*1
8(n)
Hоwever, section
does
“prohibit”
not
Department
from
issuing a FOID card to
precluded
an individual
from possessing
law;
firearms under
only gives
federal
it
Department
authority
deny
65/8(n) (West
application
to
an
for that reason. See 430 ILCS
2004). As we
previously stated,
have
together
section 8 must be read
10(c),
with section
which
grant
allows the Director to
FOID cards “to
persons who have established their
to possess
gun,
fitness
even
though belonging to one of the
Rawlings,
enumerated classes.”
3d at
Here, the Director found that it be contrary public policy grant Hiland a solely FOID card belonged because he to one of the 8, i.e., classes enumerated in prohibited section those from possessing firearms under By federal law. exercising granted the discretion 10(c), him in section ignored Director overwhelming evidence establishing that defendant Hiland law-abiding has been a citizen and productive member of his community since his convictions. Based on evidence, agree we trial court that the Director’s decision deny Hiland’s application anwas abuse of discretion. judgment of the circuit County court Hancock is affirmed.
Affirmed. HOLDRIDGE, JJ.,
CARTER and concur. G.C., (The In re LISA Subject Involuntary a Person Found Admission People Illinois, G.C., Petitiоner-Appellee, the State of Respondent v. Lisa
Appellant). 4-06-0046, Fourth District Nos. - 0133 cons. 4-06 Opinion filed June *2 J.,
KNECHT, dissenting. Commission, Anna, and Guardianship Advocacy of Plesko, of & Jeff M. Peoria, Commission, ap- Advocacy of for Guardianship Cynthia Tracy, Z. of & pellant. (Norbert Goetten, Schmidt, Attorney, Springfield J. of John P. State’s Attorneys Appellate Biderman, Meghan Largent, all of State’s J. and S.
Robert Office, counsel), People. for the Prosecutor’s opinion COOK delivered the of the court: JUSTICE 8, 2005, involuntary admission of petition On for the December G.C., pursuant to section 3—600 of the respondent, Lisa was filed (Code) (405 Developmental and Disabilities Code ILCS Mental Health 2004)). (West 30, 2005, hearing, After a the trial December 5/3—600 Department in a of Mental respondent hospitalized court ordered days. for On Janu- Developmental facility and Disabilities Health 4, 2006, respondent appealed, No. 4—06—0046. ary 25, 2006, peti- filed a January pending appeal, respondent
On her represent discharge. appointed The trial court counsel tion for 27, 2006, January at which respondent. The court held a 1, 2006, February respondent ap- time the was denied. On petition appeals. pealed, 4—06—0133. We have consolidated two No. 06—0046, hospitalization, appeals her initial In No. 4— (2) (1) rights violated and contending procedural due-process were her convincing by and evidence prove the State failed clear 06—0133,respondent involuntary No. admission was warranted. 4— contending the State petition discharge, appeals the denial convincing that she remained by clear evidence prove failed to affirm. subject involuntary admission. We
I. BACKGROUND Boston, Hospital, Area of Carlinville On December Brian asserting involuntary admission emergency signed petition ill, mentally was reasonably expected was to inflict serious physiсal upon harm herself or another the near future due to her illness, mental inwas need of hospitalization immediate for the prevention of such harm. The accompanied hy was a medical certificate stating W.J. Townsend subject was admission and need of hospitalization. immediate That same date the trial court set hearing date for December 2005. At time, being treated at Memorial Medical Center (Memorial).
On Shyam certificate, December Bhat’s medical reach- ing the same Townsend, conclusion as Dr. filed and the requested a granted continuance. trial court a сontinuance until December
On December the trial court entered an a pre- order on printed form, which stated that on by agreement the State’s (405 parties pursuant to section 3—908 the Code ILCS (West 2004)), respondent was transferred to 5/3 —908 McFarland (McFarland). Mental Health Center On December the hear- ing was continued to December by agreement of parties.
