No. 2-- 06--1244 Fil ed: 1-14-08

______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APP ELL ATE C OURT

OF IL LINO IS SECOND DI STRICT

______________________________________________________________________________ In re JO NA THA N P. , Al l eg ed

to be a Pe rs on ) Ap

peal f rom th e Ci rcui t Court Sub j ec t to In vol un tary A dm i ss i on ) o f Ka ne Co un t y.

) ) No. 06-- MH--178 ) (The Peo ple of the Stat e of Ill in ois, ) Ho no r ab le Peti tion er-A ppel l ee, v . Jona

than P., ) Jam

es C. Hal lock, Res ponde nt-A ppel l an t). ) Judge, Presi din g.

______________________________________________________________________________ JU STI CEHUTC HI

NS ON de l i v ered th e op i ni on of th e c our t: Re sp on den

t, Jon ath an P., appe als f

rom th e tr i al cou rt' s or der a uth ori zi n g th e invo l unta ry ad m i ni stra ti on o f ps ycho t r o pic med

i ca ti on to hi m f or u p to 90 d ay s purs ua nt to s ec ti on 2 --1 07. 1 of t he Men tal Heal th an d Dev elopmen tal Di sabi l i tie s Code (the C ode) (405 ILCS 5/2--1 07.1 (W es t 20 06 ) )
. Re sp o nd en t co nt en ds t ha t t he o r de rsho uld be r ev er se d b ec au se it fails t o co mply wit h t he Code i n th at i t doe s n ot n am e th e p er son s a uth ori ze d to a dm i n i ste r the m ed i ca ti on . Th e S tate confes ses error. We reverse. On Dece m ber 8 , 2006, respondent's ps yc hiatrist at the Elgi

n Men tal Heal th Center fi

le d a pe ti ti on req ue sti ng au thor iza ti on to a dm i ni ster i nv ol un tary medi ca ti on t o r esp ond ent . Fo llowing an evi den tia ry heari ng, the trial

court concl

uded that the Stat e m

et i ts b urd en of sho wing, wit h clear and
co nvincing

evi dence, that respondent was i n ne ed of invo lunt ar y medicat ion. The trial court 's orderNo. 2-- 06--1244

-2-

aut hor izing

in volun tary treatment did not specif y w ho was to admi

ni stert he medica t ion. Resp ond ent timel y appeals. I nit iall y, we no t e t ha t t he t r ial c o ur t 's o r de rwa s e ffe ct ive fo rno mo r e t ha n 9 0 d ays and thus hasexpir ed, making t his case moo t . H ow ever , a s t he i ss uepre sente d i s " 'c ap ab l e of repetition, y

et evad ingre view' " ( In re Barbara H. , 183 Ill . 2d 482, 491 (1998), quo ting In re A Mi nor , 127 Ill . 2d 24 7, 25 8 ( 19 89 ) ) , we co nsid er r es po nd en t 's a pp ea l. Resp ond ent argues thatt he t rial co ur t 's o rd er violat ed s ect ion 2
-- 107 .1 of t he Code because it di d n ot desi gnat e the

pers ons a

uthori zed to adm

i nister m edi cation. See

405 IL CS 5/2
-- 107. 1(a-5 )(6) (Wes t 200 6) . S ect ion 2
-- 107 .1 (a -5 )( 6) pr ovid es t hat an o rd er aut hor izing t he ad m i ni stra ti on of ps ych otropi c m edi ca ti on "shall des ignat e t he pe rso ns au t hor ized t o a dminister t he authorized

involunt ar y tr eat ment u nder t he st anda rd s and procedu res of thi s su bs ection." 405 ILCS 5/2--107.1(a-5) (6) (We st 2006 ). T he pu r po se o f t his r eq ui r eme nt is t o en su r e in vo lve men t by a qualif ie d prof ess i onal f am i l i ar wi th the resp ondent' s i

ndi vi dual si tuati on an

d he al th status
. In re Cynt hiaS. , 326 Ill . App. 3d 65, 68-69 (2001) . Bec aus e the i nv olu ntary ad m i ni stra ti on of medi ca ti on af f ects im port ant li berty i nterests, strict complia

nce wi th statut ory procedures i s req ui red. In re Lisa G.C. , 37 3 I ll . A

pp. 3d 5 86, 590

(20 07) . Th

us , th e f ai l ure to na me s pe cif i c i nd i vi dua l s w ho a r e authorized

t o ad minis t er t he medi

cation wa rran ts reversa l
. Cy nthi a S. , 326 Ill . App. 3d at 69. Al thoughrespondent fai

led to raise t his issue in t he trial court , im port ant li berty i nterests are in

volv ed and, there f

ore, we a ddres s i t as pl ai n error. See 134 Ill. 2d R. 615 (a) ; In re Richard C. , 329 Ill . App. 3d 1 090 , 10 94 ( 200 2); Cy nthi a S. , 326 Ill . App. 3d at 68. T he parties dispute the appli cabl e standard of rev

ie w. It is true that, on review , t he t r ia l
co ur t 's fa ctual fi

ndi ngs are entitled to gr eat deference because the tr ial cour t st ands i

n the bestNo. 2-- 06--1244

-3-

p osi ti on t o w eigh t he cr edibility of t he wit nesse s; t hus, t he t rial co ur t 's fact ual find ing s w ill b e reversed onl

y i f they are ma nifes tly erroneous. See In re Christopher P. , 34 2 I ll. App. 3d 336, 341 (2003) (apply

in g "man if estly erro neous" standard t o t he trial court's factual f in din gs); see also In re Do ro t hy W. , 295 Ill . App. 3d 107, 108 (1998) (same) . However, here we are not asked to review t he trial court 's f actual f in din gs but rather to decide whet her its or der st rict ly complied wit h t he statut e. Thi s pres en

ts a que sti on of la w, which we rev

ie w de no vo . See Lis a G.C. , 37 3 I ll. App. 3d at 59 0 (wh

eth er th e S tate strictly compl ie d with the procedural

requirem ents of the Code i s a

que sti on of law to be revi ewed de no vo ); In re Lesl ie H. , 36 9 I ll. A pp . 3d 85 4, 85 6 ( 20 06 ) ( sa me )
. Here, it is uncontro verted t hat the o rder fails to designate who is au t ho r iz ed to admi ni ster ps ycho t r o pic medi

cation to resp ondent. Theref ore, the order d oe s no t co mply with t he Co de a nd must be reversed. See Rich

ard C. , 32 9 I ll. App. 3d a t 109 4. A remand is not nece ssar y, since t he administr at ion o f medicat ion has been t er minated acc or ding to the term s of the orde r. Rich ard C. , 329 Ill . App. 3d at 1094. The j udgme

nt of the ci

rcuit court o f K

ane County

is reversed. Reversed. BYR NE, P.J., a

nd B OW MA N, J., c oncu

r.