Court Opinion

ID: 9962878
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-23 21:04:39.183196+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:58.726689
License: Public Domain

2024 IL App (3d) 220250

                                 Opinion filed April 23, 2024
      ____________________________________________________________________________

                                                   IN THE

                                   APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

                                             THIRD DISTRICT

                                                     2024

      In re CAROLYN J.S., a Person Found     )     Appeal from the Circuit Court
      Subject to Involuntary Admission,      )     of the 18th Judicial Circuit,
                                             )     Du Page County, Illinois.
      (The People of the State of Illinois,  )
                                             )     Appeal No. 3-22-0250
      Petitioner- Appellee                   )     Circuit No. 22-MH-142
                                             )
              v.                             )     The Honorable
                                             )     Craig R. Belford,
      Carolyn J.S.,                           )    Judge, presiding.
                                             )
               Respondent-Appellant)         )
      ____________________________________________________________________________

             PRESIDING JUSTICE McDADE delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.
             Justice Holdridge concurred in the judgment and opinion.
             Justice Davenport dissented, with opinion.

                                                 OPINION

¶1          Respondent, Carolyn J. S., appeals from the order of the circuit court of Du Page County

     finding her subject to involuntary admission under the Mental Health and Developmental

     Disabilities Code (Mental Health Code) (405 ILCS 5/1-100 et seq. (West 2022)). For the reasons

     that follow, we reverse the circuit court’s judgment.

¶2                                          I. BACKGROUND
¶3          In March 2022, respondent’s daughter brought her to Elmhurst Hospital for a mental health

     evaluation. On March 14, an assessment specialist completed a petition for involuntary admission,

     alleging that respondent was subject to involuntary admission pursuant to section 1-119(1) and (2)

     of the Mental Health Code (id. § 1-119(1), (2)). Specifically, the petition alleged that respondent

     was a person with mental illness who, because of her illness, was (1) “reasonably expected, unless

     treated on an inpatient basis, to engage in conduct placing such person or another in physical harm

     or in reasonable expectation of being physically harmed” (see id. § 1-119(1)), and (2) “unable to

     provide for *** her basic physical needs so as to guard *** herself from serious harm without the

     assistance of family or others, unless treated on an inpatient basis” (see id. § 1-119(2)).

¶4          On March 15, a physician completed a new certificate that alleged that respondent was

     subject to involuntary admission, pursuant only to section 1-119(2). Respondent was then

     transferred to Linden Oaks Behavioral Health Center (Linden Oaks), where, on March 16, Dr.

     Walter Whang completed a certificate stating that respondent was subject to involuntary admission

     pursuant only to section 1-119(2).

¶5          On March 17, the circuit court entered an order appointing counsel to represent respondent

     and scheduling a hearing on the petition for March 22, at 1:30 p.m. During the morning of March

     22, Dr. Whang completed a new certificate alleging that respondent was subject to involuntary

     admission pursuant to section 1-119(2) and (3) (id. § 1-119(2), (3)). Relevant to section 1-119(3),

     the certificate specifically alleged that respondent was a person with mental illness who:

            “refuse[d] treatment or [was] not adequately to prescribed treatment;

                    *** because of the nature of *** her illness, [was] unable to understand *** her

            need for treatment; and

                                                       2
                    *** if not treated on an inpatient basis, [was] reasonably expected, based on ***

            her behavioral history, to suffer mental or emotional deterioration and [was] reasonably

            expected, after such deterioration, to meet the criteria of either [section 1-119(1)] or

            [section 119(2)].” See id. § 1-119(3).

¶6          On the afternoon of March 22, the circuit court entered an order continuing the hearing on

     the petition to March 24. At the start of the hearing, the circuit court and the parties addressed

     preliminary matters, during which time the State did not seek leave to amend its petition in light

     of Dr. Whang’s March 22 certificate.

¶7          Following the discussion of preliminary matters, the State called Dr. Whang to testify.

     During direct examination, the State questioned Dr. Whang about his March 22 certificate, and he

     testified that he believed that respondent was subject to involuntary admission pursuant to section

     1-119(2) and (3), as indicated in the certificate. Respondent objected to this line of testimony,

     arguing that it was not relevant to the issues framed by the petition. The court overruled the

     objection.

