{ "id": 637073, "name": "In re GUARDIANSHIP OF SANDRA MUELLNER, a Disabled Adult, Respondent-Appellant (Blessing Hospital, Petitioner; The Office of State Guardian, Guardian-Appellee)", "name_abbreviation": "In re Guardianship of Muellner", "decision_date": "2002-12-10", "docket_number": "No. 4 \u2014 02 \u2014 0148", "first_page": "1079", "last_page": "1084", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "335 Ill. App. 3d 1079" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "704 N.E.2d 442", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "446" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "301 Ill. App. 3d 759", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 257174 ], "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "766" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/301/0759-01" ] }, { "cite": "765 N.E.2d 991", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "997" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "199 Ill. 2d 28", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 58953 ], "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "39" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/199/0028-01" ] }, { "cite": "698 N.E.2d 704", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "705" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "298 Ill. App. 3d 648", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 1073546 ], "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "649" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/298/0648-01" ] }, { "cite": "459 N.E.2d 17", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "20" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "121 Ill. App. 3d 7", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3560815 ], "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "12" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/121/0007-01" ] }, { "cite": "537 N.E.2d 292", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "296" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "127 Ill. 2d 247", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5564516 ], "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "257" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/127/0247-01" ] }, { "cite": "702 N.E.2d 555", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "559" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "183 Ill. 2d 482", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 209988 ], "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "491" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/183/0482-01" ] }, { "cite": "625 N.E.2d 832", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "834" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "253 Ill. App. 3d 718", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5425741 ], "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "721-22" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/253/0718-01" ] }, { "cite": "367 N.E.2d 1273", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "67 Ill. 2d 544", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5812888 ], "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/67/0544-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 537, "char_count": 10550, "ocr_confidence": 0.743, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.518933943796874e-08, "percentile": 0.4005210342379035 }, "sha256": "5a5f0b1598e7b4be2671d458217112790430752ced5c6e7858f2861e87d54717", "simhash": "1:e9623a365f9a8dfd", "word_count": 1674 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:04:10.004592+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "In re GUARDIANSHIP OF SANDRA MUELLNER, a Disabled Adult, Respondent-Appellant (Blessing Hospital, Petitioner; The Office of State Guardian, Guardian-Appellee)." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "PRESIDING JUSTICE MYERSCOUGH\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nIn January 2002, the trial court found respondent, Sandra Muell-ner, to be a disabled adult and appointed, the Office of State Guardian (State Guardian) as limited guardian of her person. Respondent appeals, arguing the trial court erred in authorizing the State Guardian to place her in a nursing home\u2019s behavioral unit without proceeding for her involuntary commitment under chapter III of the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Code (Mental Health Code) (405 ILCS 5/3 \u2014 100 through 3 \u2014 1003 (West 2000)).