State: Illinois
Court: 3rd District Appellate
Docket No: 3-96-0852
Case Date: 07/03/1997
No. 3--96--0852
_________________________________________________________________
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
THIRD DISTRICT
A.D., 1997
IN THE MATTER OF ) Appeal from the Circuit Court
) of the 10th Judicial Circuit,
TODD DELONG ) Peoria County, Illinois,
(Asserted to be a Person )
Subject to Involuntary )
Admission) )
)
(THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE ) No. 96--MH--243
OF ILLINOIS, )
)
Petitioner-Appellee, )
)
v. )
)
TODD DELONG, ) Honorable
) C. Brett Bode,
Respondent-Appellant). ) Judge, Presiding.
_________________________________________________________________
JUSTICE SLATER delivered the opinion of the court:
_________________________________________________________________
The respondent, Todd DeLong, appeals from the judgment of
the circuit court finding him in need of involuntary admission to
a mental health facility and authorizing the involuntary
administration of psychotropic medication. The respondent argues
that his due process rights were violated because the State
failed to comply with recently enacted procedural requirements
for obtaining the authorization to administer psychotropic
medication (see 405 ILCS 5/2--107.1 (West 1996)). For reasons
which follow, we reverse the trial court's authorization of
involuntary administration of psychotropic medication.
The record shows that on September 9, 1996, the State filed
a petition seeking to have the respondent involuntarily admitted
to the Zeller Mental Health facility. That same day, the State
filed a petition requesting authorization for the involuntary
administration of psychotropic medication to the respondent. On
September 10, 1996, the respondent was served with notice that a
hearing was scheduled for September 11, 1996. However, it
appears the respondent was never actually served with a copy of
the involuntary medication petition. Nevertheless, on September
11, 1996, a joint hearing was held on both petitions. The court
found that the respondent was subject to involuntary admission
and ordered hospitalization for up to 180 days. The court also
authorized the administration of psychotropic medication for 90
days.
The respondent appeals, arguing that his due process rights
were violated because the State failed to: (1) timely provide him
with a copy of the involuntary medication petition (see 405 ILCS
5/2--107.1(a)(1) (West 1996)); and (2) hold a separate hearing on
the involuntary medication petition (see 405 ILCS 5/2--
107.1(a)(2) (West 1996)).
Section 2--107.1 of the Mental Health and Developmental
Disabilities Code (the Code) relates to the administration of
psychotropic medication upon application to the court. 405 ILCS
5/2--107.1 (West 1996). Section 2--107.1 was amended effective
June 1, 1996, to include the following procedural safeguards:
"(1) Any person 18 years of age or older,
including any guardian, may petition the
circuit court for an order authorizing the
administration of psychotropic medication to
a recipient of services. The petitioner
shall deliver a copy of the petition, and
notice of the time and place of the hearing,
to the respondent, his or her attorney, and
the guardian, if any, no later than 10 days
prior to the date of the hearing. ***
(2) The court shall hold a hearing within
14 days of the filing of the petition. ***
The hearing shall be separate from a judicial
proceeding held to determine whether a person
is subject to involuntary admission."
(Emphasis added.) 405 ILCS 5/2--107.1(a)(1),
(2) (West 1996).
In the case at hand, there is nothing in the record
establishing that the respondent was provided with a copy of the
involuntary medication petition as is required by section 2--
107.1(a)(1) of the Code. See In re Ellis, 284 Ill. App. 3d 691,
693, 672 N.E.2d 893, 894 (1996) ("The burden is upon the State to
affirmatively demonstrate that it has complied with the mandates
of the Code."). Moreover, the involuntary medication hearing was
clearly not separate from the involuntary admission hearing, as
is required by section 2--107(a)(2) of the Code. The State
argues that the failure to comply with the procedural safeguards
of section 2--107.1(a) was either waived by the respondent's
failure to object in the trial court or harmless error.
We note that waiver is a limitation upon the parties and not
upon the courts, "and a reviewing court may ignore the waiver
rule in order to achieve a just result." People v. Hoskins, 101
Ill. 2d 209, 219, 461 N.E.2d 941, 946 (1984). In view of the
nature of the proceedings and the important liberty interests
involved, we decline the State's invitation to find waiver in the
case at hand.
We likewise decline the State's invitation to find that its
failure to comply with section 2--107.1 of the Code constituted
harmless error. We concede that based upon the record before us,
it is impossible to tell the extent to which the respondent was
prejudiced by the State's failure to comply with the procedural
safeguards of section 2--107.1. Nevertheless, there is a strong
potential for prejudice and important liberty interests are
involved. Moreover, the procedural safeguards enacted by the
legislature for mental health cases are not mere technicalities
which may be routinely disregarded by the State. In re Luttrell,
261 Ill. App. 3d 221, 633 N.E.2d 74 (1994). Rather, they are
essential tools to protect the liberty interests of persons
alleged to be mentally ill. Ellis, 284 Ill. App. 3d 691, 672
N.E.2d 893. We believe a harmless error finding would send the
wrong signal and suggest that we condone the ignoring of clearly
established procedural protections. Accordingly, we are
unwilling to find that the State's noncompliance constituted
harmless error.
For the reasons set forth above, we reverse the circuit
court of Peoria County's authorization of involuntary
administration of psychotropic medication. The judgment is
otherwise affirmed.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
HOLDRIDGE and McCUSKEY, J.J., concur.
Illinois Law
Illinois State Laws
Illinois Tax
Illinois Court
Illinois Labor Laws
> Minimum Wage in Illinois
Illinois Agencies