In re John N., Jr.

Decision Date08 June 2007
Docket NumberNo. 3-06-0512.,No. 3-06-0513.,3-06-0512.,3-06-0513.
Citation871 N.E.2d 130
PartiesIn re JOHN N., JR., a Person Asserted to be Subject to Involuntary Admission and Treatment (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. John N., Jr., Respondent-Appellant).
CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois
871 N.E.2d 130
In re JOHN N., JR., a Person Asserted to be Subject to Involuntary Admission and Treatment (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. John N., Jr., Respondent-Appellant).
No. 3-06-0512.
No. 3-06-0513.
Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District.
June 8, 2007.

[871 N.E.2d 132]

Cynthia Z. Tracy (Court-appointed), Guardianship & Advocacy Commission, Peoria, for John N.

Lawrence M. Bauer, Deputy Director, Judith Z. Kelly, State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor, Ottawa, Kevin W. Lyons, State's Attorney, Peoria, for the People.

Presiding Justice LYTTON delivered the Opinion of the court:


The trial court issued orders that the respondent, John N., Jr., was subject to emergency involuntary admission to a mental health facility (405 ILCS 5/3-600 (West 2004)) and involuntary administration of psychotropic medication (405 ILCS 5/2-107.1 (West 2004)). Later, the court denied the respondent's petition for discharge (405 ILCS 5/3-900 (West 2004)). On appeal, the respondent argues that the court erred by entering these three orders. We affirm the court's orders concerning involuntary admission and discharge, and reverse the involuntary administration of medication order.

FACTS

Initially, we note that this is the respondent's fifth appeal to this court concerning separate involuntary admission and involuntary administration of medication orders. In In re John N., No. 3-02-0354, 337 Ill.App.3d 1176, 300 Ill.Dec. 262, 843 N.E.2d 520 (2003) (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23), we reversed the trial court's involuntary administration of medication order on the basis that the order did not clearly define how two alternative medications were to be administered. In In re John N., Jr., No. 3-04-0043 (2004) (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23), this court affirmed the trial court's involuntary admission and involuntary administration of medication orders.

In In re John N., 364 Ill.App.3d 996, 302 Ill.Dec. 278, 848 N.E.2d 577 (2006), we reversed the trial court's orders on the basis that the version of a statute in effect at the time the emergency petition was filed required the police officer who brought the respondent to the hospital to sign the petition, which the officer had not done. Recently, in In re John N., Jr., No. 3-06-0267 (2007) (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23), this court affirmed the trial court's involuntary admission order, but reversed its involuntary administration of medication order on the basis that the order failed to designate the persons authorized to administer the involuntary medication (405 ILCS 5/2-107.1(a-5)(6) (West 2004)).

In the present case, on June 12, 2006, members of the Methodist Medical Center (Methodist) staff in Peoria filed petitions asking the trial court to find the respondent subject to (1) emergency involuntary admission; and (2) involuntary administration of psychotropic medication. The petition for involuntary admission alleged that the respondent was (1) reasonably expected to inflict serious physical harm upon himself or others in the near future (405 ILCS 5/1-119(1) (West 2004)); and (2) unable to provide for his basic physical needs (405 ILCS 5/1-119(2) (West 2004)). The petition contained handwritten comments that his son had found him wandering the streets. The son reported that the respondent had manic behavior and disorganized speech, and had threatened to harm strangers. The son said the respondent

871 N.E.2d 133

had driven long distances for no apparent reason. The respondent also had threatened members of the hospital staff.

The court held hearings concerning both petitions during a proceeding on June 14, 2006. At this proceeding, the trial court first considered the involuntary admission petition. Dr. Ghassan Bitar testified that the respondent had been admitted to Methodist on June 9, 2006. The respondent previously had been committed to the Singer Mental Health Center (Singer) in Rockford. The doctor did not know how much time elapsed from the time the respondent was released from Singer to the date that he was admitted to Methodist. Bitar said that the respondent had recently traveled to Springfield, where he acted aggressively "in a couple of hotels or motels." Then, the respondent returned to Peoria and was aggressive toward his family. Because of the respondent's psychotic and aggressive behavior, his family called the police, who brought the respondent to the Methodist emergency room.

Bitar had observed the respondent every day beginning on the day after the respondent was admitted to the hospital. The doctor stated that the respondent was suffering from schizoaffective disorder. The respondent's speech was pressured and was sometimes difficult to understand. Bitar said the respondent became irritable "quite easily." At night, the respondent often would become manic and did not sleep well.

According to Bitar, the respondent experienced delusions, grandiose thoughts, and hallucinations. The respondent claimed to hear the voice of God, and believed that he was the son of God and that he was invincible.

The doctor noted that the respondent was refusing to take his prescribed oral psychotropic medications, except for Seroquel to aid sleep, because he believed that he did not need the medications. On a few occasions since the respondent was admitted to Methodist, Bitar had treated the respondent with injections of Haldol to calm him down. The doctor testified that the respondent's mental illness impaired his ability to function and that he did not have any insight into his mental illness. As a result of his mental illness, the respondent was refusing to take psychotropic medication.

Bitar stated that the respondent would be unable to attend to activities of daily living if he was not taking his medication. The respondent had been prescribed medications for a prostate condition, stress incontinence, hypertension, and neck strain. According to Bitar, the respondent was only taking these medications erratically. The doctor said that the respondent's mental illness was preventing him from consistently taking the medications for these conditions.

Bitar stated that because of the respondent's delusions, he was unable to guard himself against the normal dangers of daily living. The doctor also said that the respondent had a history of physical aggression. The hospital staff told Bitar that the respondent had previously broken a television set. The respondent was reasonably expected to inflict serious physical harm to himself or others based on his belligerent behavior and speech.

Bitar said that he had considered less restrictive alternatives for the respondent, such as a nursing home, rather than commitment to a mental health facility. In Bitar's opinion, less restrictive alternatives were not possible because of the respondent's erratic behavior caused by his refusal to take medication.

Angie Leary testified that she was a mental health clinician at Methodist. According to Leary, the respondent had been

871 N.E.2d 134

a patient at Methodist for approximately 90 days beginning in November 2005. Since that 90-day period, the respondent had been committed to the Department of Mental Health (DMH) on two occasions. On both occasions, the respondent had been transferred to Singer, but then was discharged within two or three weeks. Each time, within a few days of the respondent being discharged from Singer, he had been readmitted to Methodist.

The trial court found that the respondent was subject to involuntary admission. The court ordered the respondent to be committed to the DMH, but that he was not to be placed at Singer again. The court ordered the respondent to remain at Methodist until he could be placed in a facility other than Singer.

The court then proceeded directly to the hearing on the petition for involuntary administration of medication. Bitar testified concerning the basis for the petition. At the conclusion of this hearing, the court issued a written order that specified the medications and doses that should be involuntarily administered to the respondent. On one page of the order, the court authorized the medications to be given by "members of the clinical staff at Methodist Hospital and/or Dept. of Mental Health, whose license(s) allows them to administer the treatment pursuant to Illinois law." On another page of the order, which specifies the doses of the medications, the order "authorizes the administration of * * * medications under the supervision of Dr. Batar [sic], the Methodist Medical Center staff[,] and the Department of Human Services."

On June 27, 2006, the respondent filed his petition for discharge from Methodist. On the petition, the respondent wrote the heading, "John [N.,] JR[.] v.s. The People of This World." In the body of the petition, the respondent stated, "I proclaim thet [sic] I am the Antichrist son of God and son of man. Note: Doctor is giving me...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT