In re Janet S.
| Decision Date | 18 June 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. 2-98-0378.,2-98-0378. |
| Parties | In re JANET S., Alleged to be a Person in Need of Involuntary Psychotropic Medication (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Janet S., Respondent-Appellant). |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Teresa L. Berge (Court-appointed), Guardianship & Advocacy Commission, Rockford, William E. Coffin, John B. Lower, Ellen Holden Clark (Court-appointed), Guardianship & Advocacy Commission, Chicago, for Janet S.
David R. Akemann, Kane County State's Attorney, St. Charles, Martin P. Moltz, Deputy Director, Diane L. Campbell, State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor, Elgin, for the People.
Respondent, Janet S., appeals from the trial court's order granting the State's petition for involuntary administration of psychotropic medication. We reverse.
Janet was charged with aggravated battery and disorderly conduct but was found unfit to stand trial. She was then held at the Elgin Mental Health Center (EMHC). On December 12, 1997, an order for involuntary administration of psychotropic medication was entered. As that order was about to expire, a new petition was filed pursuant to section 2-107.1 of the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Code (the Code) (405 ILCS 5/2-107.1 (a) (West 1996)). A hearing on the petition was held on March 13, 1998, during which only one witness, Dr. Jacqueline Jordan, a psychiatrist at the EMHC, testified. The court found that the evidence of the need to administer psychotropic medication against Janet's will was clear and convincing and ordered the administration of the medication for up to 90 days. This appeal followed.
Janet first contends that the court order authorizing the involuntary administration of psychotropic medication must be reversed because the petition seeking the order did not allege that a good-faith effort had been made to determine whether Janet had executed an advance directive for health care. Section 2-107.1(a)(1) of the Code provides in part that a petition for involuntary administration of psychotropic drugs "shall state that the petitioner has made a good faith attempt to determine whether the recipient has executed a power of attorney for health care * * * treatment under the Mental Health Treatment Preference Declaration Act and to obtain copies of these instruments if they exist." 405 ILCS 5/2-107.1(a)(1) (West Supp.1997). This court has held that the Code's procedural safeguards are not mere technicalities but essential tools to safeguard the liberty interests of respondents in mental health cases. See In re Rovelstad, 281 Ill.App.3d 956, 964, 217 Ill.Dec. 631, 667 N.E.2d 720 (1996) (). The threat to an individual's liberty interest posed by involuntary administration of psychotropic medication is as grave as that posed by involuntary admission to a mental health facility; therefore, we will strictly construe procedural safeguards in favor of the respondent. See Rovelstad, 281 Ill.App.3d at 965, 217 Ill.Dec. 631, 667 N.E.2d 720.
The State argues that Janet has waived this issue, as she did not object at the time of the hearing. However, waiver is a limitation on the parties, not on the court, and a reviewing court may ignore waiver in order to achieve a just result. In re DeLong, 289 Ill.App.3d 842, 844, 225 Ill.Dec. 112, 682 N.E.2d 1189 (1997). Because of the important liberty interests involved, we decline to find waiver of this issue.
We conclude...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Robert S.
... ... Consequently, the hearing on the petition did not commence until 60 days after the petition was originally filed ... In interpreting the Code's procedural safeguards, this court has advocated strict construction in favor of the respondent. In re Janet S., 305 Ill.App.3d 318, 320, 238 Ill.Dec. 700, 712 N.E.2d 422 (1999) ... However, it is well established that when a party acquiesces in proceeding in a certain manner, he cannot later complain prejudice on appeal. Hill v. Cowan, 202 Ill.2d 151, 159, 269 Ill.Dec. 875, 781 N.E.2d 1065 (2002) ... ...
-
People v. Amanda H. (In re Amanda H.)
...N.E.2d 959 (2010) ), and a reviewing court may ignore forfeiture in order to achieve a just result (see In re Janet S. , 305 Ill.App.3d 318, 320, 238 Ill.Dec. 700, 712 N.E.2d 422 (1999) ; In re DeLong , 289 Ill.App.3d 842, 844, 225 Ill.Dec. 112, 682 N.E.2d 1189 (1997) ). Our appellate court......
-
People v. Katarzyna G. (In re Katarzyna G.), 2–12–0807.
...patient. Courts have disregarded forfeiture when the issues raised deal with public and liberty interests. See In re Janet S., 305 Ill.App.3d 318, 320, 238 Ill.Dec. 700, 712 N.E.2d 422 (1999); see also In re Tiffany W., 2012 IL App (1st) 102492–B, ¶ 21, 365 Ill.Dec. 84, 977 N.E.2d 1183. ¶ 1......
-
In re Atul R.
... ... See Robert S., 213 Ill.2d at 57, 289 Ill.Dec. 648, 820 N.E.2d at 440. Moreover, waiver is a limitation on the parties and not the courts. "[A] reviewing court may ignore waiver in order to achieve a just result." In re Janet S., 305 Ill.App.3d 318, 320, 238 Ill.Dec. 700, 712 N.E.2d 422, 423-24 (1999). Thus, we choose to address the merits of this issue ... Section 2-107.1(a-5)(1) of the Code (405 ILCS 5/2-107.1(a-5)(1) (West 2006)) provides in part: ... "The petitioner shall deliver a ... ...