People v. Hans T. (In re Hans T.)

2021 IL App (2d) 180387

186 N.E.3d 535

452 Ill.Dec. 811

IN RE COMMITMENT OF HANS T.

(The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee,

v.Hans T., Respondent-Appellant).

No. 2-18-0387

Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District.

Opinion filed August 4, 2021

Veronique Baker, Laurel Spahn, and Ann Krasuski, of Legal Advocacy Service, of Hines, for appellant.

Robert B. Berlin, State's Attorney, of Wheaton (Lisa Anne Hoffman and Mary A. Fleming, Assistant State's Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.

PRESIDING JUSTICE BRIDGES delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 Respondent, Hans T., appeals from the trial court's order subjecting him to involuntary admission on an outpatient basis, under which he was required to reside in a locked unit of a nursing home for 180 days. Respondent argues that the order was essentially for involuntary admission on an inpatient basis, without the statutory procedures and findings necessary to impose such an order, and for twice the time permitted for an initial involuntary inpatient admission. He recognizes that the issue is now moot, but he argues that exceptions to the mootness doctrine apply. We agree with respondent and therefore reverse the trial court's order.

¶ 2 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 3 On January 16, 2018, personnel from Central Du Page Hospital filed documents seeking involuntary outpatient admission of respondent. They alleged that he was a person with a mental illness that, if left untreated, was reasonably expected to result in an increase in symptoms to the point that he would meet the criteria for commitment and whose illness had more than once caused him to refuse needed and appropriate mental health services in the community. See 405 ILCS 5/1-119.1 (West 2018). They alleged that respondent had been admitted to inpatient treatment several times and that he returned because he was unable to function in his home, in that he was noncompliant with his medications and aggressive with his mother, Maria T. Dr. Richard Wagner opined that respondent had schizophrenia and that he was chronically psychotic and incapable of making decisions necessary to keep himself safe.

¶ 4 On January 18, 2018, the State filed a motion for the care and custody of respondent and for community placement, alleging as follows. Respondent had been diagnosed with chronic mental illnesses, including schizophrenia with psychosis and other psychotic disorders, and was presently hospitalized at Central Du Page Hospital. He was paranoid and lacked the judgment and insight to take care of himself. He discontinued the use of his prescribed psychotropic medications, which made him psychotic, delusional, and paranoid to the extent that he was unable to care for his basic needs and was a potential danger to himself and others. Therefore, he met the criteria for involuntary admission on an outpatient basis. The State sought to place respondent in a residential facility upon discharge from the hospital, as recommended by his treatment team, and have respondent's mother named as his custodian. The attached treatment plan stated that he was to take all prescribed medications, which it listed.

¶ 5 A hearing took place on February 9, 2018. Respondent's mother testified that respondent was 33 years old and lived with her. He had been suffering from mental illness since he was about 22 years old. His symptoms included having no "control" of his room, not bathing, sleeping all day, and having an irritable attitude. He asked her to do things all the time in a demanding manner, which made her feel scared. Respondent had been to the hospital more than five times for his mental illness. He had also lived in the Warren Park nursing home for two years and was stable there, but at home he would forget to take his medications. Respondent's mother was not willing to let respondent return home with her and preferred that he go to a nursing home. She thought that the nursing home staff would be in charge of him, and she would go and visit.

¶ 6 Amanda Nadr testified that she was respondent's social worker at Central Du Page Hospital. In relevant part, she testified that the hospital staff was recommending that respondent be placed at the Aperion Care Center (Aperion) in West Chicago, which was an intermediate care facility that provided psychosocial rehabilitation for people with mental health needs. Nadr testified that the recommendation was that respondent start off on Aperion's secured third floor, where patients were not allowed to leave freely.

