In re Connie G. ( People of State , 3–10–0420.

2011 IL App (3d) 100,420

956 N.E.2d 600

353 Ill.Dec. 738

In re CONNIE G. (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner–Appellee,

v. Connie G., Respondent–Appellant).

No. 3–10–0420.

Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District.

Aug. 31, 2011.Rehearing Denied Oct. 6, 2011.

Cynthia Z. Tracy (Court-appointed), Guardian & Advocacy Commission, Peoria, Laurel Spahn (Court-appointed) (argued), Illinois Guardianship & Advocacy Commission, Hines, Veronique Baker (Court-appointed), Director, Illinois Guardianship & Advocacy Commission, for Connie G.Terry A. Mertel, Deputy Director, State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor, Jeff Terronez, State's Attorney, Richard T. Leonard (argued), State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor, for People.

OPINION

Justice LYTTON delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 Approximately one month after voluntarily admitting herself to Robert Young Mental Health Center for treatment, respondent Connie G. filed a request for discharge. A few days later, Connie G.'s roommate at Robert Young filed a petition for involuntary admission against Connie G. Following a hearing, the trial court granted the petition. On appeal, Connie G. argues that the trial court erred in granting the petition because (1) she was denied her right to rescind her request for discharge, (2) the petition did not comply with the requirements of the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Code (Code) (405 ILCS 5/1–100 et seq. (West 2008)), and (3) the State failed to prove that Robert Young was the least restrictive environment. We affirm.

¶ 2 On March 24, 2010, Connie G. voluntarily admitted herself to Robert Young for mental health treatment after swallowing “two handfuls of Valium.” On April 2, 2010, Connie G. requested and completed a form entitled, “Request for Discharge,” in which she requested discharge from Robert Young. A few days later, she withdrew her request by signing the bottom of the form, which stated, “I withdraw my written notice of my desire to be discharged.” On April 8 and April 17, 2010, Connie G. again requested discharge but withdrew each of those requests within five days. On April 25, 2010, Connie G. once again requested discharge by completing a “Request for Discharge” form.

¶ 3 On April 30, 2010, Nicole G., Connie G.'s roommate at Robert Young, filed a petition for involuntary admission against Connie G. The preprinted petition form filed by Nicole G. included a list of “reasons” why involuntary admission was being initiated and instructed the author to “Check all that apply.” The only box checked on the petition was the one that stated “emergency admission by certificate” and referred to section 3–600 of the Code (405 ILCS 5/3–600 (West 2008)). The box that referred to section 3–403 (405 ILCS 5/3–403 (West 2008)) and stated “voluntary admittee submitted written notice of desire to be discharged” was not checked.

¶ 4 In the petition, Nicole G. alleged that Connie G. told her on several occasions in the previous three days that she planned to kill herself by overdose when she left Robert Young. Attached to the petition were certificates from psychiatrists Ernest Galbreath and Eric Ritterhoff, which stated that Connie G. was (1) “reasonably expected to inflict serious physical harm upon * * * herself * * * in the near future * * *; [and] (2) “in need of immediate hospitalization for the prevention of such harm.”

¶ 5 Prior to her involuntary commitment hearing, Connie G. requested an independent psychological examination. The trial court appointed Dr. Kirk Witherspoon, a clinical psychologist, to perform the evaluation. Dr. Witherspoon examined Connie G. on May 8, 2010, and completed a written psychological evaluation. In the evaluation, Dr. Witherspoon noted that Connie G. had filed and rescinded a number of requests to be released from Robert Young. Connie G. told him that she wanted to rescind her last request for release but was told that she could not.

¶ 6 Dr. Witherspoon determined that Connie G. “would appear most likely to benefit from ongoing intense, that is, comprehensive, inpatient mental health treatment to address her myriad concerns and until such time that she has a good, solid plan for recovery and adequate commitment and contract against self-harm.” Dr. Witherspoon recommended that Connie G. “be afforded ongoing inpatient mental health treatment, involuntarily if required, to prevent her posing an immediate threat of self-harm.”

¶ 7 On May 14, 2010, Connie G.'s involuntary commitment hearing took place. At the beginning of the hearing, the court accepted as evidence Dr. Witherspoon's written psychological evaluation and a one-page handwritten treatment plan prepared by Dr. Ritterhoff, which listed medications needed to treat Connie G.'s various medical conditions, including bipolar disorder. Dr. Ritterhoff testified that he has treated Connie G. for three or four years following several suicide attempts. He testified that she suffers from bipolar disorder, attention deficit disorder, generalized anxiety disorder and “additional problems with emotional development as a result of early childhood experiences.” He opined that Connie G. was reasonably likely to inflict serious physical harm on herself in the near future based on recent plans of suicide and “repeated ambivalence about staying in the hospital and working on her problems.”

