Court Opinion

ID: 9402565
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-16 05:05:43.177284+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:00.685130
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 TSS.

CHRISTOPHER ADAMS, also known as CHRIS                                UNPUBLISHED
ADAMS, and DAVID WHITESMAN,                                           June 15, 2023

               Petitioners-Appellees,

v                                                                     No. 363192
                                                                      Washtenaw Probate Court
TSS,                                                                  LC No. 22-000555-MI

               Respondent-Appellant.

Before: CAMERON, P.J., and MURRAY and GADOLA, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

       In this involuntary mental health treatment action, respondent appeals as of right the
probate court’s August 31, 2022 order stating that he required mental health treatment, would be
hospitalized for up to 60 days, and would participate in assisted outpatient treatment services. We
dismiss this appeal as moot.

       Respondent was first brought to the hospital for mental health treatment after he broke into
the Ann Arbor Airport. When he was brought to the hospital, he already had an injury to his ankle
that had become infected. However, respondent was not able to communicate how the injury
happened. A petition for mental health treatment was filed on July 28, 2022. It is undisputed that
two valid clinical certificates were attached to that petition. However, the mental health hearing
was deferred because respondent agreed to receive mental health treatment.

        On August 29, 2022, petitioner Christopher Adams filed a demand for hearing because
respondent refused to accept the prescribed treatment. A clinical certificate signed by Dr. Adam
Ari, a psychiatrist, was attached to the demand for hearing. Dr. Ari’s clinical certificate was signed
at noon on August 26, 2022. However, Dr. Ari had examined respondent two days earlier, on
August 24, 2022. Dr. Ari recommended that respondent be hospitalized because he suffered from
psychosis, was disorganized in his thought patterns and speech, had endorsed suicidal ideation,

                                                 -1-
and was likely to unintentionally harm himself or others due to his psychosis. Respondent was
also “hyperreligious at times, endorsing auditory hallucinations.”

        MCL 330.1434(4) states that, “[e]xcept as otherwise provided in subsection (7) and section
455, a clinical certificate that accompanies a petition must have been executed within 72 hours
before the filing of the petition, and after personal examination of the individual.” Respondent
claims that the demand for a hearing was a petition, and Dr. Ari’s clinical certificate was untimely
because it was not filed within 72 hours of respondent’s personal examination. Respondent argues
that a clinical certificate is “executed” at the time a respondent is examined by a doctor, not when
the doctor signs the clinical certificate. Respondent also claims that the probate court’s written
order stating that respondent would participate in outpatient mental health treatment after being
released from the hospital was inconsistent with its verbal proclamations at the mental health
hearing and should be voided.

        In the time since the August 31, 2022 order was entered, additional orders have been
entered by the probate court committing respondent to involuntary hospitalization and outpatient
treatment for his mental health. A second order for mental health treatment, entered on October
19, 2022 ordered respondent to be hospitalized for no more than 90 days and to participate in
assisted outpatient treatment upon being released. An additional order was entered on December
28, 2022 instructing that respondent could be hospitalized for up to 90 days and would participate
in assisted outpatient treatment for up to one year.

        In light of these subsequent orders, we conclude that both of the issues raised on appeal are
moot. Because this Court must only decide actual cases and controversies, it is “well established
that a court will not decide moot issues.” People v Richmond, 486 Mich 29, 34; 782 NW2d 187
(2010).

       It is universally understood that a moot case is one which seeks to get a judgment
       on a pretended controversy, when in reality there is none, or a judgment upon some
       matter which, when rendered, for any reason, cannot have any practical legal effect
       upon a then existing controversy. [Id. at 34-35 (quotation marks and citation
       omitted).]

        Because subsequent orders have required respondent to continue to be hospitalized and
receive outpatient mental health treatment, and because respondent has not challenged those
orders, respondent’s legal status would not change even if the August 31, 2022 order was
overturned. This Court “does not reach moot questions or declare principles or rules of law that
have no practical legal effect in the case before it.” Id.

       Dismissed.

                                                              /s/ Thomas C. Cameron
                                                              /s/ Christopher M. Murray
                                                              /s/ Michael F. Gadola

                                                -2-