¶8          At the conclusion of its direct examination, the State moved to amend the petition to allege

     that respondent was also subject to involuntary admission pursuant to section 1-119(3), in addition

     to section 1-119(2) and in accordance with Dr. Whang’s March 22 certificate. Respondent

     objected, arguing that the hearing had been continued once before and that the amendment was

     unjustified and would prejudice her cross-examination, which she prepared based on her

     understanding that the State was proceeding pursuant to section 1-119(1) and (2), as alleged in the

     petition. The circuit court asked the State what necessitated its “late[-]hour” request, after which

     the following exchange occurred:

                                                      3
                         “[THE STATE]: Quite frankly, I believe that there was an oversight in having the

                 box [for section 1-119(3)] not being checked on the petition in matching the amended

                 certificate that was filed yesterday by Dr. Whang. I believe that—I mean, I believe that

                 respondent is on notice with the certificate filed by Dr. Whang yesterday, which does check

                 [the boxes for sections 1-119(2) and 1-119(3)], and being the treating psychiatrist and being

                 the witness testifying, that respondent would be on notice that at least Dr. Whang believed

                 that the [section 1-119(3)] criteria is at issue here today.

                        THE COURT: * * * Just to confirm, the State is asking to amend the petition to

                 conform to the certificate that was filed yesterday, is that correct?

                        [THE STATE]: Correct.”

       The circuit court then granted the State’s motion to amend the petition and, at the conclusion of

       the hearing, found that respondent was subject to involuntary admission pursuant to section 1-

       119(3).

¶9               On April 22, 2022, respondent filed a motion for reconsideration. The circuit court denied

       the motion, and respondent now appeals.

¶ 10                                                II. ANALYSIS

¶ 11             On appeal, respondent argues that the circuit court erred by granting the State’s motion to

       amend the petition. In turn, the State argues, and respondent does not dispute, that this appeal is

       moot because respondent has already been released from Linden Oaks.

¶ 12             As a general rule, reviewing courts do not decide moot questions, render advisory opinions,

       or consider issues where the result will not be affected regardless of how those issues are decided.

       In re Barbara H., 183 Ill. 2d 482, 491 (1998). “An appeal is moot if no actual controversy exists

                                                            4
       or when events have occurred that make it impossible for the reviewing court to render effectual

       relief.” Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Ill. Commerce Comm’n, 2016 IL 118129, ¶ 10.

¶ 13           The record in this case shows that, on March 24, 2022, the circuit court entered an order

       subjecting respondent to involuntary admission and stating that her period of hospitalization was

       not to exceed 90 days. During a May 27, 2022, hearing on respondent’s motion for reconsideration,

       the circuit court noted the State’s assertion in its written response to the motion that respondent

       had indeed already been released from hospitalization at Linden Oaks. Thus, this appeal is moot.

¶ 14           Despite agreeing that her appeal is moot, appellant urges us to consider the issues raised in

       the appeal, pursuant to two recognized exceptions to the mootness doctrine: (1) the public-interest

       exception and (2) the capable-of-repetition exception. In re Rob W., 2021 IL App (1st) 200149,

       ¶ 50 (naming the public-interest exceptions and the capable-of-repetition exceptions as two

       recognized exceptions to mootness). The issue of whether an exception to the mootness doctrine

       applies must be determined on a case-by-case basis and is reviewed de novo. McHenry Township

       Road District v. Pritzker, 2021 IL App (2d) 200636, ¶ 37.

¶ 15           The public-interest exception “permits review of an otherwise moot question where the

       ‘magnitude or immediacy of the interests involved warrant[s] action by the court.’ ” In re Shelby

       R., 2013 IL 114994, ¶ 16 (quoting Felzak v. Hruby, 226 Ill. 2d 382, 392 (2007)). There are three

       criteria to this exception: (1) that the question presented is of a public nature, (2) that an

       authoritative determination of the question is desirable for the future guidance of public officers,

       and (3) that the question is likely to recur. Id.

