Court Opinion

ID: 9950910
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-15 05:06:43.637184+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:37:25.875581
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
In re DMF

BRANDIE SMITH,                                                         UNPUBLISHED
                                                                       March 14, 2024
               Petitioner-Appellee,

v                                                                      No. 367994
                                                                       Branch Probate Court
DMF,                                                                   LC No. 00-030956-MI

               Respondent-Appellant.

Before: SWARTZLE, P.J., and REDFORD and YATES, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

       Respondent appeals by right the probate court’s initial order after hearing on petition for
mental-health treatment. Respondent argues on appeal that the probate court erroneously granted
the order because insufficient evidence failed to establish that respondent did not understand her
need for treatment or that respondent was not a voluntary participant in her treatment. Respondent
maintains that the probate court erroneously determined that she required treatment. For the
reasons stated in this opinion, we affirm the probate court’s order granting the petition for initial
mental-health treatment.

                          I. RELEVANT FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

         A clinical social worker filed a petition for the initial mental-health treatment of respondent
supported by two clinical certificates. The trial court scheduled a hearing but before the hearing
respondent agreed to accept treatment. Shortly after, however, a registered nurse demanded a
hearing because respondent refused to accept the prescribed treatment. At the hearing, petitioner
testified that she served as respondent’s social worker and that she initially filed the petition
because respondent suffered from “mental health concerns” and “delusions.” The social worker
testified that respondent reported that she had been sexually assaulted and that the sheriff’s
department recorded and listened to her via satellite. The social worker emphasized that
respondent failed to comply with taking her prescribed medications.

       A psychiatrist testified that respondent was a former patient and that he evaluated
respondent for the petition. The psychiatrist explained that respondent suffered from “schizo-

                                                  -1-
affective disorder bipolar type,” a “mental illness.” The psychiatrist provided detailed testimony
regarding respondent’s reported delusions and explained that respondent was not doing well
requiring use of other medication or an increased dosage of the medications that she was already
taking. Respondent, however, refused to comply with any medication changes and would get
“really very upset.” The psychiatrist maintained that respondent was “not well” and was “not able
to take care of herself,” and expressed concerns for respondent’s ability to manage daily life.
Further, the psychiatrist explained that respondent’s home was “not livable” and that she would
have to go to adult foster care or alternative housing upon release. He testified further that
respondent took the previously prescribed dosage but respondent remained “very ill.”

        Respondent testified that she did not need an order for mental-health treatment.
Respondent testified that she would only take her previously prescribed medications. Respondent
stated that she would not take Ativan because of the addictive characteristics of the medication
and her alcohol addiction recovery. Further, respondent testified that she would not take Zyprexa
because she was taken off the medication “after being sodomized and raped and burned in the
crotch and beaten in the face.” She explained that “they have pictures” of her assault since her
birth and that “[t]hey were shown at Century Bank,” and to her spouse. Respondent testified that
she was “not delusional” but had “been traumatized.”

        Respondent explained that she contacted a private psychiatrist and that she planned to move
to Indiana with her daughter. Respondent testified regarding the name of her proposed doctor, the
office address, and the office phone number. Further, respondent testified regarding a private bus
that would be her transportation to and from her appointments. Respondent explained that she had
an intake appointment scheduled and stated: “I’m very well aware of all the abuse that has gone
on. I’m aware my daughter knows about it, and it has caused her many anxiety moments.”

        The probate court determined that clear and convincing evidence established that
respondent “clearly suffers from mental illness, that being schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type”
that impaired her judgment and understanding causing a deterioration in her condition presenting
a substantial risk of harm to her. The probate court ordered respondent to undergo initial mental-
health treatment consisting of a maximum of 60 days of hospitalization and 180 days of assisted
outpatient treatment. Respondent now appeals.

                                 II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

       We review a probate court’s dispositional decisions for an abuse of discretion. In re
Tchakarova, 328 Mich App 172, 182; 936 NW2d 863 (2019). A court abuses its discretion if its
decision “falls outside of the range of reasonable and principled outcomes.” In re Conservatorship
of Brody, 321 Mich App 332, 336; 909 NW2d 849 (2017) (quotation marks and citation omitted).
This Court reviews a probate court’s factual findings for clear error. In re Tchakarova, 328 Mich
App at 182. A court’s findings are clearly erroneous if the reviewing court is left with a definite
and firm conviction that a mistake was made. In re Bibi Guardianship, 315 Mich App 323, 329;
890 NW2d 387 (2016).