¶ 8 Dr. Ritterhoff's treatment plan for Connie G. included a series of medications to address her medical conditions, as well as cognitive behavior therapy, consisting of exercises to try to improve her feelings. Dr. Ritterhoff considered Connie G.'s social history, including her stunted emotional development as a child, in preparing the treatment plan for her. He considered alternative treatments available to Connie G. but determined that Connie G. “lacks the emotional strength, motivation and independence to sufficiently cope outside of the hospital.” He explained that the time frame for Connie G.'s treatment depends on her choices and how quickly she figures out the purpose and meaning of her life. Dr. Ritterhoff concluded that Robert Young is the least restrictive alternative for Connie G.

¶ 9 During his testimony, Dr. Ritterhoff discussed Connie G.'s repeated requests for discharge. She filed three requests prior to the April 25, 2010, request for discharge. After each of the first three requests, he encouraged her to retract the request, and she did. She “refused to withdraw” her last request. Later, she indicated that she regretted filing the request and told him that she filed it because he would not give her a pass to leave Robert Young.

¶ 10 Connie G. denied telling Nicole G. that she planned to commit suicide when she left Robert Young. She admitted that suicide was on her mind at the time, but she denied having a specific plan to kill herself. She admitted that she has attempted suicide five times in the past. She denied having any plan to do so at the time of the hearing.

¶ 11 At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found that the State met its burden of proving that Connie G. is a person with a mental illness and because of her illness is “reasonably expected to inflict serious physical harm upon herself.” The court ordered that Connie G. be involuntarily admitted to Robert Young for up to 90 days.

¶ 12 I. Mootness

¶ 13 The State argues that Connie G.'s appeal should be dismissed as moot because the trial court's order had a duration of 90 days and 90 days have since passed. Connie G. responds that this case falls within an exception to the mootness doctrine.

¶ 14 As a general rule, courts in Illinois do not decide moot questions. In re Alfred H.H., 233 Ill.2d 345, 351, 331 Ill.Dec. 1, 910 N.E.2d 74 (2009). However, courts will consider otherwise moot issues that fall within established exceptions to the mootness doctrine, including the “public interest” exception. In re Robin C., 395 Ill.App.3d 958, 963, 335 Ill.Dec. 471, 918 N.E.2d 1284 (2009). There is no per se exception to mootness that universally applies to mental health cases; however, most appeals of mental health cases will fall within one of the established exceptions to the mootness doctrine. Alfred H.H., 233 Ill.2d at 355, 331 Ill.Dec. 1, 910 N.E.2d 74. Whether a case falls within an established exception is a case-by-case determination. Id.

¶ 15 The public interest exception allows a court to consider an otherwise moot case when (1) the question presented is of a public nature, (2) there is a need for an authoritative determination for the future guidance of public officers, and (3) there is a likelihood of future recurrence of the question. Alfred H.H., 233 Ill.2d at 355, 331 Ill.Dec. 1, 910 N.E.2d 74. Where the substantive issue on appeal involves the State's compliance with the Code, the public interest exception applies. See In re Nicholas L., 407 Ill.App.3d 1061, 348 Ill.Dec. 431, 944 N.E.2d 384 (2011); In re James H., 405 Ill.App.3d 897, 904, 348 Ill.Dec. 135, 943 N.E.2d 743 (2010); In re Robin C., 395 Ill.App.3d 958, 963, 335 Ill.Dec. 471, 918 N.E.2d 1284 (2009).

¶ 16 Here, one of the issues raised by Connie G. on appeal is whether the petition for involuntary commitment filed against her by Nicole G. complied with the Code. Because this question involves statutory compliance, it qualifies as a matter of a public nature. See Nicholas L., 407 Ill.App.3d 1061, 348 Ill.Dec. 431, 944 N.E.2d 384. Thus, the public interest exception applies. Id.

¶ 17 Since an exception to the mootness doctrine applies to this case, we have jurisdiction over Connie G.'s appeal.

¶ 18 II. Request for Discharge

¶ 19 Connie G. argues that she should not have been subject to involuntary commitment because she attempted to rescind her April 25, 2010, request for discharge but was not allowed to do so.

¶ 20 Section 3–403 of the Code provides that a voluntary recipient of mental health services “shall be allowed to be discharged from the facility at...