¶ 16           Bearing upon the first criterion, respondent’s appeal raises the issue of whether the circuit

       court properly allowed the State to amend its petition during the hearing on the petition, and when,

       according to respondent, this mid-hearing amendment precluded her from developing an adequate

                                                           5
       defense against the new allegations, thereby violating her right to due process. Our supreme court

       has stated that “the procedures which must be followed and the proofs that must be made before a

       court may authorize involuntary treatment to recipients of mental health services are matters of a

       public nature and of substantial public concern.” In re Mary Ann P., 202 Ill. 2d 393, 402 (2002).

       We have since applied this principle in numerous other involuntary-admission cases. See, e.g.,

       In re Linda B., 2015 IL App (1st) 132134, ¶ 13 (“This issue presents a question of public nature

       and substantial public concern because it involves a dispute over the procedural requirements for

       involuntary admission of individuals on an inpatient basis.”); In re Lance H., 2014 IL 114899, ¶ 14

       (finding that the case involved a question of public nature because it concerned the procedure for

       how a circuit court must address a respondent’s request for voluntary admission after the

       involuntary-admission hearing had already begun). Thus, in that respondent’s appeal pertains to

       the appropriate procedures for when the State requests to amend its petition during an involuntary-

       admission hearing, the appeal presents a question of a public nature.

¶ 17          As to the second criterion, the State argues that it has not been met because this appeal does

       not implicate an area in the law that is in disarray or in which there is conflicting precedent. While

       courts have recognized a need for authoritative determination where, as the State points out, we

       have been divided on an issue (see, e.g., In re Andrew B., 237 Ill. 2d 340, 347 (2010) (“The second

       element is satisfied because our appellate court is divided on the issue, resulting in the need for an

       authoritative determination by this court.”)), such a need has also been recognized when an appeal

       raises an issue of first impression. See, e.g., In re Rita P., 2014 IL 115798, ¶ 37 (finding that an

       issue was in need of an authoritative determination because it was one of first impression). As

       respondent points out, there is no Illinois appellate opinion that has addressed the issue of

                                                         6
       amendments in mental health proceedings. Consequently, the issue is one of first impression and

       that is in need of an authoritative determination.

¶ 18           Relevant to the third criterion, respondent has a history of mental illness, having once

       before been found subject to involuntary admission, prior to these proceedings. Additionally, we

       take judicial notice of the fact that, as respondent points out, the State filed an amended petition in

       her concurrent involuntary-medication proceedings in case No. 3-22-0249, without first seeking

       leave to amend. See In re Marcus S., 2022 IL App (3d) 160710, ¶ 47 n.2 (“We may take judicial

       notice of the record in another case involving the same party or of public documents contained in

       the record of any other judicial proceeding if doing so would aid us in deciding the instant case.”).

       Last, section 3-611 of the Mental Health Code requires the hearing on an admission petition to be

       conducted within five days of the petition being filed. 405 ILCS 5/3-611 (West 2022). This short

       time frame between the filing of a petition and the date by which the hearing on the petition must

       occur minimizes the State’s opportunity to amend the petition prior to the hearing and, as it follows,

       increases the likelihood of the State seeking to amend the petition during the hearing. Such

       indicates that the issue of the proper procedures for when the State seeks to amend its admission

       petition is likely to recur.

¶ 19           However, in arguing that the issue raised in this appeal is not likely to recur, the State points

       to the fact that, during the hearing on the petition, it expressed to the circuit court that its mid-

       hearing amendment was due to an “oversight” and not to a routine practice. Even taking this

       assertion as true, that the State characterizes its mid-hearing amendment as being inadvertent does

       not, alone, foreclose the possibility of it seeking another mid-hearing amendment in the future.

       Thus, we find that the third criterion of the public-interest exception is satisfied, and that the

       exception applies in this case.

                                                            7
¶ 20          Turning to the capable-of-repetition exception, there are two requirements for the exception

       to apply: (1) that the challenged action “be of a duration too short to be fully litigated prior to its

       cessation,” and (2) that there “be a reasonable expectation that ‘the same complaining party would

       be subjected to the same action again.’ ” In re Alfred H.H., 233 Ill. 2d 345, 358 (2009) (quoting

       Barbara H., 183 Ill. 2d at 491).

