In re Tara S.
2017 IL App (3d) 160357
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- State filed petitions for involuntary admission and involuntary administration of psychotropic medication for Tara S.; psychiatrist Andrew Lancia signed the forms and completed an inpatient certificate after personally examining respondent.
- At hearing, the State presented testimony from psychiatrist Marika Wrzosek, who had reviewed records but had not personally examined respondent. Lancia did not testify.
- Wrzosek testified respondent exhibited paranoia, disorganized speech, hypersexualized behavior, and risk of victimization; she recommended up to 90 days of medications including risperidone and lithium.
- Respondent testified she was homeless, voluntarily sought admission because she was stressed and a rape victim, had prior treatment that she felt "slowed [her] down," and disputed need for medication.
- The court ordered involuntary inpatient admission and involuntary administration of psychotropic medication for up to 90 days.
- On appeal respondent argued ineffective assistance of counsel (failure to object to nonexamining expert testimony and failure to challenge lack of written medication information); the State conceded some errors but argued mootness (order expired). The appellate court applied the capable-of-repetition-yet-avoiding-review exception and reversed the orders.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness / reviewability | Order expired; appeal moot | Exception applies because respondent likely to face future proceedings | Court applied capable-of-repetition-yet-avoiding-review and reached merits |
| Expert testimony requirement (405 ILCS 5/3-807) | Wrzosek's testimony was adequate | Wrzosek had not personally examined respondent; only examiner (Lancia) did and did not testify | Counsel was ineffective for failing to object; involuntary admission invalid without testimony from an examiner who personally examined respondent |
| Written medication information requirement (405 ILCS 5/2-102(a-5)) | State provided written forms for some meds (e.g., risperidone); overall treatment info adequate | No written information for lithium in the record; written notice is statutorily required | Counsel ineffective for not objecting; respondent could not be compelled to take lithium without the statutorily required written notice |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes ineffective-assistance-of-counsel standard)
- In re Alfred H.H., 233 Ill. 2d 345 (explains the "capable of repetition yet evading review" mootness exception)
- In re Michelle J., 209 Ill. 2d 428 (holding that an expert must personally examine a respondent; record review alone is insufficient)
- In re C.E., 161 Ill. 2d 200 (recognizes constitutionally protected liberty interest to refuse psychotropic drugs)
- In re Carmody, 274 Ill. App. 3d 46 (applies Strickland in mental-health proceedings regarding counsel performance)