In Re Es, 371230

Respondent (ES) has a documented history of mental illness, particularly bipolar disorder with psychosis, and has been hospitalized six times since 2012 for erratic behavior.
An initial petition for involuntary mental-health treatment was filed in November 2023, resulting in an order of treatment for 180 days.
A second petition was filed in April 2024, seeking a renewed involuntary treatment order.
At the hearing, a psychiatrist testified to respondent’s diagnosis, repeated hospitalizations, medication non-compliance, and inability to care for himself.
The probate court issued a second involuntary order, finding clear and convincing evidence that respondent required treatment under MCL 330.1401(1)(c).
Respondent appealed, arguing insufficient evidence supported the need for continued involuntary treatment.

Issue	Petitioner’s Argument	Respondent’s Argument	Held
Whether there was clear and convincing evidence that respondent is a person requiring treatment under MCL 330.1401(1)(c)	Psychiatric evidence shows respondent’s mental illness, judgment impairment, and unwillingness to adhere to treatment, risking harm.	No clear and convincing evidence; past psychosis diagnosis was reversed; claims willingness to take medication voluntarily.	The court held that the probate court did not clearly err and had clear and convincing evidence for the treatment order.

In re Portus, 325 Mich App 374 (standard for reviewing probate dispositional rulings and clear error)
In re Martin, 450 Mich 204 (defines clear and convincing evidence standard)
In re Guardianship of Redd, 321 Mich App 398 (deference to probate court on credibility determinations)
BP 7 v Bureau of State Lottery, 231 Mich App 356 (standard for mootness on appeal)