¶ 21          Respondent argues, and the State does not dispute, that the duration of the admission order

       was too short for the issue regarding the State’s mid-hearing amendment to be fully litigated prior

       to its cessation, in that the order was effective for only 90 days. We agree. See id. (finding that the

       first criterion under the capable-of-repetition exception had been met because the order was limited

       to 90 days). We also find that there is a reasonable expectation that respondent would again be

       subject to a mid-hearing amendment, because, as we noted above, she has a history of mental

       illness that has once before resulted in her being subject to involuntary admission, and the

       requirement that a hearing must be conducted within five days of an admission petition being filed

       increases the likelihood of the State seeking to amend the petition during the hearing. For these

       reasons, the capable-of-repetition exception also applies.

¶ 22          Relevant to the merits of respondent’s appeal, due process in a civil case requires notice,

       an opportunity to present evidence and argument on one’s own behalf, a right to cross-examine

       adverse witnesses, and impartial rulings being entered on the evidence offered. Diamond Mortgage

       Corp. of Illinois v. Armstrong, 176 Ill. App. 3d 64, 69 (1988). Separately, section 2-616(c) of the

       Code of Civil Procedure provides that “[a] pleading may be amended at any time, before or after

       judgment, to conform the pleadings to the proofs.” 735 ILCS 5/2-616(c) (West 2022). “The

       decision to grant or deny a motion for leave to amend is within the discretion of the trial court and

                                                         8
       its decision will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion.” Selcke v. Bove, 258

       Ill. App. 3d 932, 937 (1994).

¶ 23          Respondent cites to Koplin v. Hinsdale Hospital, 207 Ill. App. 3d 219 (1990) and Gray v.

       City of Plano, 141 Ill. App. 3d 575 (1986), to support her argument that the circuit court violated

       her right to due process by permitting the State to make its mid-hearing amendment. In Koplin, the

       plaintiff moved to amend his complaint to conform with the proofs, after he and the defendant

       rested their respective cases during a preliminary injunction hearing. Koplin, 207 Ill. App. 3d at

       222, 225, 228-29. The circuit court allowed the plaintiff to amend his complaint, and then issued

       injunctions against the defendant. Id. at 229. On appeal, the appellate court found that the circuit

       court abused its discretion by allowing the plaintiff to amend his complaint to conform to the

       proofs because “it served to deprive the [defendant] of its due process right to prepare and offer a

       defense to a cause of action different from that stated in the original complaint.” Id. at 238.

¶ 24          Separately, in Gray, the circuit court permitted the plaintiffs to file a second-amended

       complaint to conform to the proofs, at the conclusion of their case-in-chief at trial. Gray, 141 Ill.

       App. 3d at 580-81. Judgment was later entered in favor of the plaintiffs, at the conclusion of the

       trial. Id. at 577. The appellate court reversed the judgment for the plaintiffs, citing to Blazina v.

       Blazina, 42 Ill. App. 3d 159, 165 (1976), the court in which stated:

                      “Once a trial has begun[,] ***an amendment should not ordinarily be permitted to

              set up matters of which the pleader had full knowledge at the time of interposing the

              original pleading and no excuse is presented for not putting its substance in the original

              pleading. [Citations.] This is particularly true where the amendment is prejudicial or would

              alter the nature and quality of proof required to defend.”

                                                         9
       In reversing judgment for the plaintiffs, the appellate court in Gray noted that the plaintiffs did not

       offer any explanation for why they did not include the additional allegations in their original

       complaint. Gray, 141 Ill. App. 3d at 582.

¶ 25          The admission petition in this case was filed on March 15, 2022, and alleged that

       respondent was subject to involuntary admission pursuant to section 1-119(1) and (2) of the Mental

       Health Code. The certificate offered with the admission petition stated that respondent was subject

       to involuntary admission on these same grounds. However, on March 22, 2022, Dr. Whang

       completed a new certificate that stated that respondent was subject to involuntary admission

       pursuant to section 1-119(2) and (3). The State never sought to amend the admission petition prior

       to the March 24, 2022, hearing on the petition.