On December a notice of change status dated filed, December 16 indicating respondent had been transferred to *3 McFarland on December 2005. Also on December Dr. Gregory Gergay filed a medical On certificate. Dеcember Dr. G. Midathala filed a medical certificate. On December on the State’s the trial court continued hearing December On December Dr. Myers James filed a medical supporting respondent’s certificate involuntary commitment.
At the December hearing, Myers, Dr. a psycholo- clinical gist, currently testified he treating respondent. Respondent paranoid demonstrated Myers delusions. Dr. respondent noted (1) indicated she had information about the World Trade Center bomb- ing attack, terrorist Pentagon attack, terrorist and the Oklahoma City bombing “spoke and in a very descriptive mаnner about people (2) attacks”; in involved various nefarious George she knew Bush and (3) Senator Durbin attack; were involved in the Twin Towers terrorist a granddaughter decapitated police she had who was car and she family walking away police car, member saw another from the but she (4) information; say could not how she knew this three of her five (5) murdered; people threatening children had been and were her. Respondent paced also back and forth during much information, Myers packet interview with Dr. and carried a includ- ing telephone book, which she also carried in cоurt. Besides evaluat- hospitalizations Myers prior reviewed two Dr. ing respondent, Myers disorder. Dr. diagnosis schizo-affective to make a order serious to inflict reasonably expected respondent could believed He of her mental illness. as a result on herself or others physical harm likely it she would be make paranoid suggested her delusions she identi- with whom someone if she believed aggressive violent protect violently aggressively might threatened. She act fies is them. McFarland, had been at respondent Myers further stated since as she in treatment any participated medication or
she had not taken respondent to be Myers found mentally ill. did not believe she was treatment, was the least-restrictive that McFarland opined in need of period of treatment, a commitment and recommended alternative days. of her fam- and 14 members testified that between 13 and her years by her mother ily past over the had been murdered took, bought which the murder victims They Tylenol, brother-in-law. involved, government although and it killed them. She knew the did deal with that. Pentagon told her her brother-in-law family to who murdered her people stated she wanted the publicly.” physically She she did not want to “very stand triаl stated murderers, charges. Respondent just press wanted to harm the police no to hurt herself and called the further stated she had desire her. when her sister attacked evidence, suf- the trial court found
After another, or illness, harming risk of herself fered from a mental was at days. for 90 The court committed needed treatment. Respondent appealed. January peti- filed a
Pending appeal, 4—06—0133. On discharge subject appeal tion for that is the No. hearing, At January 27, 2006, hearing. the trial court held a city had an address in one and owned testified an inactive city. Respondent in another also stated she was trailer (LPN) Three of living and had children. practical licensed nurse two vehicle, get If claimed her children had died. she could license. With her inactive nurse’s she could work as a waitress or use aid, respondent stated public her income and the occasional use of Respon- and her children. past supported that in the she had herself *4 high pressure only claimed she suicidal and had blood dent was not *** my into trailer they drugs my drink and broke put “after illicit she treats her aches Respondent on me.” stated smearing blood food, Tylenol.” Respondent believed pains “jalapenos, spicy with harm herself or physically herself and not she could care for another.
590
On cross-examination, respondent explained 8, that on December 2005, “9-1-1” nephew called because her insulted her and he leave, daughter would not then her struck her. When went with police officer to fill out reports, he took her Hospital to Carlinville and contacted Brian from Macoupin County Mental Health. Respon- dent informed Brian that she knew the name girl of the that they decapitated picture and that she had a of her. She added that girl’s name husband, was Carrie and that Tom, Carrie’s served in Navy. Respondent continued to drugs talk being about illicit put into her drinks being and blood smeared on her. She also maintained that three murdered, of her children had been one at a dentist’s office. Enron, George referred to Ryan, rape, during and murder the cross-examination. petition.
The trial court denied the The court noted that respon- dent clearly, had not testified had explained whether she had a place live, clearly and was in need of further treatment.
appeals ruling this as well.
II. ANALYSIS A. Procedural Due Process 06—0046, In No. right process asserts her to due 4— (1) was violated initially when she was committed because she was (2) improperly transferred to McFarland and her commitment hearing timely was not held.
