Court Opinion

ID: 9527181
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:28:08.81099+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:36.511287
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE MYERSCOUGH, dissenting: I respectfully dissent since I conclude that the trial court’s order finding Jakush subject to involuntary admission was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The State, through psychiatrist Dr. Lo, established that Jakush was unable to provide for her own basic physical needs so as to guard herself from serious harm. The doctor testified that Jakush suffered from a mental illness, psychosis, and probable schizophrenia paranoid subtype with grandiose delusions and hyperreligious delusions. The doctor testified that her false belief system placed her in danger and left her unable to care for herself. The doctor recounted hostile and threatening behavior toward him, and Jakush did not interact appropriately with hospital staff. The record reflects similar combative behavior when the police arrested Jakush for possession of a stolen car. Though she claimed to possess $450, she had failed for some time to pay her car rental. At the time of Jakush’s arrest, she was living out of the rental car she claimed to have driven to all the states in the last six months, and, according to Jakush, she had been “ministering to millions.” She also claimed to have performed miracles and healed the sick. She could provide no details about where she lived or worked. She reported having no surviving family members or other human contact. Jakush said that she received her support from the Pope and communicated with Sandra Day O’Connor. According to Jakush, her ministry consisted of the following: “Basically working with family. Trying to get families back together again where children were suffering because of families that have been broken up with broken marriages and a lot of them have been caused by people who have stolen their souls and spirits from their parents and causes the marriage to break up.” Jakush testified that she was not associated with a specific church or location: “A. It is like the church that John the Baptist or Mary Magdalene where you work independently and work strictly with the highest order from heaven on special projects. Q. So there is no specific location for this church then? A. No. Diabolical problems on earth or the problems that we are finding with people becoming diabolical, losing their souls and degenerating because of losing their souls,— Q. Now, you mentioned— A. —which is a disastrous happening that’s been happening for the last year and a half. I don’t know if you have been in touch with it.” Concerning Jakush’s future plans, Jakush testified that she was not heading to any particular place in southern Illinois: “A. *** We find that communication — if you get into a certain place, we deal strictly with everything in the subconscious mind regarding problems. Q. You mentioned you were traveling alone though, right? A. Yes, I work so closely with the [P]ope and everyone basically you just know where the need is, and I only find out the minute I need to go there. Nobody is talking to you. You just follow your soul ***.” The trial court’s perception of the evidence is entitled to great weight. This evidence clearly established Jakush’s inability to protect herself from serious harm. “[The trial court] had the opportunity to see the respondent and witnesses and hear them testify and, therefore, is in a much superior position to determine credibility and weigh the evidence.” Knapp, 231 Ill. App. 3d at 919, 596 N.E.2d at 1172. The appellate court must affirm the trial court even if it would have ruled differently unless the trial court’s finding was against the manifest weight of the evidence. “A trial court’s decision in an involuntary admission proceeding is given great deference and ‘will not be set aside at the appellate level, even if the reviewing court, after applying the clear and convincing standard, would have ruled differently’ [citations], unless it is against the manifest weight of the evidence.” In re Bennett, 251 Ill. App. 3d 887, 888, 623 N.E.2d 942, 944 (1993). The only testimony presented was that of the doctor and Jakush. The trial court found the doctor to be credible and Jakush not. The trial court was in a position to assess the credibility of these witnesses in a way that we cannot. While Jakush testified that she could feed and clothe herself, we cannot observe her manner while testifying, her speech pattern, her delivery, her appearance — whether disheveled or well-kept — her eye contact or nonverbal communication in court — or even her understanding of the proceedings or her appreciation of reality. For these reasons, I would affirm the trial court’s findings. To do otherwise is to substitute our findings for the trial court’s when those findings are not against the manifest weight of the evidence.