¶ 26          During the admission hearing, the State conducted a direct examination of Dr. Whang, who

       testified that he believed that respondent was subject to involuntary admission under section 1-

       119(3). After concluding the direct examination, the State sought leave to amend the admission

       petition to conform to Dr. Whang’s latest certificate and allege that respondent was subject to

       involuntary admission pursuant to section 1-119(1) through (3). In seeking leave, the State stated

       that its failure to previously allege section 1-119(3) as a ground for involuntary admission was a

       matter of “oversight.” The State also argued that respondent was on notice that at least Dr. Whang

       believed that section 1-119(3) was a ground for her involuntary admission at issue at the hearing,

       based on his most recent certificate. The circuit court then allowed the State to amend the

       admission petition, over respondent’s objection, and found that she was subject to involuntary

       admission under section 1-119(3).

¶ 27          Similar to the circumstances in Koplin, the State’s mid-hearing amendment deprived

       respondent of the ability to offer a defense to a new ground for her involuntary admission that was

                                                         10
       not included in the original admission petition. This stands regardless of whether, as the State

       argues, Whang’s latest certificate put respondent on notice of what he believed were the grounds

       for involuntary admission. This is because Whang’s believed grounds were not dispositive of the

       grounds upon which the State was actually going to proceed during the admission hearing. Thus,

       the State’s argument that respondent had notice that involuntary admission pursuant to section 1-

       119(3) would be at issue during the admission hearing is unpersuasive.

¶ 28          Additionally, like the plaintiffs in Gray, who did not dispute that they had full knowledge

       of the allegations that they sought to add via an amended pleading, at the time of the original

       pleading, so too does the State here not dispute as much. Rather, the State explained to the circuit

       court that it sought to amend the admission petition merely to correct an “oversight.” That the State

       characterizes its failure to allege section 1-119(3) as a ground for involuntary admission as an

       “oversight” suggests that the State had full knowledge of this potential ground prior to the

       admission hearing. Furthermore, as discussed in Blazina, the State’s mid-hearing amendment

       altered the quality and nature of proof necessary for respondent’s defense against involuntary

       admission. See generally 405 ILCS 5/1-119 (West 2022) (enumerating the different grounds upon

       which a person may be subject to involuntary admission). Consequently, the circuit court violated

       respondent’s right to due process by allowing the State to amend the admission petition mid-

       hearing, and its order granting the State’s motion for leave to amend was an abuse of discretion.

¶ 29                                          III. CONCLUSION

¶ 30          For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the judgment of the circuit court of Du Page County.

¶ 31          Reversed.

¶ 32          JUSTICE DAVENPORT, dissenting:

                                                        11
¶ 33          I respectfully dissent. In my view, respondent failed to establish that her appeal falls

       within the public-interest exception or capable-of-repetition exception to the mootness doctrine. I

       would therefore dismiss the appeal as moot.

¶ 34          Respondent challenges a moot order; she was discharged from the facility before she

       initiated this appeal, and in any event, the order has expired. Respondent contends the circuit court

       erred when it allowed the State’s mid-trial oral motion to amend its petition to include an allegation

       that respondent was subject to admission under section 1-119(3) of the Mental Health and

       Developmental Disabilities Code (Mental Health Code) (405 ILCS 5/1-119(3) (West 2022)).

       Specifically, she argues the court’s decision to allow the midtrial amendment was an abuse of

       discretion that violated her right to due process. Respondent emphasizes the liberty interests

       involved in these proceedings but otherwise argues the court abused its discretion under the

       traditional factors a court must consider when deciding a request to amend a pleading. See, e.g.,

       Loyola Academy v. S&S Roof Maintenance, Inc., 146 Ill. 2d 263, 273-74 (1992).

¶ 35          The public-interest exception has three criteria: “(1) the question presented is of a public

       nature; (2) there is a need for an authoritative determination for the future guidance of public

       officers; and (3) there is a likelihood of future recurrence of the question.” In re Alfred H.H., 233

       Ill. 2d 345, 355 (2009).