\nI. BACKGROUND\nIn September 2001, respondent was 55 years old and resided in Hotel Quincy Apartments. The manager noticed respondent holding a towel in her arms and acting like she had a baby. A maid convinced respondent to go to Blessing Hospital (Blessing), where she was voluntarily admitted as an inpatient to an adult psychiatric unit. In October 2001, Melissa Penn, a social worker at Blessing, filed a guardianship petition and a petition for temporary guardianship. Penn alleged respondent was a disabled person because she was unable to care for herself and she suffered from chronic paranoid schizophrenia with delusions. The petitions sought to appoint the State Guardian as guardian of respondent\u2019s person with authority to make residential placement. The trial court appointed the State Guardian as respondent\u2019s temporary guardian for up to 60 days. The trial court authorized the State Guardian to make residential placement.\nIn November 2001, the State Guardian, as respondent\u2019s temporary guardian, placed respondent with New Horizons in Sycamore Health Care (Sycamore), a 24-hour skilled nursing facility. New Horizons is a behavioral unit that works to stabilize psychiatric patients. It has an in-house psychiatrist and offers group therapy classes. The facility is not locked, but access to other areas of Sycamore or the outside community is restricted until the resident gains levels of trust.\nIn January 2002, the trial court held a hearing on Penn\u2019s guardianship petition. Dr. Lee Johnson, a psychiatrist, treated respondent for schizophrenia. Dr. Johnson noted that respondent rarely took prescribed medication. Julie Irvine of the West Central Illinois Center for Independent Living testified for respondent. Irvine stated respondent was capable of living independently in the community with visits by personal assistants to her home. Respondent filed a motion to limit the proposed guardian\u2019s power to place her in a nursing home. After taking the matter under advisement, the trial court denied respondent\u2019s motion as moot and appointed the State Guardian as limited guardian of respondent\u2019s person. The trial court granted the State Guardian authority to place respondent in a group home, shelter-care facility, or in the community. The trial court conditioned the State Guardian\u2019s authority to residentially place respondent in a skilled-care nursing facility; the State Guardian had to determine that respondent\u2019s placement in a less restrictive environment would cause substantial harm to her.\nThis appeal followed.\nII. ANALYSIS\nRespondent argues the trial court erred in authorizing the State Guardian to place her in a nursing home\u2019s behavioral unit without proceeding for her involuntary commitment under chapter III of the Mental Health Code (405 ILCS 5/3 \u2014 100 through 3 \u2014 1003 (West 2000)).\nA. Mootness\nThe State Guardian concedes error under the facts of this case but contends we should dismiss the present appeal as moot. In its brief, the State Guardian informed this court that it allowed respondent to return to her residence, and the State Guardian has also given this court its assurance that respondent will not be returned to New Horizons except to the extent allowed under the Mental Health Code.\nRespondent asserts this appeal is not moot for the following reasons. Respondent suggests the trial court could appoint a substitute guardian or compel the State Guardian to place respondent in New Horizons or another mental health facility. Citing In re Stephenson, 67 Ill. 2d 544, 367 N.E.2d 1273 (1977), respondent also contends the \u201cmental health exception\u201d to mootness applies. Finally, respondent claims the \u201csubstantial public interest exception\u201d to mootness applies.\nAlthough the appellate court has recognized a general exception to mootness for mental health cases (see, e.g., In re Slaughter, 253 Ill. App. 3d 718, 721-22, 625 N.E.2d 832, 834 (1993)), our supreme court has not embraced that exception. See In re Barbara H., 183 Ill. 2d 482, 491, 702 N.E.2d 555, 559 (1998). Instead, we determine that the public interest exception to mootness applies.\nThree factors determine whether the public interest exception applies: \u201c(1) the public nature of the question, (2) the desirability of an authoritative determination for the purpose of guiding public officers, and (3) the likelihood that the question will generally recur.\u201d In re A Minor, 127 Ill. 2d 247, 257, 537 N.E.2d 292, 296 (1989). Whether the State Guardian may admit a ward to a nursing home\u2019s behavioral unit for treatment of mental illness is a question of a public nature. An authoritative determination is very important because involuntary admission to a mental health facility implicates a ward\u2019s liberty interest. Finally, the question is likely to generally recur, given that other mentally ill wards reside in this state and the State Guardian has limited its concession to the particular facts of this case.\nAccordingly, we address the merits.\nB. Nursing Home as a Mental Health Facility\nSection 11a \u2014 3(a) of the Probate Act of 1975 (Probate Act) (755 ILCS 5/lla \u2014 3(a) (West 2000)) authorizes a trial court to appoint a guardian for a disabled person. A guardian of the person has custody of the ward. 755 ILCS 5/lla \u2014 17(a) (West 2000). The guardianship order may specify the conditions on which the guardian may admit the ward to a residential facility without further court order. 