N. Lakes Cmty. Mental Health v. Ogden (In re Ogden)

• Decision Date: 27 October 2022
• Docket Number: 360838
• Parties: In re James Ogden NORTHERN LAKES COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH, Petitioner-Appellee, v. JAMES OGDEN, Respondent-Appellant.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

In re James Ogden

NORTHERN LAKES COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH, Petitioner-Appellee,
v.
JAMES OGDEN, Respondent-Appellant.

No. 360838

Court of Appeals of Michigan

October 27, 2022

UNPUBLISHED

Grand Traverse Probate Court LC No. 05-028672-MI.

Before: MARKEY, P.J., and SAWYER and BOONSTRA, JJ.

PER CURIAM

Respondent appeals by right the probate court's order for continuing mental health treatment. We affirm.

I. PERTINENT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Respondent has been diagnosed as suffering from schizophrenia, bipolar type, and has received services from petitioner since at least 2005. In March 2022, petitioner filed a petition with the probate court for a continuing mental health treatment order. A clinical certificate prepared by Dr. Neal Fellows, D.O., was attached to the petition. In this certificate, Dr. Fellows reiterated respondent's diagnosis and stated that he had "personally examined" respondent via "Telepsych video between myself and the patient." Respondent waived his right to appear at a hearing on the petition. The probate court entered an order granting the petition. This appeal followed.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review de novo issues of statutory interpretation. In re Tchakarova, 328 Mich.App. 172, 182; 936 N.W.2d 863 (2019). A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel presents mixed questions of fact and law. People v Head, 323 Mich.App. 526, 539; 917 N.W.2d 752 (2018). We

1

review factual findings for clear error and we review legal conclusions de novo. Id. Because the trial court did not hold an evidentiary hearing, our review is limited to mistakes that are apparent from the record. People v Riley, 468 Mich. 135, 139; 659 N.W.2d 611 (2003).

III. ANALYSIS

Respondent argues that he was entitled to an in-person, rather than remote, personal examination under MCL 330.1434, that Dr. Fellows's examination via Telepsych was therefore inadequate, and that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel because counsel failed to object on this ground. We disagree.

This Court's "primary task" in construing a statute is to "discern and give effect to the intent of the Legislature." In re AGD, 327 Mich.App. 332, 343; 933 N.W.2d 751 (2019).

In construing a statute, we interpret defined terms in accordance with their statutory definitions and undefined terms in accordance with their ordinary and generally accepted meanings. When statutory language is unambiguous judicial construction is not required or

...