James v. CB. (In re CB.)

• Docket Number: 366742
• Decision Date: 16 May 2024
• Parties: In re CB. v. CB., Respondent-Appellant. AMYDORAL JAMES, Petitioner-Appellee,
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

1

In re CB.

AMYDORAL JAMES, Petitioner-Appellee, v. CB., Respondent-Appellant.

No. 366742

Court of Appeals of Michigan

May 16, 2024

UNPUBLISHED

Washtenaw Probate CourtLC No. 23-000416-MI.

Before: JANSEN, P.J., and MURRAY and O'BRIEN, JJ.

PER CURIAM

Respondent appeals as of right the probate court order granting the petition for involuntary mental-health treatment.Respondent was committed to a combined hospitalization and assisted outpatient treatment for no longer than 180 days, with an initial hospitalization period of up to 60 days.We affirm.

Respondent was brought to the hospital by police following an incident when he was inappropriately clothed in public and acting aggressive.Respondent continued his aggressive behavior around emergency room and hospital staff.Respondent was examined by two psychiatrists who determined that respondent was "paranoid, disorganized with pressured speech," and "agitated."Respondent was diagnosed with psychosis, mania, schizoaffective disorder, and bipolar type I.

A petition was filed with the probate court by a clinical social worker requesting a combination of hospitalization and assisted outpatient treatment for respondent.The trial court held a hearing on the petition, during which Daniel Blake Ph.D., a licensed clinical psychologist, testified that he examined respondent briefly by phone and that respondent was unwilling to answer questions.Dr. Blake testified that he had access to respondent's medical and other records through the hospital, including documents from the police department that reported the police's observations of respondent.The information in Dr. Blake's testimony was primarily based on his review of these records.Dr. Blake testified that the records indicated that respondent had prior issues of aggression in the community, called the staff in the hospital and emergency room "Nazis," and believed that "he's a victim of everybody else's narrow intention."Respondent denied any aggression toward others, and testified that he would not follow up with any mentalhealth treatment if discharged and that he did not believe that he required treatment.

The trial court granted the petition and entered a combined order "which will allow for hospitalization up to 60 days and assisted outpatient treatment not to exceed 180 days."On the order, the trial court designated that respondent was a person requiring treatment under MCL 330.1401(1)(c).

Respondent appeals as of right, arguing that the trial court erred by finding that respondent was a person requiring treatment under MCL 330.1401(1)(c) by clear and convincing evidence because Dr. Blake's testimony was not sufficient to meet the burden of proof, and that involuntary mental-health treatment was not the solution to respondent's symptoms which were physical rather than psychological.We disagree.

Generally, we review "for an abuse of discretion a probate court's dispositional rulings and review[] for clear error the factual findings underlying a probate court's decision."In re Portus, 325 Mich.App. 374, 381; 926 N.W.2d 33(2018)(quotation marks and citation omitted).However, because respondent did not raise this issue in the trial court, it is not preserved, Glasker-Davis v Auvenshine, 333 Mich.App. 222, 227; 964 N.W.2d 809(2020); therefore, the standard of review is for plain error affecting defendant's substantial rights, People v Coy, 258 Mich.App. 1, 12; 669 N.W.2d 831(2003).To establish plain error,

First, there must be an error; second, the error must be plain (i.e., clear or obvious); and third, the error must affect substantial rights (i.e., there must be a showing that the error was outcome determinative).Moreover, reversal is warranted only when plain error resulted in the conviction of an actually innocent defendant or seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings, independent of guilt or innocence.[Id.(citation omitted).]

The Mental Health Code defines a "person requiring treatment," in relevant part, as:

(c) An individual who has mental illness, whose judgment is so impaired by that mental illness, and whose lack of understanding of the need for treatment has caused him or her to demonstrate an unwillingness to voluntarily participate in or adhere to treatment that is necessary, on the basis of competent clinical opinion, to prevent a relapse or harmful deterioration of his or her condition, and presents a substantial risk of significant physical or mental harm to the individual or others.[MCL 330.1401(1)(c).]

MCL 330.1461(1) provides: "An individual may not be found to require treatment unless at least 1 physician or licensed psychologist who has personally examined that individual testifies in person or by written deposition at the hearing."(Emphasis added.)MCL 330.1465 provides that the trial court"shall not find that an individual is a person requiring treatment unless that fact has been established by clear and convincing evidence."Evidence is clear and convincing when it produces "in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established" and the evidence is "so clear, direct and weighty and convincing" as to allow the court"to come to a clear conviction, without hesitancy, of the truth of the precise facts in issue."In re Martin, 450 Mich. 204, 227; 538 N.W.2d 399(1995)(quotation marks and citation omitted).

Hearsay is any statement that the declarant does not make while testifying and that a party offers "to prove the truth of the matter asserted."MRE 801(c).^[1] Hearsay is generally inadmissible unless it falls under an exception.MRE 802.MRE 1101(b) provides exceptions for when the Michigan Rules of Evidence do not apply, including in "hearings under Chapters 4, 4A, 5, and 6 of the Mental Health Code,MCL 330.1400 et seq., during which the court may consider hearsay data that are part of the basis for the opinion presented by a testifying mental health expert."MRE 1101(b)(10)(emphasis added).Under MCL 330.1459(2), the trial court"shall receive all relevant, competent, and material evidence which may be offered.The rules of evidence in civil actions are applicable, except to the extent that specific exceptions have been provided for in this chapter or elsewhere by statute or court rule."(Emphasis added.)

In the present case, Dr. Blake testified that he briefly examined respondent before the hearing, but respondent was unwilling to answer questions; therefore, the information in his testimony was primarily based on his review of respondent's medical and other records, which included the police's observations of respondent.Dr. Blake testified that the records provided as follows: respondent had prior issues in the community with "spray-painting mailboxes" and "arguing" with other people; respondent had a history of prior hospitalizations; he was inappropriately clothed in public when the police approached him; and he was aggressive in the emergency room.Dr. Blake stated that, as a result of his examination and review of respondent's records, he concluded that respondent was a person requiring treatment.The trial court then concluded that it was "satisfied based on clear and convincing evidence" that respondent was an individual requiring treatment under MCL 330.1401(1)(c).

The trial court did not commit plain error affecting respondent's substantial rights.SeeCoy, 258 Mich.App. at 12.Dr. Blake personally examined respondent before the hearing, therefore fulfilling the requirements under MCL 330.1461(1).Dr. Blake's examination was brief, but MCL 330.1461(1) does not provide a requirement for the length of the examination.Dr. Blake testified that the only reason the examination was short was because respondent was unwilling to participate.Dr. Blake's testimony about the contents of respondent's medical and other records was "hearsay data" admissible under MRE 1101(b)(10).

Furthermore Dr. Blake's testimony was clear and...