June 2018 • Volume 4 • Number 4
Editor’s Note: Downloadable PDF copies of ISBA Newsletters are no longer available. Please bear with us as we work toward developing a new and improved digital version of ISBA Newsletters.
Get more for your money! IllinoisBarDocs now includes an estate plan drafting system and a User Group on ISBA Central. Limited-time pricing available!
New for ISBA members - More than a listserve, ISBA Central is an online community to connect with other ISBA members. Start using this new benefit today!
|
-
Children and mental health law
By Dara M. Bass
A summary of the recent "What's New in Mental Health Law: Mental Health Issues and Legal Professionalism" CLE that took place on May 16.
|
-
-
Appellate updates
By Andreas Liewald
Analyses of two recent appellate cases, In re Jian L. and In re Wilma T.
|
|
Illinois Appellate Court / Civil
Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Code
| 4th Dist.
In re Brittany F., 2024 IL App (4th) 220788
(March 28, 2024)
Peora Co.
(KNECHT)
Reversed.
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)
|
|
Featured Free On-Demand CLE |
|