Court Opinion

ID: 9963744
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-26 05:06:18.003939+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:58.434687
License: Public Domain

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to
                  revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

                           STATE OF MICHIGAN

                            COURT OF APPEALS

                                                                     UNPUBLISHED
In re JCO.                                                           April 25, 2024

BRIA BRUNETTE,

               Petitioner-Appellee,

v                                                                    No. 368003
                                                                     Grand Traverse Probate Court
JCO,                                                                 LC No. 05-028672-MI

               Respondent-Appellant.

Before: M. J. KELLY, P.J., and JANSEN and MURRAY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

       Respondent appeals as of right an order to continue mental health treatment. We affirm.

       On February 23, 2023, petitioner filed a petition in Grand Traverse Probate Court to subject
respondent to a continuing mental health treatment order. The petition noted that respondent was
diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type, and needed treatment at least five days per
week. Respondent does not believe he has a mental illness. On March 2, 2023, respondent filed
a motion requesting an independent clinical examination (ICE), and asked the trial court to adjourn
the hearing on the petition until after an ICE was completed. The trial court granted the motion,
authorizing an ICE by the doctor of respondent’s choice, and adjourned the hearing.

        On March 8, 2023, petitioner filed an ex parte emergency motion for a continued mental
health treatment order pending the completion of respondent’s ICE and rescheduled hearing. The
current mental health treatment order for respondent was in place until March 15, 2023, which did
not last long enough to cover the time before the hearing on the original petition would take place,
and petitioner wanted to ensure mental health treatment would continue throughout the ongoing
court proceedings. Petitioner and respondent stipulated to the entry of a court order for continued
mental health treatment pending the ICE of respondent and rescheduled hearing.

       The hearing on the petition was rescheduled for July 17, 2023, but respondent, in the
interim, filed another motion for an ICE to take place and to adjourn the hearing until after the ICE

                                                -1-
was completed. Respondent stated that the doctor he originally wanted to perform the ICE was
not available because of his own health problems. Respondent’s motion was granted and the trial
court stated that the ICE must be completed within 30 days or the hearing would proceed without
an ICE. Respondent had an appointment for an ICE scheduled for August 3, 2023, but missed it
because he was admitted to the psychiatric ward at Munson Medical Center and was unable to be
reached. He was offered an ICE by doctors at Munson Medical Center, but respondent declined
because he did not believe it would be impartial.

       Once again, the hearing was rescheduled, this time for August 14, 2023. Respondent filed
another motion to secure an ICE and adjourn the hearing. For the third time, the trial court granted
the motion and adjourned the hearing until September 18, 2023. At the hearing, respondent
renewed his request for an ICE and to adjourn the hearing. The trial court declined to grant more
time for an ICE because “the original request was so long ago,” and the court granted additional
time on several other occasions and yet the ICE still had not taken place. While the court was
sympathetic to respondent’s desire to have a specific doctor perform the ICE, it was not able to
happen, and respondent rejected other arrangements made available to him.

        On appeal, respondent argues that it was his right to receive an ICE under MCL
300.1463(1), and the trial court’s decision to conduct a hearing on the petition instead of
adjourning proceedings so he could obtain an ICE was an abuse of discretion because it violated
that right. We disagree.

        A trial court’s decision on a motion to adjourn is reviewed by this Court for an abuse of
discretion. Charter Twp of Ypsilanti v Dahabra, 338 Mich App 287, 292; 979 NW2d 725 (2021).
“An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court’s decision falls outside the range of reasonable
and principled outcomes.” Id.

       MCL 330.1463(1), part of the Mental Health Code, MCL 330.1001 et seq., states:

               If requested before the first scheduled hearing or at the first scheduled
       hearing before the first witness has been sworn on a petition, the subject of a petition
       in a hearing under this chapter has the right at his or her own expense, or if indigent,
       at public expense, to secure an independent clinical evaluation by a physician,
       psychiatrist, or licensed psychologist of his or her choice relevant to whether he or
       she requires treatment, whether he or she should be hospitalized or receive
       treatment other than hospitalization, and whether he or she is of legal capacity.

        “A motion for an adjournment must be based on good cause, and a court, in its discretion,
may grant an adjournment to promote the cause of justice.” Charter Twp of Ypsilanti, 338 Mich
App at 292 (quotation marks and citation omitted). This Court has held that to establish good
cause for an adjournment, a party must “show a legally sufficient or substantial reason” for an
adjournment to occur. Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). The Supreme Court has defined
good cause to mean a “satisfactory, sound or valid reason.” Id. (quotation marks and citation
omitted). MCL 330.1462(1), of the Mental Health Code, states that “[r]equests for continuances
for any reasonable time shall be granted for good cause.”

                                                 -2-
        Respondent argues that the trial court abused its discretion at the September 2023 hearing
when it denied his request to adjourn the hearing so he could have an ICE performed. Respondent
states that he was already under an order for involuntary mental health treatment because he
stipulated to it in March 2023, and granting his request to adjourn for a fourth time would not have
harmed the court or petitioner. Instead, he argues, it would have potentially benefited respondent’s
position by allowing him to have an ICE performed, as was his right under the Mental Health
Code. He contends that an ICE is difficult to attain in his area of the state.

        In this case, respondent properly requested, before the first scheduled hearing on the
petition, to have an ICE performed by a doctor of his choice. The trial court granted respondent’s
motions for adjournment to attain an ICE three different times: once in March 2023, again in July
2023, and one more time in August 2023. The trial court gave respondent notice that he must have
an ICE completed within 30 days of the July 2023 order, or a hearing would take place without
one being performed. Despite this, the trial court still gave respondent another chance to secure
an ICE. Respondent had seven months to arrange an ICE with a doctor of his choosing. In August
2023, after he missed his scheduled appointment for an ICE while hospitalized, respondent was
given the opportunity to have a doctor at the psychiatric ward perform an ICE for him. Respondent
declined because he did not believe it would truly be an independent evaluation. However, at no
other time did respondent attempt to make other arrangements, whether after the first order to
adjourn in March 2023, the second in July 2023, or the third in August 2023.

        The Mental Health Code states that continuances for good cause must be granted for “any
reasonable time.” MCL 330.1462(1). The trial court already granted adjournments three times
before, allowing respondent seven months to attain an ICE. There is no indication that, after yet
another adjournment, respondent would finally have an ICE completed. The court had already
granted reasonable time to respondent, who failed to properly use that time to secure an ICE. The
trial court noted that when it became clear his first choice of doctor was unavailable, other
arrangements needed to be made and he failed to do so for six months, and then failed to do so
again after missing his second appointment. He was offered other doctors, but respondent declined
those options. The trial court’s decision to deny an additional adjournment of the hearing was not
an abuse of discretion. The trial court’s decision was within the range of reasonable and principled
outcomes because it was reasonable to conclude that any additional adjournment of the hearing
was no longer a reasonable amount of time given the past failures to secure the ICE.

       Affirmed.

                                                             /s/ Michael J. Kelly
                                                             /s/ Kathleen Jansen
                                                             /s/ Christopher M. Murray

                                                -3-