In involuntary-commitment proceedings, strict compliance with statutory procedures required is since such proceedings affect important liberty Rovelstad, interests. In re 281 Ill. App. 3d 964- (1996). Whether the strictly complied procedural with the requirements of the is question Code law George O., be reviewed de novo. In re App. 314 Ill. 3d (2000). N.E.2d 15-16 Reversal is required comply for failure to requirements with the of the prejudiced by Code where S., In re such failure. Louis N.E.2d (2005). Because is unable demonstrate how she was prejudiced by any alleged failure comply procedural require ments, right process we find her to due was not violated.
1. to McFarland Transfer Respondent argues that she was improperly transferred to McFar- land. On December change notice of dated status filed, indicating respondent December 16 was had been transferred to Further, McFarland from on on Memorial December that, stating December the trial court entered an order
591 pursuant to sec- parties, and by agreement of the the State’s (405 (West 2004)), respondent Code ILCS tion 3—908 the 5/3—908 to McFarland. was transferred (405 ILCS of the Code through 3—908 3—910 Sections 5/3—908 (West 2004)) Department address transfer between through 3—910 section 3—908 person receiving Specifically, a treatment. facilities of state facili transferring patients for between procedure addresses (West 2004). does not address 405 Section 3—908 ties. ILCS 5/3—908 from a patient is transferred such as this one which a transfers private facility Ill. facility. In 2d Hays, a In re 102 to state Illinois, when ad (1984), Supreme Court of 101 involuntary for commitment dressing petition a the issue whether when the may properly brought be voluntarily patient of a admitted “[w]hile a patient request discharged, a noted has not made to it facility to State when is faсility may patient State transfer a another advisable,’ ‘clinically private may institution invoke deemed Further, S., court found provisions of the Code.” Louis this these only by transferred from means which a could be institution, McFarland, institution, Memorial, private a state (1) person subject to be a dispositional in a order after he was found (2) involuntary by discharge commitment or from Memorial and under emergency involuntary proceedings initiation of commitment Code, respondent’s by and transfer was not either of since means, S., improper. Louis 361 those his transfer to McFarland was at N.E.2d Ill. at case, ac- this transfer McFarland was not by While the
complished either of the means discussed Louis S. argues respondent did not improper, transfer have been agreed suffer she to the transfer to McFarland. any prejudice because Respondent argues presumptively prejudicial her transfer because facility prior and occurred it was a transfer to a more restrictive state agree commitment. involuntary to her on the We State. any prejudice how suffered Respondent has not demonstrated she agreed. Upon respondent’s by originally a transfer with which admission, complied requirements initial Code’s the State with the and physician from a involuntary admission as two certificates examined filed. timely See psychiatrist who had were (West 2004). McFarland, ILCS Once admitted to 3—602 5/3 — who found by physician was examined within hours psychiatrist Another subject involuntary her to be admission. doctors day her the next and concluded the same. Both examined rights the examinations. The State informed before treated respondent’s admission to McFarland as an initial admission, procedural safeguards all were followed. significant
Most agreement to the transfer. Respondent could have objected to the transfеr required the State to discharge Memorial, her from and then reinstitute an emergency involuntary-commitment proceeding to placed have her in McFarland. Instead of going through the process whole of reinstituting proceed- ings with the almost certain placement outcome of her in McFarland, respondent agreed forego repeating process get to the involuntary-commitment hearing quickly. more Respondent cannot claim appeal now prejudiced agreement.
We find it unremarkable the record is devoid of how respondent came “agree” tо to the transfer as the trial court is not required set forth the bases or rulings. reasons for its People ex rel. Madigan v. Petco Corp., Petroleum (2006).
