Court Opinion

ID: 9715118
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:54:44.505067+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:31.650317
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE GEIGER delivered the opinion of the court: The respondent, Richard A. Splett, appeals from the trial court’s order finding him subject to involuntary admission to the Department of Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities (the Department). He argues that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, that the court’s order is reversible for procedural errors, and that the evidence was insufficient. We reverse. The record shows that the respondent was voluntarily admitted to the Department on March 7, 1989. On April 6, 1989, the clerk filed, inter alia, a petition for the respondent’s involuntary admission. The case file also includes a notice to be served on the respondent; that notice bears no evidence that it was ever served. Following a bench trial where the respondent and his attorney were present, the court ordered the respondent involuntarily admitted to the Department. The respondent brought the instant appeal. Although the respondent presents multiple arguments for reversal, we need address only one: that he received insufficient notice of the involuntary admission hearing.  Section 3 — 706 of the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Code (the Code) contains notice requirements applying to involuntary admission procedures. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 91V2, par. 3 — 706.) Under section 3 — 706, after filing of a petition for the respondent’s involuntary admission, the court shall direct that the respondent and his attorney, among others, be served with notice of the time and place of the involuntary admission hearing. The respondent argues that the court failed to satisfy the notice requirement of section 3 — 706 and, thus, that the instant involuntary admission order must be reversed. We agree. In his argument the respondent relies primarily upon In re Price (1987), 152 Ill. App. 3d 960, 505 N.E.2d 37, and In re King (1986), 148 Ill. App. 3d 741, 499 N.E.2d 1032. In both Price and King, the respondents and the respondents’ attorneys were present at the relevant involuntary admission hearings. Nevertheless, in both cases the appellate court reversed the trial court’s involuntary admission order, .relying upon the absence of affirmative indication in the record that the respondent was properly served with notice in compliance with section 3 — 706.  Both the Price court and the King court held that in mental health cases, strict compliance with the relevant statutory provisions is compelling, as a liberty interest is involved. Both courts also held that any noncompliance with statutory involuntary admission procedures renders an involuntary admission judgment erroneous and ineffective. The State acknowledges that Price and King may be considered dispositive. However, the State asserts that those decisions are ill-reasoned and urges us not to follow them. The State suggests that the Price and King courts protected no substantial right, merely an empty formality. The State also refers us to People v. Williams (1977), 47 Ill. App. 3d 861, 365 N.E.2d 404, a case rejected in King. We find no reason to abandon the dispositive cases Price and King, or to rely on Williams. As the King court pointed out, Illinois courts have a long history of holding that an affirmative showing of advance notice is crucial in mental health cases — even if the respondent may have appeared at the relevant hearing. See Eddy v. People (1854), 15 Ill. 386. In relying on Price and King, we find that the notice provision of section 3 — 706 is certainly no empty formality. The respondent vividly describes one illustrative scenario: if a respondent was committed to a mental health institution on the date of his involuntary admission hearing, as this respondent apparently was, absent section 3 — 706 protections he might receive his only notice when awakened the morning of the hearing. The possibility of last-minute, oral notification of a sleeping, perhaps medicated, involuntarily committed respondent is troubling. The mandatory statutory notice clearly is meaningful in protecting against such a possibility. Also in relying on Price and King, we reject the State’s suggestion that we should rely upon an analogy to a non-mental-health, juvenile case, In re J.W. (1981), 87 Ill. 2d 56, 429 N.E.2d 501, to find that failure of statutory notice was not fatal. The J.W. court found that despite statutory requirements for prior notice, failure to serve the noncustodial father with unknown address was not fatal to the completed juvenile proceedings. We find that the J.W. decision has very limited persuasiveness here. Besides the fact that it lies outside the historically special category of mental health cases, J. W. focused upon the fact that the unserved father was neither known nor discoverable, unlike the instant, well-known, unserved respondent. Furthermore, the strength of the J.W. ruling is questionable given other supreme court cases requiring strict compliance with statutory service requirements even in juvenile cases. See, e.g., People v. R.S. (1984), 104 Ill. 2d 1, 470 N.E.2d 297. Based on the foregoing, we reverse the order of the circuit court of Kane County. Reversed. WOODWARD, J., concurs.