In re Robert F.

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Illinois » 4th District Appellate » 2009 » In re Robert F.

In re Robert F.

State: Illinois

Court: 4th District Appellate

Docket No: 4-08-0810 Rel

Case Date: 11/09/2009

Preview:Filed 11/9/09

NO. 4-08-0810 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FOURTH DISTRICT

In re: ROBERT F., a Person Found Subject to Involuntary Admission, THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Petitioner-Appellee, v. ROBERT F., Respondent-Appellant.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Appeal from Circuit Court of Sangamon County No. 08MH765 Honorable Esteban F. Sanchez, Judge Presiding.

JUSTICE APPLETON delivered the opinion of the court: Respondent, Robert F., appeals from the trial court's order finding that he was a person subject to involuntary admission and ordering him to be treated for his mental illness for a period not to exceed 90 days at Springfield Terrace Nursing Home pursuant to an agreement for alternative treatment. Because the court's order complied with neither the statute governing involuntary admissions (405 ILCS 5/2-107.1 (West 2008)), nor the statute governing agreed orders for alternative treatment (405 ILCS 5/3-801.5 (West 2008)), we vacate the order as void for want of statutory authority. I. BACKGROUND Respondent, a 56-year-old man, has had a long history of mental illness and has been the subject of prior orders of involuntary admission. On October 10, 2008, respondent's case coordinator filed a petition for continued involuntary admission at McFarland Mental Health Center (McFarland) pursuant to section 3-813 of the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Code (Mental Health Code) (405 ILCS 5/3-813

(West 2008)). The petitioner alleged respondent was a person subject to continued involuntary admission because (1) due to his mental illness, he was reasonably expected to engage in dangerous conduct (405 ILCS 5/1-119(1) (West 2008)) and (2) the nature of his mental illness prevented him from understanding his need for treatment and, if he was not treated, he was reasonably expected to suffer or continue to suffer mental deterioration or emotional deterioration, or both, to the point that he was reasonably expected to engage in dangerous conduct (405 ILCS 5/1-119(3) (West 2008)). Attached to the petition were certificates of examination prepared by Dr. A. M. Eberhardt and McFarland's Clinical Director, Greg Coughlin. The same day, Coughlin filed a petition for alternative treatment, alleging that respondent's condition had improved since July 2008, when the last order of involuntary commitment was entered against him. The petitioner requested that the trial court consider placement in an intermediate care facility or a 24-hour supervised group home. Also filed was an agreement for alternative treatment signed by respondent's sister and guardian, a psychiatrist, Coughlin, and the admissions coordinator at Springfield Terrace Nursing Home. The agreement provided that, in lieu of hospitalization, respondent would (1) take his prescribed medications, (2) comply with prescribed lab work, (3) meet with his psychiatrist, (4) meet with staff for follow-up appointments, (5) comply with treatment or risk a return to McFarland, and (6) reside at the facility or another facility approved by his guardian. On the line designated for respondent's signature, the clinical director noted that "[Respondent] chose not to sign." On October 17, 2008, the trial court conducted a hearing on the petition for involuntary admission. The State moved to amend the petition to include the -2-

allegations that respondent was a person subject to involuntary admission because (1) due to his mental illness, he was unable to provide for his basic physical needs so as to guard himself from serious harm without the assistance of family or outside help and (2) he was in need of immediate hospitalization for the prevention of such harm. Without objection, the court allowed the amendment. Respondent's treating psychiatrist at McFarland, Dr. Kasturi Kripakran, testified as the State's expert witness. She said respondent was diagnosed with schizophrenia and has suffered from delusions and paranoia. Although respondent has demonstrated some improvement with treatment, he recently reverted to threatening Dr. Kripakran. According to Dr. Kripakran, respondent does not believe he has a mental illness or that he needs medication. But, in her opinion, continuing respondent's treatment would be in his best interest. The State posed the following question to the doctor: "Q. Doctor, do you have an opinion within a reasonable degree of psychiatric certainty whether because of his mental illness he is reasonably expected to engage in dangerous conduct, which may include threatening behavior or conduct that places that person or another individual in reasonable expectation of being harmed? Do you have an opinion as to that? A. Yes, I do. Q. And what is your opinion? A. I do believe that he is a danger if he does not con-3-

tinue treatment. Q. And what factual basis do you have for your opinion? A. Based on his past history and his past repeated hospitalizations for similar other episodes of aggression. Q. When you describe his past history, does he have a long history of violence? A. Yes." Dr. Kripakran testified that on September 19, 2008, respondent told her "he had a KPO order against [her], which means kill to protect order." He also told the doctor he had "people who could carry out his order." In her opinion, respondent's mental illness prevented him from caring for his basic physical needs without assistance. She said in the last several years, respondent has resided only in nursing homes or McFarland. She said, to a reasonable degree of psychiatric certainty, she believes respondent is unable to understand his need for treatment and without treatment, he will suffer or continue to suffer mental or emotional deterioration. If he deteriorates, he will be reasonably expected to engage in dangerous conduct. Dr. Kripakran said she considers respondent in need of continued treatment for the prevention of harm to himself or others. The prosecutor introduced the written agreement for alternative treatment, which was marked and introduced into evidence as exhibit No. 1. Dr. Kripakran described Springfield Terrace as the least-restrictive environment for respondent's treatment. -4-

On cross-examination, Dr. Kripakran said respondent had lived in an apartment on his own several years ago, but that "failed because of his delusional beliefs." He had collected feces and urine in the apartment and was evicted. Dr. Kripakran recommended for respondent a nursing home rather than McFarland because "he has not shown any dangerous behavior, and he has been able to take care of his ADLs [(activities of daily living)] with supervision." She opined that if he did well in the nursing home and continued his treatment and medication, he had a good chance of succeeding in an independent environment in the community. Respondent testified on his own behalf as follows: "Q. There's a proposal today to have you live at Springfield Terrace Nursing Home-A. Uh-huh. Q. --for a period of not to exceed 90 days. A. Uh-huh. Q. What do you think about that? A. Well, the ADLs that they spoke of, I can take care of myself. I take showers on my own, and I can eat on my own. I can cook for myself. I have done it before. The--evidently, I was in the apartment in 2004, and I was having fun walking across the street. I was acting like (indicating), you know, a little curtsy, having fun and going across the street, and somebody saw me doing that. I was just having a good time. -5-

Q. So is it your belief that

Download In re Robert F..pdf