d 30, 34, 716 N.E.2d 1245, 1248-49 (1999). U nd er th e c ir cu m st an ce s p re se nt ed he re , w e c an no t s ay th e c ou rt 's decisi on was clea rly erroneou s, given that the State submitted a report as w ell as tes timony suffi cient

to es tabli sh b y cle ar an d co nvin cing evi dence that hospital ization was the least restr ictive treatme nt altern ative for re spon dent. Mr. Morris tes tif ied that he would not e xpect respondent

to continue his medi cati on if he were to be rele ased from a st ructured setting a nd that, as a res ult, his conditi on would deteri orate. He noted that even i n the st

ructured setting of a hospit al, r espondent hadbehav ior al ma nage ment p robl ems and h ad to b e put in restraints
as recently as two weeks before t he heari ng. Respondent was suffering f

rom delus ions, and the day before t

he heari ng he could not eve n state h is own age or the day , month, o r year. As a result, Mr. Morris rec ommended hospit aliz ation a s the l east restricti ve treatment alte rnati ve. The comprehensi ve 30-day t reatment plan fil ed with the pe tition st ated that respo nden t was non com pliant w ith his med ication s and that his in sight into his psy chiatric conditi on was qui te poo r. He wa s noted as exhibiti ng ve rbal and phys ical agg ressi on and presenting bizarre and gro ssly ill ogic al cont ent of s peech. He continued t o report that he was recei vingmessag es from hi s radi os, and he was not responding well to hi s medica tion , cau si ng him to cont

inue to ha ve active auditor y halluc inati ons upon which he act ed. Respondent was diagnosed as sufferin g fr om schizoaf fecti ve di sorder and bipolar and antis ocial perso nality d isorde r, base d on his pa rano id pers ecuto ry de lusion s. H is psychiatrist and psycholog ist

concurred t

hat in order for

respondent

to be rec ommended for a transfe r to8

a less restrictive alte rnati ve fac ili ty, re spondent would hav e to exhi bit anabili ty to i nhibit any sig nifi cantimpulses of vi olence toward himself or others, must expre ss a genuine d esire for
a trans fer, be cooperative with treatment recommendations, be me dication-compl iant, and have reasonabl e pl ans t o ma intain a succ essful p lacem ent in a less sec ure en vironme nt. Con trary to respond ent's allegati ons, there was clear a nd convi ncing evi dence to suppor t the conclusi on that hospital ization was the least restrict ive treat ment al ternat

ive . See In re L ouis S. , 361 Ill. App. 3 d 76 3, 77 1, 83 8 N .E.2 d 21 8, 22 4 (20 05); In re Wingo , 253 Il l. App. 3d 440, 442, 62 5 N.E .2d 422 , 423-24 (1993). For his fi nal point

on appe al, re spo nde nt co nten ds h e w as d enie d th e eff ective assis tance of counsel , and he urg es us to reject the well -accept ed standard of rev iew for clai ms of ineff ecti ve ass ist ance of counse l with respect to cases deal ing wit h the men tally ill. To prove the ineff

ective ass is ta nc e o f c ou ns el , a de fe nd an t m us t p ro ve bo th th at co un se l's performance fellbelow an objective standar d of reas onableness and that t he defic ient performance caused p rejudi ce in that, absent counsel' s deficient perf ormance, there is a reasonabl e probabil ity t hat the resul t of t

he proceedi ng wo uld h ave be en diff erent. Peop le
v. Evans , 209 I ll. 2d 194, 219-20, 808 N.E.2d 939, 953 (2004). As discuss ed in In re Carmody , the Stri ckland standar d ( Stri ckland v . Wash ington , 466 U.S. 668, 80 L . Ed. 2d 674, 104 S. Ct. 2052 ( 1984)) has been appli ed for ev aluating c laims of ineff ecti ve ass ist ance of coun sel in other ci villaw context s such as determini ng malpr acti ce clai ms, the termination of parenta l ri ghts , and abuse andnegl ectcases and has been adopted i n other areas of the law deali ng with the ment ally i ll who are f acing a loss of

liberty. In re Carmody , 274 I ll. App. 3d 46, 56-57, 653 N.E.2d 977, 985 ( 1995). We see no reaso n to rejec t the Stri ckland standar d at thi s ti me, because i t appear s to be suffi cient to p rote ct the right to the e ffec tive assis tance of coun sel for a civ il commi tment. Here, responde nt suff ered no prej udice base d
on the al leg ed proc edural e rrors . He receiv ed a full hearingbefore a f

inder of fact on t heissue of his c ontinued e lig ibil ity f or inv oluntar

y admissi on and was found to be s ubjec t to involuntary commitment . Respondent was not neg lect ed; any de lay wa s only a ma tter of a few days and he conti nued to rec eiv e treatment during that t ime fr ame. Any of t

he all eged deficie ncies c learly d id no t prejud ice resp ond ent. C oun sel, theref ore, was not i neffect

ive
. Other petition s, certifica tes, an d no tices co uld h ave be en filed , but t he res ult wo uld have been the same g ive n respondent 's long hi story of mental ill ness and his failure to res pond to medication and hospit aliz ation. Objecti ons by tri al counselmight have re sult ed in addi tional pro cee din gs but w ould not have resul ted in any benefit to res pondent. S ee In re Luker , 255 Ill. App. 3d at 371, 627 N.E.2d at 1169. Agai n, we find no i neffect ive assis tance of

counsel in thi s inst ance. For the foregoi ng reas ons, we affi rm the j udgment of the ci rcuit

court of Randolph County.

Affi rmed.

GO LDE NH ER SH and SPOM ER , JJ., concu r.