¶ 36          The first criterion requires the specific question presented to be one of broad public interest.

       Id. at 356-57. Thus, questions that are inherently case-specific, such as the review of matters of

       discretion, are generally not suitable for review under the public-interest exception. Id.; People v.

       Cousins, 2023 IL App (1st) 230234, ¶ 16. Though respondent couches her argument as a violation

       of due process, her true contention is that the circuit court abused its discretion in allowing the

       amendment under the particular circumstances of this case. See In re Daniel K., 2013 IL App (2d)

                                                        12
       111251, ¶ 20 (declining to review a matter of discretion—the admission of evidence—under the

       public-interest or capable-of-repetition exceptions, because the issue was fact dependent). Thus,

       respondent has not established the first criterion of the public-interest exception.

¶ 37          The next criterion requires that there be a need for an authoritative determination for the

       future guidance of public officers. In assessing this criterion, we view the state of the law as it

       relates to the question presented and are concerned primarily with questions that confront disarray

       in the law or implicate conflicting precedent. In re Shelby R., 2013 IL 114994, ¶ 19. The absence

       of disarray or conflicting precedent, however, does not necessarily bar review; issues of first

       impression may also satisfy this criterion. Id. ¶¶ 20-21.

¶ 38          In her appeal from the admission order, respondent does not ask us to settle conflicting

       precedent or provide order to an area of the law that is in disarray. And contrary to respondent’s

       assertion, the question presented in her appeal from the admission order is not a matter of first

       impression. Admittedly, there exists a dearth of case law involving pleading amendments in cases

       arising under the Mental Health Code. But the dearth of authority in this specific context does not

       transform an otherwise common procedural question into a matter of first impression. The parties

       do not dispute that section 2-616 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-616 (West 2022))

       applied to these proceedings. 405 ILCS 5/6-100 (West 2022). Innumerable cases exist to guide

       courts in the exercise of their discretion under section 2-616. Here, respondent does not advocate

       for a rule barring all mid-trial amendments in mental health cases; she asks us to do nothing more

       than apply well-settled precedent governing pleading amendments to the specific facts of her case

       and conclude the circuit court abused its discretion. Accordingly, respondent has not established

       the second criterion of the public-interest exception.

                                                        13
¶ 39          The third criterion requires that the question presented be substantially likely to recur. See

       Alfred H.H., 233 Ill. 2d at 355. Respondent has failed to make this showing. Again, this case

       presents a case-specific question. This issue does not require an interpretation of or involve the

       court’s compliance with the Mental Health Code, and it does not, by its nature, arise in every

       mental health proceeding. Cf. In re Rita P., 2014 IL 115798, ¶ 39 (finding the third criterion

       satisfied where the question presented was the interpretation of a statute that, by its terms, applied

       to every final order entered under the Mental Health Code and the issue was frequently raised in

       other appeals). Moreover, respondent has not shown that the question arises frequently in mental

       health cases. Compare In re Marriage of Eckersall, 2015 IL 117922, ¶ 16 (noting the lack of past

       litigation on the issue demonstrates the issue is not likely to recur), with In re Laura H., 404 Ill.

       App. 3d 286, 289 (2010) (explaining the frequent recurrence of an issue demonstrates both that

       further authoritative guidance is needed and the issue is likely to recur).

¶ 40          Additionally, the State acknowledged its “oversight” in failing to ask for leave to amend

       its petition to conform to Dr. Whang’s March 22 certificate in the two-day period before the March

       24 hearing. The circuit court accepted the State’s representation, finding the State had made a

       “mistake” that it had not made before and was not likely to make again. There is no basis to second-

       guess the court’s finding, especially since the State acknowledges on appeal, without conceding

       error, it would have been the “better practice” to ask for leave to amend earlier in the proceedings.

