People v. James H.
405 Ill. App. 3d 897
Ill. App. Ct.2010Background
- Petition for involuntary admission filed under 405 ILCS 5/3-600 alleging schizophrenia and risk of harm to self or others.
- Petition included delusion-based claims: respondent believes he is the son of God and engaged in battles with demons; a blank section requested family/guardian information.
- Medical experts and a statement by respondent (self-described son of God) were submitted with the petition.
- Hearing held April 2, 2010; psychiatrist Kripakaran testified respondent has schizophrenia with delusions and may become agitated or threatening.
- Trial court found respondent mentally ill and reasonably likely to inflict harm; ordered hospitalization up to 90 days at a DHS facility.
- Appeal challenges: (a) strict compliance with 3-601(b)(2) pleading requirement; (b) least-restrictive treatment; (c) mootness/justiciability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Strict compliance with 3-601(b)(2) petition requirements | People: strict compliance required; defect harmless | James H.: failure to name/locate family voids petition | Harmless error; no prejudice to respondent |
| Mootness of the appeal and applicability of exceptions | People: mootness applies; no live controversy | James H.: capable of repetition, collateral consequences, public-interest exceptions | Appeal deemed moot; exceptions do not apply; no substantive review on merits |
| Least-restrictive treatment and disposition | People: hospitalization supported by evidence as least-restrictive under record | James H.: need for consideration of less-restrictive alternatives | Trial court’s hospitalization finding sustained; record supports least-restrictive disposition absent error |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Barbara H., 183 Ill.2d 482 (1998) (mootness and public-interest considerations in involuntary commitment)
- Alfred H.H., 233 Ill.2d 345 (2009) (capable of repetition; collateral consequences; public-interest mootness framework)
- In re Tommy B., 372 Ill.App.3d 677 (2007) (strict compliance harmless where prejudice not shown)
- In re Louis S., 361 Ill.App.3d 763 (2005) (strict compliance with 3-601(b)(2); prejudice requirement)
- In re Robinson, 287 Ill.App.3d 1088 (1997) (harmless error in pleading; prejudice analysis)
- In re Friberg, 249 Ill.App.3d 86 (1993) (least-restrictive alternative sufficiency; record basis required)
- In re A.W., 381 Ill.App.3d 950 (2008) (public-interest mootness and procedural safeguards)