                                                -2-
                                         III. ANALYSIS

        Proceedings seeking an order of involuntary mental-health treatment under the Mental
Health Code, MCL 330.1001 et seq., for an individual because of mental illness generally are
referred to as civil-commitment proceedings. In re Portus, 325 Mich App 374, 382; 926 NW2d
33 (2018). The specific procedures for obtaining orders of hospitalization or other forms of
treatment because of a person’s mental illness are contained in various provisions of Chapter 4 of
the Mental Health Code, MCL 330.1400 et seq. Id. Any adult may initiate civil-commitment
proceedings by petitioning a probate court to find that an individual is a “person requiring
treatment” under the Mental Health Code. MCL 330.1434(1). MCL 330.1401(1) provides, in
relevant part, that the phrase “person requiring treatment” means:

               (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.

       A respondent need only qualify as a “person requiring treatment” under one subdivision of
MCL 330.1401(1) to support a probate court’s order for mental-health treatment. “Mental illness”
is 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 or jury must find that an individual is a person who requires treatment
by clear and convincing evidence. MCL 330.1465. In In re Pederson, 331 Mich App 445, 472;
951 NW2d 704 (2020) (quotation marks and citation omitted), this Court explained that clear and
convincing evidence

               produces in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction
               as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established, evidence
               so clear, direct and weighty and convincing as to enable the
               factfinder to come to a clear conviction, without hesitancy, of the
               truth of the precise facts in issue.

         In this case, the probate court found respondent a person with mental illness with impaired
judgment and lack of understanding of the need for treatment and unwillingness to voluntarily
participate and adhere to necessary treatment to prevent harmful deterioration and presented a
substantial risk of harm to herself, as defined under MCL 330.1401(1)(c). The record reflects that
testimonies of both the social worker and psychiatrist established respondent’s mental illness and
strong opposition to needed medication. The social worker testified regarding respondent’s history
of delusions and how they persisted up to the time of the hearing. Further, the social worker
testified regarding respondent’s refusal to take her medications despite respondent’s previous
agreement to comply with the new medication regimen. The psychiatrist testified regarding
respondent’s “schizo-affective disorder bipolar type” diagnosis and explained respondent’s
treatment history. The psychiatrist explained how her delusions and thoughts were increasingly
“occupied with strange experiences” and that her serious mental illness impacted her ability to

                                                -3-
function in her daily life. Further, the psychiatrist stated that respondent refused to alter her
medication regimen and that she would not be able to adequately and safely function if her
medications were not changed.

        The witnesses’ testimonies established the facts alleged in the petition and stated in the
clinical certificates submitted to the probate court. The petition noted that respondent had
delusions that people were coming into her home and injecting her with substances, sodomizing
her, and that the sheriff’s department watched her through hospital cameras. Other reported
delusions included respondent’s belief that aliens raped her and that the Michigan militia shot at
her. The clinical certificates noted several instances of respondent’s delusional behavior and how
respondent’s delusions occupied her thoughts. Further, the clinical certificates noted that
respondent was likely to injure herself by refusing to take her medications and that she was not
sleeping.

        Respondent denied being delusional. She claimed to be traumatized and failed to
acknowledge that she suffered from mental illness. She testified that she would adequately seek
treatment with a private out-of-state facility. Respondent also testified that she would continue
taking her previously prescribed medications but refused to alter her medication regimen, rejecting
increased dosage or prescription of other medications despite the clinical recommendations
indicating the necessity for respondent’s mental health.

        The record reflects that the probate court considered the conflicting evidence to determine
whether respondent understood her mental illness and respondent’s willingness to comply with
treatment. We defer to the probate court “on matters of credibility, and will give broad deference
to findings made by the probate court because of its unique vantage point regarding witnesses,
their testimony, and other influencing factors not readily available to the reviewing court.” In re
Portus, 325 Mich App at 397 (quotation marks and citation omitted). The probate court properly
determined that the evidence established that respondent’s noncompliance with treatment caused
her condition to worsen because she refused proper medication. The record demonstrates that the
probate court understood respondent’s history of mental-health treatment and that respondent had
gone back and forth between agreeing and disagreeing with her recent treatment plan. Despite her
diagnosis and numerous reported delusions, respondent denied delusional thinking. She also
refused to alter her medications despite the evidence that her condition had worsened, impacting
respondent’s ability to live her daily life. The record supports the probate court’s conclusion that,
without proper treatment, respondent risked harm to herself.

        The probate court correctly determined that clear and convincing evidence established
respondent’s noncompliance and the present and future consequences of her noncompliance which
made her a “person requiring treatment” as defined under MCL 330.1401(1)(c). The probate court
did not err by ruling that respondent is impaired by a mental illness and requires mental-health

                                                -4-
treatment and properly ordered her hospitalization and treatment. Respondent, therefore, is not
entitled to relief.

       Affirmed.

                                                          /s/ Brock A. Swartzle
                                                          /s/ James Robert Redford
                                                          /s/ Christopher P. Yates

                                              -5-