In re Kurtis C., 30 N.E.3d 1160

Kurtis C. voluntarily admitted himself to a hospital; the admitting physician filed a petition seeking authorization to administer up to 13 psychotropic medications because Kurtis exhibited psychosis, bizarre behavior, paranoia, and refusal of medication and records access.
At the hearing Kurtis appeared with court-appointed counsel and told counsel he wanted to waive counsel and proceed pro se; the court did not personally question Kurtis about the waiver request.
The prosecutor called treating psychiatrist Dr. Singh, who had seen Kurtis two days, diagnosed schizophrenia, testified Kurtis lacked capacity to give informed consent and was not in touch with reality, and supported forced medication as necessary and beneficial.
The court accepted Dr. Singh’s testimony, found Kurtis not competent to represent himself, ordered counsel to continue, and later found the petition proven by clear and convincing evidence, authorizing medication for up to 90 days.
The appellate court considered the appeal moot as the 90-day order expired but applied mootness exceptions (public interest; capable of repetition yet evading review) and reversed because the trial court denied Kurtis’s request to waive counsel without the required personal inquiry.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (People)	Defendant's Argument (Kurtis)	Held
Trial court denial of request to waive counsel / right to self-representation	Court properly relied on psychiatrist testimony that respondent lacked capacity to waive counsel	Kurtis argued trial court denied his request without personally questioning him to determine an informed waiver	Reversed: court erred by ruling before questioning respondent; must inquire into mental ability, intelligence, and understanding of counsel’s purpose unless courtroom behavior plainly shows incapacity
Sufficiency of petition allegations	Petition adequately alleged mental illness, need for medication, lack of capacity, and listed medications	Kurtis challenged petition as inadequate	Not reached (court reversed on waiver issue; trial court decision vacated)
Ineffective assistance of counsel	Counsel provided appropriate representation	Kurtis claimed counsel ineffective	Not reached (not decided due to reversal on waiver)
Sufficiency of proof (clear and convincing)	Evidence (Dr. Singh’s testimony) met clear-and-convincing standard	Kurtis argued evidence insufficient	Not reached (trial court ruling reversed for procedural error)

In re Phyllis P., 182 Ill. 2d 400 (Ill. 1998) (adults, including those adjudicated mentally ill, are presumed competent to direct their legal affairs)
In re Barbara H., 183 Ill. 2d 482 (Ill. 1998) (statutory protections for recipients of mental health services; competency presumption)
In re Alfred H.H., 233 Ill. 2d 345 (Ill. 2009) (public-interest exception to mootness doctrine)
In re Lawrence S., 319 Ill. App. 3d 476 (Ill. App. Ct. 2001) (trial court must personally question respondent before accepting waiver of counsel)
In re Dennis D., 303 Ill. App. 3d 442 (Ill. App. Ct. 1999) (reversible error where court denies pro se request without inquiry unless disruptive behavior clearly shows incapacity)
In re Tiffin, 269 Ill. App. 3d 581 (Ill. App. Ct. 1995) (requirements for determining capacity to waive counsel)