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 KB.

HEATHER HODGES,

Petitioner-Appellee,

UNPUBLISHED

July 1, 2021

v No. 355651

Mecosta Probate Court

KB, LC No. 20-002023-MI

Respondent-Appellant.

Before: STEPHENS, P.J., and BECKERING and O’BRIEN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Respondent1appeals as of right the probate court’s order for involuntary mental health 

treatment. We affirm. 

I. BASIC FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Respondent was diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder bipolar type. Respondent had a 

long history of paranoia and was discharged from her adult foster care home after multiple 

altercations stemming from her noncompliance with her medications and paranoia toward staff 

and residents. Respondent briefly lived with her ex-boyfriend, but became paranoid toward him, 

so she moved to a homeless shelter. Respondent was hospitalized multiple times and in November

2020, presented in an emergency room, where she stated that she wanted to die, asked the admitting 

therapist to kill her, destroyed hospital property, and struck hospital staff. On November 12, 2020, 

a social worker filed a petition for involuntary mental health treatment, stating that respondent 

posed a danger to herself and did not understand her need for treatment. 

 

1

In light of the sensitive nature of the discussion of respondent’s health information, we do not 

identify her by name.
-2-

The probate court held a hearing regarding the petition, and respondent’s psychiatrist

testified that she had been showing a little improvement in the structured setting of the hospital, 

but he doubted that she would be able to function well outside of that setting. He stated that she 

had accepted her medications, but she did not understand her need for mental health treatment 

because she did not believe that she was mentally ill. Respondent believed that everyone was lying 

to her and that her counselors had fabricated her hospital records. Respondent testified at the 

hearing and interrupted the court multiple times. She testified that she understood that her 

diagnosis was bipolar one and stated that she “could” have schizoaffective disorder, but attempted 

to rationalize her paranoia by blaming her ex-boyfriend’s criminal history and drug use. 

Respondent agreed that she was willing to take her medications, but denied having any altercations 

with anyone in the hospital. She complained that her psychiatrists and case managers did not 

spend enough time with her and were trying “to play God” with her case.

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

demonstrated that respondent had a mental illness of schizoaffective disorder bipolar type that 

required treatment. The court also found that respondent posed a significant risk of harm to herself 

and others, as evidenced by her actions, and determined that her judgment was so impaired by her 

mental illness and lack of understanding of her need for treatment that she demonstrated an 

unwillingness to voluntarily participate in or adhere to treatment programs. The court ordered 

respondent to undergo up to 180 days of combined hospitalization and outpatient treatment, 

including no more than 60 days’ hospitalization.

II. ANALYSIS

Respondent argues that the probate court abused its discretion by finding that she was a 

person with a mental illness who required treatment pursuant to MCL 330.1401(1)(b) and (c). 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 (2018). “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.
-3-

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

illness is unable to attend to those of 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.

(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.

“ ‘Mental illness’ 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.

Respondent first argues that the probate court abused its discretion by finding that 

respondent was a person requiring treatment under MCL 330.1401(1)(b). However, the trial court 

did not make this finding. The court’s order stated that respondent was a person requiring 

treatment pursuant to MCL 330.1401(1)(a) and (c), and the box for subsection (b) was not checked. 

Therefore, the probate court did not abuse its discretion because it did not make any findings 

pursuant to MCL 330.1401(1)(b). 

Respondent next argues that the probate court abused its discretion by finding that she was 

a person requiring treatment under MCL 330.1401(1)(c). However, the court’s finding was 

supported by clear and convincing evidence. Respondent did not believe that she was mentally ill 

and believed that treatment staff lied to her and fabricated her records. Although respondent 

testified that she understood that she had been diagnosed with bipolarity, she attempted to 

rationalize her paranoia rather than acknowledging her schizoaffective disorder. Respondent 

repeatedly resisted treatment at the hospital, running away from an interview without warning, 

stating that she believed her case managers and psychiatrist had “[tried] to play God” with her 

case, and striking at hospital staff, while denying any altercations. Respondent had been 

noncompliant with her medications in the past, which led her to act out and be discharged from 

her adult foster care home. The evidence also showed that respondent’s condition substantially 

deteriorated when she was not hospitalized. Respondent was discharged from her adult foster 

home because of her paranoia and repeated altercations, became homeless because of her paranoia 

regarding her ex-boyfriend, struck hospital staff, and attempted to destroy hospital property. 

Therefore, clear and convincing evidence supported the probate court’s finding that respondent 

had a mental illness that made her unwilling to voluntarily participate in necessary treatment to 

prevent a relapse or harmful deterioration of her condition. Clear and convincing evidence also 

supported the probate court’s finding that respondent posed a substantial risk of significant 

physical or mental harm to herself and others. Respondent posed a substantial risk of significant 

physical harm to herself because she told physicians that she wants to die and asked a psychiatrist 

to kill her. She posed a substantial risk of significant physical harm to others because she had

repeated altercations with individuals at her adult foster care home and verbally and physically 
-4-

assaulted hospital staff. Therefore, clear and convincing evidence supported the probate court’s 

finding that respondent was mentally ill and required treatment pursuant to MCL 330.1401(1)(c). 

Affirmed. 

/s/ Cynthia Diane Stephens

/s/ Jane M. Beckering

/s/ Colleen A. O’Brien