In re Tara S., 2017 IL App (3d) 160357

Tara S. was involuntarily admitted to a psychiatric facility and the State sought court authorization for involuntary administration of psychotropic medications for up to 90 days.
The admission petition and inpatient certificate were signed by psychiatrist Andrew Lancia, who had personally examined Tara; Lancia did not testify at the hearing.
The State called psychiatrist Marika Wrzosek, who reviewed records but did not personally examine Tara, and testified about Tara’s schizoaffective/bipolar presentation, hypersexualized behavior, and risk of victimization.
Wrzosek proposed medication including risperidone and lithium and recommended treatment; Tara testified she had been treated previously, disputed needing medication, and said she sought help as a rape victim and for stress.
Defense counsel did not object to (1) admission evidence lacking testimony from an examiner who personally examined Tara and (2) absence of written notice concerning lithium’s risks/benefits; the trial court ordered involuntary admission and medication.
The appellate court reversed, finding counsel ineffective for failing to raise those statutory deficiencies; it reviewed the now-moot matter under the “capable of repetition yet evading review” exception.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Tara)	Held
Whether the State satisfied the statutory requirement that an expert who personally examined the respondent testify at the admission hearing	Wrzosek’s testimony based on record review sufficed to establish need for admission and treatment	Counsel should have objected because statute requires live testimony from an examiner who actually examined the respondent (and Tara did not waive that requirement)	Reversed: counsel ineffective for failing to object; statute requires live testimony by an examiner who personally examined the respondent and that requirement was not met
Whether the State provided the statutorily required written notice about risks/benefits/alternatives (lithium) before compelling medication	The record contained written forms for several drugs; State conceded no written lithium information in the record	Counsel should have objected because written notice is required for informed consent and verbal explanation is insufficient	Reversed: counsel ineffective for failing to object; no written notice for lithium in record, so respondent could not be compelled to take it

In re Alfred H.H., 233 Ill. 2d 345 (discussing mootness and the capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review exception)
In re Michelle J., 209 Ill. 2d 428 (reviewing-records does not substitute for an examiner’s in-person testimony)
In re Barbara H., 183 Ill. 2d 482 (right to counsel in involuntary commitment proceedings)
In re C.E., 161 Ill. 2d 200 (liberty interest in refusing psychotropic drugs)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
In re Carmody, 274 Ill. App. 3d 46 (applying Strickland in civil-commitment context)
In re Daryll C., 401 Ill. App. 3d 748 (applying Strickland to mental-health proceedings)
In re Commitment of Hutchinson, 421 A.2d 261 (noting counsel’s role protects liberty interests in commitment cases)