In re Connie G.
2011 IL App (3d) 100420
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Connie G. voluntarily admitted herself to Robert Young Mental Health Center on March 24, 2010 for treatment after a Valium overdose.
- On April 2, 2010 she filed a discharge request, withdrew it, then repeated discharge requests on April 8 and 17 and withdrew those, and finally filed another discharge request on April 25, 2010.
- Three days after the April 25 discharge request, Connie G.'s roommate filed a petition for involuntary admission against her.
- The petition relied on emergency admission by certificate under section 3-600 et seq.; it attached two psychiatrist certificates describing imminent risk of self-harm.
- An independent evaluation was conducted; the evaluator recommended ongoing inpatient treatment, involuntary if needed, and that Robert Young was the least restrictive environment.
- At the May 14, 2010 involuntary commitment hearing, the court admitted the evaluator’s and treating physicians’ testimony and ordered involuntary admission for up to 90 days.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Right to rescind discharge request | Connie G. claims she was denied right to rescind. | State contends discharge requests and withdrawals complied with 3-403. | No reversible error; issue moot and evidentiary record insufficient to overturn. |
| Petition compliance with the Code | Petition did not comply with Code requirements (who may file, section cited). | Petition filed under 3-601/3-602; 3-403 referenced correctly; caregiver filing permitted. | Petition complied; filing by Connie G.’s roommate was permissible. |
| Least restrictive environment and predispositional report | Pre-dispositional report was inadequate and there was insufficient evidence that involuntary commitment was least restrictive. | Treating physicians’ testimony supplemented the dispositional requirements. | Robert Young found to be least restrictive; testimony sufficed despite incomplete written report. |
| Mootness/public interest exception | Appeal should be moot once 90 days elapsed; public interest exception may apply. | Public interest exception applies due to State’s compliance questions. | Public interest exception applied; appellate jurisdiction preserved. |
| Procedural objections not raised at trial | There were procedural defects in the petition that were not raised below. | Procedural defects waived; mootness doctrine forecloses review. | Issue moot; objections not preserved; no review on appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Nicholas L., 407 Ill. App. 3d 1061 (2011) (statutory compliance in mootness public nature exception)
- In re James H., 405 Ill. App. 3d 897 (2010) (public interest mootness for statutory procedures)
- In re Robin C., 395 Ill. App. 3d 958 (2009) (public interest mootness when guidance needed for future applications)
- In re Alfred H.H., 233 Ill. 2d 345 (2009) (public interest mootness framework; public importance must guide future officers)
- In re Robinson, 151 Ill. 2d 126 (1992) (predispositional report requirements and substitutes for oral testimony)
- In re Daniel M., 387 Ill. App. 3d 418 (2008) (sufficiency of evidence in dispositional issues; document adequacy)
- In re Joseph P., 406 Ill. App. 3d 341 (2010) (preservation and public-interest mootness considerations)
- In re Hays, 102 Ill. 2d 314 (1984) (earlier standard on rescission rights for voluntary admission)
- In re Houlihan, 231 Ill. App. 3d 677 (1992) (emergency admission procedures and petition validation)