Mental Health Matters

Respondent appealed from an order of the circuit court finding her subject to involuntary admission under the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Code. The appellate court reversed the circuit court’s judgment, finding that a mid-hearing amendment to the petition for involuntary admission altered the quality and nature of proof necessary and, as a result, the circuit court violated respondent’s right to due process by allowing the amendment and granting the motion for leave to amend was an abuse of discretion. (HOLDRIDGE, concurring and DAVENPORT, dissenting)

Respondent appealed from a trial court order finding her subject to involuntary administration of psychotropic medication under the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Code. The appellate court reversed, finding that while the issue was moot due to the expiration of the order, it fell under the repetition exception to the mootness doctrine and further that the order should be reversed because the State violated its duty to properly prepare petitions and respondent’s trial counsel was ineffective for failing to seek the petition’s dismissal. (McDADE and HOLDRIDGE, concurring)

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)