1065, record, 1083 The trial court need not always make as many in dispute cases there ruling be no when is made and no go explain need to into A litigant detail to it. should not be allowed by ruling stand object while is made and then first the time appellate case, the present court. the if there was a misstatement trial ruling, respondent’s the court’s attorney should have so advised the court. A record would then have been made. We should resolve any incomplеteness doubts due to the of against the record the the respondent, appellant. Foutch v. Ill. 2d O’Bryant, 99 459 (1984). 958, N.E.2d 959
2. Timeliness the Hearing Respondent next argues hearing untimely her was and unduly delayed. Section 3—611 of the requires Code that “the set court shall a hearing” regarding the for involuntary commitment “to be days, [,] held within excluding Saturdays, Sundays holidays, [five] (West 2004). receipt petition.” after of the 405 ILCS 5/3 —611 though was admitted December her hear- 2005, ing 9, originally hearing was set for December her was held not until December 2005. comply respondent’s hearing
To with section should have 3— been held on or before December 15. The was not hеld until hearing 800(b) December due to three continuances. sets Section 3— a procedure may grant forth in which trial courts continuances 800(b) (West 2004). mental-health cases. 405 ILCS Section 5/3 — 800(b) following: states the 3— grants upon “If the court its or the continuance on own motion parties, respondent may motion of one of the the to be continue
593 continuance order of the court. Such pending detained further that continu- beyond days to the extent except 15 shall not extend 800(b) by 405 ILCS requested respondent.” ances are 5/3 — (West2004). including days, for 22 case, respondent detained In this was were holidays, hearing. Thrеe continuances weekends and before hearing 8 set admitted December with granted. Respondent was motion, hearing on the State’s for December On December 16, by of the agreement On December continued to December 16. was On hearing continued to December 23. December parties, the hearing continued to December 30. on the State’s continuances, including continu- argues the last that none of days, for a beyond period ance that were pushed detention 800(b) greater days, language of section plain than so 3— hearing had be held on or Respondent argues viоlated. 800(b) 3—611 and section according before December 15 section 3— apply. should not 800(b) the trial court to plainly We find that section allows 3— by 3—611.
grant beyond imposed continuances the deadline section disagree length delay section parties While allowed 800(b), length precise delay not determine the we need allowable 3— According prejudice. because not established to section has December should have been held before 3— 800(b), though, After the first 15. Section allows continuances. 3— 7-day 7-day continuance, respondent agreed to the second continuance requested bringing respondent’s on December to December total, days including weekends. The continuance detention to *7 hearing held requested days. 23 was for more The on December seven under only days 15 after the deadline established on December 30 was three not established how the seven- section 3—611. has light agreement of her to the day prejudiced her in continuances seven-day second continuance. In re generally
In
of her
cites
Wil
support
position, respondent
(1986).
case,
708,
In that
liams, 140 Ill.
3d
reasonably seriously expected to harm or herself another in the near A person may future. be involuntarily if admitted it is established (405 (West 2004)) clear and convincing evidence ILCS that 5/3—808 person has a mental illness and “because оf his or illness is reasonably expected physical to inflict upon serious harm himself or (West 119(1) or herself another in the near future.” 405 ILCS 5/1 — 2004). The standard of an involuntary-commitment review for proceed ing judgment is whether the is against weight manifest evidence. In re Knapp, App. 1171, 231 Ill. 3d 596 N.E.2d (1992). 1172 The given great and, trial court’s is decision deference showing absent a it against weight evidence, that is manifest “ level, it set appellate ‘will not be aside at the reviewing even if the court, standard, after applying clear and convincing would have ” Bennett, differently.’ ruled In re App. 251 Ill. 3d N.E.2d 623 942, (1993), quoting Orr, 505, 944 In re App. 498, 176 Ill. 3d 531 (1988). 64, N.E.2d 69 finding trial court’s mentally that ill not in
