In re Brittany F.

Respondent appealed from a trial court order finding her subject to involuntary treatment under section 2-107.1 of the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Code, arguing that the State and treating physician who filed the petition failed to meet their pleading obligations relating to respondent having a healthcare power of attorney and that the State failed to prove the benefits of the treatment plan outweighed its harms or that other less restrictive services had been explored and found inappropriate. The appellate court reversed, finding that while the issue was moot since the order being appealed had already expired the court concluded it could be considered under the capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review and public-interest exceptions to the mootness doctrine. The appellate court then concluded that the State failed to fulfill its pleading requirements and that the error was not harmless and that reversal of the circuit court’s order was warranted due to the State's failure to prove the benefits of the treatment plan outweighed its harms and other less restrictive services had been explored and found inappropriate. (ZENOFF and VANCIL, concurring)