¶ 7 Dr. Wagner testified as follows. Respondent had been admitted to Central Du Page Hospital multiple times, and he was respondent's treating psychiatrist there. Most recently, he had been seeing respondent about six days a week, since respondent's admission on December 27, 2017. He opined that respondent suffered from schizophrenia, which caused psychotic behaviors. They manifested mostly in respondent's beliefs, such as that he was the chief executive officer (CEO) of Boston Market and that he owned his mother's home. Respondent also had to be repeatedly reminded to take care of his personal hygiene. Respondent kept getting readmitted to the hospital in a more psychotic state than when he left, and he was not agreeing to an appropriate treatment plan. Respondent had been placed in a nursing home three times in the past six months, and each time, he walked out. Respondent would ideally be placed in a nursing home designated for mental illnesses and, if available, in a locked unit, given his repeated history of leaving. Respondent had been willingly taking his medications under Dr. Wagner's care. He was "compliant when [he was] directed and given guidance." Dr. Wagner was aware of only one instance when respondent had gotten physical with another person, which was a shoving match with his mother four years ago, but Dr. Wagner "never thought of him as putting others at risk." Dr. Wagner recommended a nursing home placement for respondent for the maximum of 180 days.

¶ 8 Respondent's attorney moved for a directed finding, arguing that, although the petition was for 180 days of outpatient treatment, the State and the hospital were requesting to place respondent in a secure facility on an inpatient basis for 180 days. The trial court denied the motion.

¶ 9 Respondent then provided the following testimony. He showered every night, but the staff may not have realized it. Ever since he started working at the age of 13, most of his salary went toward the home's mortgage, and he and his mother agreed that they would continue to live there together. His mother told him that she would hold his title to the house for safekeeping. Respondent felt that she was too intrusive in his life and with his visitors. He worked for Boston Market as a member of the Marines, and they sent a lot of lifesaving medications to people who needed them. He was receiving a salary of $400 per month but was negotiating with human resources to get a salary comparable to previous CEOs, because he knew everything about the company. Respondent described an incident where police came to his house, took all of his belongings, including billions of dollars of research medications, and forced him to go to a nursing home called West Chicago Terrace.

¶ 10 In closing, respondent's attorney argued, inter alia , that the statute governing outpatient admission allowed someone to be admitted for up to 180 days, because outpatient treatment was a less restrictive setting than inpatient treatment, which the statute governing inpatient admission limited to 90 days. The attorney argued that the State was improperly trying to combine the provisions of both statutes.

¶ 11 The trial court stated that it was taking judicial notice that respondent was found unfit to stand trial in 2010. It stated that the testimony at the hearing was essentially unrebutted and that respondent had made many statements that were divorced from reality and underscored the need for continued treatment. The trial court therefore granted the petition.

¶ 12 On March 9, 2018, respondent filed a motion to reconsider, arguing that no reasonable definition of outpatient treatment entailed a person being physically confined to a hospital against his will. At a hearing on March 19, 2018, the trial court stated that this argument was the crux of the motion, but it noted that respondent provided no citation to authority for the principle and that "[o]ne would think that there might be something in Illinois case law-wise that might speak to this." On May 7, 2018, the trial court stated that it would grant the motion to reconsider to correct certain scrivener's errors, such as a box being checked next to the statement that the period of "hospitalization" shall not exceed 180 days. It stated that the order's intent was not that respondent be hospitalized but rather that respondent's mother would be his custodian and that the least restrictive environment for him would be custody by and through his mother at Aperion, which was not the same as inpatient hospitalization. It stated that it could not find any case law on outpatient care and custody orders, which "certainly hamper[ed] [it] in terms of trying to construe things."

¶ 13 Respondent filed a notice of appeal on May 18, 2018. In his brief, he argues that (1) his due process rights were violated when the trial court involuntarily committed him to inpatient treatment in a nursing home under the section of the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Code (Mental Health Code) ( 405 ILCS 5/1-100 et seq. (West 2018)) governing outpatient treatment (id. § 3-813), which has a less stringent standard and is for up to 180 days, twice as long as permitted for inpatient commitment; (2) the involuntary admission order is void for lack of statutory authority, because it requires him to take medications, including nonpsychotropic medications; (3) he was denied a fair trial when the trial court sua sponte took judicial notice of...