¶ 41          Respondent also notes that the State also amended its petition in the medication

       proceedings and did so without first asking for leave of court. See In re Carolyn J.S., 2024 IL App

       (3d) 220249, ¶ 7. She asserts this demonstrates the issue presented in this appeal—whether the

       court abused its discretion by allowing a mid-trial, oral request to amend—is substantially likely

       to recur. I disagree. The suggested error in the medication proceedings is different from the error

                                                        14
       claimed in this appeal. The fact that the State amended its petition in those proceedings does not

       make it any more likely that the complained-of error in this appeal will arise in the future.

¶ 42             Because respondent has not clearly established each criterion, I would find the public-

       interest exception does not apply. See Alfred H.H., 233 Ill. 2d at 355-56.

¶ 43             The capable-of-repetition exception has two criteria: (1) “the challenged action must be of

       a duration too short to be fully litigated prior to its cessation,” and (2) “there must be a reasonable

       expectation that the same complaining party would be subjected to the same action again.”

       (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. at 358.

¶ 44             This appeal satisfies the first criterion of the exception. The admission order had a duration

       of 90 days, which was too short to permit this question to be fully litigated prior to its cessation.

       See id.

¶ 45             However, respondent has failed to establish she can reasonably expect to encounter this

       issue in the future. Id. at 358-59. Respondent raises two points concerning this criterion. First, she

       asserts that based on her history of mental illness and her previous hospitalization, “it is ***

       reasonable to expect that the same action could confront [her] again.” Respondent has a long

       history of mental illness and previously faced involuntary admission once before. The record also

       shows she was discharged from the facility before April 22, 2022, that is, at least 59 days before

       the admission order expired, suggesting she improved to the point of no longer needing involuntary

       hospitalization. However, given the fact respondent has previously failed to treat her mental illness

       outside of a controlled setting, we find it reasonably likely she will again be subject to involuntary

       admission proceedings.

¶ 46             Nevertheless, the mere likelihood that she will again be subject to involuntary admission

       proceedings does not satisfy the second criterion of the capable-of-repetition exception. See id. at

                                                          15
       359. In Alfred H.H., the supreme court rejected such an argument, reasoning it was too broad. Id.

       Instead, respondent must show “the actions *** have a substantial enough relation that the

       resolution of the issue in the present case would be likely to affect a future case involving

       respondent.” Id.

¶ 47          Again, the question presented here does not involve a matter of Mental Health Code

       interpretation or compliance and will not, by its nature, necessarily arise in a future case involving

       respondent. Cf. Carolyn J.S., 2024 IL App (3d) 220249, ¶ 22 (concluding the capable-of-repetition

       exception applied to an issue involving the sufficiency of a medication petition, because a petition

       is filed in every case and was prepared on a form still available on the Department of Human

       Services website). It is a case-specific question that may never arise in any future proceeding

       involving respondent. And again, there is no reason to doubt the court’s finding that the State had,

       essentially, committed a one-time mistake by waiting until the close of its direct examination of

       Dr. Whang to ask for leave to amend the petition.

¶ 48          Second, respondent again notes the State filed an amended complaint without first

       obtaining leave of court in the medication proceedings. Id. ¶ 7. This does not establish a reasonable

       expectation that respondent will again be subject to a midtrial pleading amendment.

¶ 49          Because respondent has not established a reasonable expectation that she would be

       subjected to the same action again, I would find the capable-of-repetition exception does not apply.

       See Alfred H.H., 233 Ill. 2d at 358.

¶ 50          Respondent has failed to establish either of her claimed exceptions to the mootness doctrine

       applies to her appeal. I would dismiss the appeal as moot. Thus, I respectfully dissent.

                                                        16
                    In re Carolyn J.S., 2024 IL App (3d) 220250

Decision Under Review:    Appeal from the Circuit Court of Du Page County, No. 22-MH-
                          142; the Hon. Craig R. Belford, Judge, presiding.

Attorneys                 Veronique Baker and Laurel Spahn, of Illinois Guardianship &
for                       Advocacy Commission, of Hines, for appellant.
Appellant:

Attorneys                 Bob Berlin, State’s Attorney, of Wheaton (Lisa Anne Hoffman
for                       and Trevor Prindle, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of counsel), for
Appellee:                 the People.

                                         17