Illinois Appellate Court / Civil
Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Code
| 1st Dist.
In re Commitment of Joshua D., 2026 IL App (1st) 231954
(September 18, 2026)
5th Div./Cook Co.
(WILSON)
Affirmed in part, reversed in part.
Respondent appealed from two circuit court orders: one that allowed the State to voluntarily dismiss a motion seeking respondent’s involuntary inpatient admission under the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Code and one that granted a subsequent motion and ordered the respondent’s involuntary inpatient admission. The appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part, affirming the dismissal of the original petition but reversing the involuntary admission order, explaining that while the issue was moot, under the public interest exception it was entered in error because the new petition failed to comply with section 3-606 of the Code by identifying the officer who transported respondent to the hospital. (ODEN JOHNSON and MIKVA, concurring)
|
Illinois Appellate Court / Civil
Involuntary Administration of Medication
| 4th Dist.
In re Jacob P., 2026 IL App (4th) 251327
(July 8, 2026)
Adams Co.
(ZENOFF)
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Respondent appealed after the trial court ordered that he be involuntarily admitted for mental health treatment and be administered psychotropic medication. On appeal, respondent argued that the predisposition report did not comply with section 3-810 of the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Code, that the court improperly combined hearings the petitions for admission and administration of medication, that he did not receive adequate notice of the petition for administration, that he was not given sufficient information regarding the proposed treatment, and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The appellate court affirmed the order granting the petition for involuntary admission but reversed the order granting the petition for administration of psychotropic medication, finding that the State failed to present evidence that the respondent was notified in writing of treatment alternatives. (VANCIL and GRISCHOW, concurring)
|
|