disputе. Myers diagnosed Dr. having schizo-affective dispute disorder. While not does that she has a ill- mental ness, Myers’ she claims Dr. testimony clearly never and convincingly proved that, illness, due to reasonably her mental expected to imminently threaten or harm herself Respondent points or another. to Myers’ Dr. that testimony established that she had .never com- been mitted, physically had aggressive, expressed never been and had never an him intent to harm or anyone herself else. a treating
We note first that psychiatrist’s opinion potential dangerousness need not be derived from firsthand observatiоns of knowledge violence and be based on from incidents derived Houlihan, history medical records. In App. re 231 Ill. 3d 596 (1992). N.E.2d An examining physician may properly 194 consider a respondent’s forming complete history opinion medical concerning dangerousness. current and future In re (1999). H., Ill. 3d App. Robert 707 N.E.2d 269 Further, until court does have wait hurts himself Manis, involuntarily committing or someone else before him. re (1991). Ill. 3d App. Because the superior position court is in a credibility determine witness evidence, weigh great we give findings. Knapp, deference the court’s at at 1172. N.E.2d Myers personally testified that he met with examined rеspondent. Upon examining respondent, Myers noted that she very descriptive “in in “nefari- spoke people manner” about involved *8 bombing, ous such Trade Center the attack on activities” as World interview, During respondent Pentagon, City. and Oklahoma that she also packet of information forth and carried a paced back and on a hospitalized, possibly been to court. had carried basis, Respondent suffered from voluntary prior on two occasions. delusions,” her Dr. delusions, severity of paranoid “given and Myers Dr. aggressively. While likely to act Myers opined that she was aggressive at respondent had been while that acknowledged “increas- McFarland, reported have become he noted that she was and had community in the ingly aggressive family” her when towards treatment at McFarland. refused respondent officer who dealt with emergency petition,
In the politi- including local respondent people, that several wrote believed authorities, get and her father had stated and were “out to her” cians die begun people these should and respondent say that had that certificate that getting weapons. Dr. Townsend wrote his talked respondent thrеatening comments/gestures local “had made toward government acquiring weapons and talk of ha[d] officials started to Further, respondent use Dr. noted on these officials.” Townsend was certificate, getting daughter. her In Dr. Bhat’s he aggressive with getting weapons that and wrote talked about believed Attorney get Gregory State’s was out to her. Dr. found Dr. “increasingly threatening delusional and behavior.” showed reported Midathala his certificate that believed local government get her, At- particularly officials were out to State’s torney, people and that should die. believed those respondent’s psychiatric, and social comprehensive physical, investigation, reported “suspi- Midathala that “angry, ir- “slightly and He described her affect as cious” hostile.” ritable, range.” Respondent’s speech and intensity, increased decreased volume, pressure speech as and was described “increased rate grandiose.” Dr. present” “probably persecution, and delusions were poor, judgment insight Midathala described she has a mental illness and particularly because she does not believe does not want take medication. that
Finally, respondent’s testimony showed that she believed govern- family murdered and the more than 10 members were to hurt herself ment involved. She stated she did not want but punch- going was “not to be their sister had attacked her ing hag anymore.” records, testimony, Myers’
Based on medical respondent’s testimony, finding the trial court’s that against weight the manifest subject admission was not of the evidence. argues also the State failed to show that
hospitalization was the least-restrictive form of treatment available.
*9
Section 3—810 of the Code requires that the trial court instruct that a
report be prepared as to appropriateness
availability
of alternative
(West 2004).
settings.
treatment
405 ILCS
Section 3—811 of
5/3—810.
the
requires
Code
that the court
the
order
least-restrictive treatment
(West 2004).
alternative. 405 ILCS
While the trial court did
5/3—811
not explicitly
case,
discuss the various treatment alternatives in this
require
section 3—810 does
a
report
detailed
on treatment alterna
S.,
tives.
App.
Louis
361 Ill.
at
3d
C. Discharge Denial of Petition for 06—0133, argues In No. that the trial court erred 4— in denying petition for discharge because the State failed to present convincing clear and evidence was in need that she continued admission. Section 3—900 Code allows (405 person petition for a discharge any committed to file a for at time (West 2004)). obligation ILCS The has the 5/3—900 presenting Smoots, prima discharged. a that he should be case re facie (1989). App. 3d 544 N.E.2d prima own statements treated as a sworn facie Smoots, discharge. case Ill. 3d 544 N.E.2d at App. at 1237. If present case, is able to prima State must facie prove by convincing clear and evidence Smoots, should be denied. Ill. at at case, respondent present In this failed to case. prima facie Respondent’s petition discharge did not state the reasons she was requesting discharge. talking instead described McFarland, police “police about her transfer to brutality,” officers medication, attorney-client privilege. forced and a denial of she When testified, live, clearly where she would respondent never answered describing in in another town. When an address one town and trailer needs, respondent physical for her basic she care how аsked stated: they tried my license because “Well, they have driver’s of all first in all involved ’95, entrapment ’96. It’s me car wreck and
to kill Grady along with Kevin Goes George Ryan license for bribes. any even as a waitress or my I could work driver’s license. had My license are other, know, job. incapacitated. nurse’s you I am not [sic] inactive.” her mother respondent discussed regularly, if eats
When asked she mad at her when she getting her father leaving a house to taking her own not feel like Respondent stated she did tells him that. that she anybody if ever at McFarland life, but she told when asked stated, “Here, asked if she life, nо.” When might take her own stated, I am not “No. But anyone, harm physically had desire if she hearing, when asked Later going to be beat on either.” physical in serious thought any engage chance she could there was another, stated, they “If don’t attack harm herself or discussed how me, Throughout hearing, respondent I will be fine.” *10 on her. “they” in drink and smeared blood put drugs illicit Enron, Ryan, rape, and murder. George discussed also testimony, trial court described respondent’s Based on which the little, “ramblings” “making containing thoughts” “numerous a sense,” failed to any finding respondent if the court’s that establish against weight the of the discharge is not manifest prima case facie evidence. D. The Dissent about the important questions Justice Knecht’s dissent addresses admission handling of these cases. Does a Or is it require respondent’s hest interests? some consideration ritual, a that all boxes have simply more where the courts make sure herself, counsel, respondent’s respondent allowed been checked? Is or be any important statutory requirements It is that to make decisions? part the court or complied any ability elimination of the with but in best interest of counsel to exercise discretion and act the violations Unfortunately, the the technical purpose frustrates Code. appellate the first time usually in these cases are raised for court, the trial court. having been addressed without
III. CONCLUSION judgment. stated, For trial court’s the reasons we affirm the Affirmed. P.J.,
STEIGMANN, concurs. KNECHT, dissenting:
JUSTICE improperly was transferred to McFarland Mental Health Center. The permit Code does not the transfer of a private from a facility Department facility to a in these circumstances. is statutory authority There no to initiate such a transfer.
The State should not have made the transfer agreed transfer, counsel should not judge have to the should not order, еntered the have and McFarland accepted should not have transfer; and this court should reverse. Respondent’s lawyer, is her counsel not her social worker. Counsel no authority has to acquiesce to the transfer of the client from local hospital to a facility confined mental-health operated by Depart- ment simply because such a may appear transfer When inevitable. petition is filed seeking away take someone’s if liberty —even large world at is person’s believes it for the good own is an adver- —it proceeding. sarial The obligation timely bring peti- State had an tion hearing, rights prove observe the case.
Instead, respondent was facility transferred to restrictive state hearing. She facility was transferred advance to the same before when, if, anyone proved belonged where would confined Prejudice there. is inherent such a transfer. When took finally place, it had been A cynic continued three times. suggest there the hearing dispatch was less motivation to hold because she already professionals confined where medical wanted be.
Perhaps family if I had a treatment, member who needed I would think such good Perhаps legislature a transfer idea. should occurs, authorize such Until I transfers. contend this improperly prejudice. dispute transferred to her There is no ill. Her mentally schizo-affective disorder rendered her poor judgment. majority delusional with suggests respondent *11 agreed to agreed, weight given the transfer. If she what should agreement given her illness? differently proceedings are than
Mental-health cases treated other permitted society we them Just because have to become different. ill, are and courts. mentally lawyers uncomfortable so too forget purpose statutory That discomfort make us ill, protect seriously mentally just from framework is themselves, from us. but