755 ILCS 5/lla \u2014 14.1 (West 2000). However, a trial court may not grant a guardian the power to admit a nonconsenting ward to a mental health facility for treatment as a voluntary patient. In re Gardner, 121 Ill. App. 3d 7, 12, 459 N.E.2d 17, 20 (1984). Section 3 \u2014 200(a) of the Mental Health Code (405 ILCS 5/3 \u2014 200(a) (West 2000)) provides that \u201c[a] person may be admitted as an inpatient to a mental health facility for treatment of mental illness only as provided in\u201d chapter III of the Mental Health Code.\nIn the present case, the trial court authorized the State Guardian to admit respondent to a skilled-care nursing facility, and the State Guardian placed respondent in New Horizons, which is a behavioral unit of a skilled-care nursing facility. Although the State Guardian has confessed error, this court is not bound by a confession of error. People v. Lavallier, 298 Ill. App. 3d 648, 649, 698 N.E.2d 704, 705 (1998). Therefore, we decide whether a nursing home\u2019s behavioral unit qualifies as a \u201cmental health facility\u201d under the Mental Health Code.\nSection 1 \u2014 114 of the Mental Health Code (405 ILCS 5/1\u2014 114 (West 2000)) defines \u201cmental health facility\u201d as:\n\u201cany licensed private hospital, institution, or facility or section thereof, and any facility, or section thereof, operated by the State or a political subdivision thereof for the treatment of persons with mental illness and includes all hospitals, institutions, clinics, evaluation facilities, and mental health centers which provide treatment for such persons.\u201d\nSection 1 \u2014 113 of the Mental Health Code (405 ILCS 5/1 \u2014 113 (West 2000)) defines \u201clicensed private hospital\u201d as:\n\u201cany privately owned home, hospital, or institution, or any section thereof which is licensed by the Department of Public Health and which provides treatment for persons with mental illness.\u201d\nThe State Guardian claims that the definition of \u201cmental health facility\u201d is limited to those facilities with a \u201cprimary purpose\u201d of treating mental illness. Amicus curiae suggests that any nursing home may become a \u201cmental health facility\u201d if a single mentally ill person is admitted for mental health treatment. We reject these interpretations because they depart from the plain language of section 1 \u2014 114. See People v. Ellis, 199 Ill. 2d 28, 39, 765 N.E.2d 991, 997 (2002).\nInstead, we determine that New Horizons qualifies under the \u201clicensed private hospital\u201d portion of the definition of a \u201cmental health facility\u201d in section 1 \u2014 114 of the Mental Health Code. As this court noted in In re Moore, 301 Ill. App. 3d 759, 766, 704 N.E.2d 442, 446 (1998), sections 1 \u2014 113 and 1 \u2014 114 of the Mental Health Code recognize that a facility may have sections for the treatment of mentally ill persons. The record shows that Sycamore is licensed by the Illinois Department of Public Health and New Horizons, a section of Sycamore, provides treatment for persons with mental illness.\nTherefore, the trial court erred in permitting the State Guardian to place respondent in a mental health facility without requiring the State Guardian to proceed under the Mental Health Code.\nIII. CONCLUSION\nFor the reasons stated, we reverse the portion of the trial court\u2019s limited guardianship order that authorizes the State Guardian to place respondent in a skilled-care nursing facility to the extent it allows the State Guardian to admit respondent to a mental health facility without complying with the Mental Health Code. We affirm the trial court in all other respects and direct the trial court on remand to enter an order restricting the State Guardian\u2019s authority to admit respondent to a mental health facility without complying with the Mental Health Code.\nAffirmed in part and reversed in part; cause remanded with directions.\nKNECHT and APPLETON, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "PRESIDING JUSTICE MYERSCOUGH" } ], "attorneys": [ "Barry G. Lowy (argued), of Equip for Equality, Inc., of Springfield, for appellant.", "James E. Ryan, Attorney General, of Chicago (Joel D. Bertocchi, Solicitor General, and Michael P. Doyle (argued), Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for appellee.", "Mark J. Heyrman, of Edwin E Mandel Legal Aid Clinic, of Chicago, for amicus curiae.", "Daniel J. Depke, of Law Offices of Daniel J. Depke, of Quincy, and James B. Moses, Jr., of Guardianship and Advocacy Commission, of Peoria, guardian ad litem." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "In re GUARDIANSHIP OF SANDRA MUELLNER, a Disabled Adult, Respondent-Appellant (Blessing Hospital, Petitioner; The Office of State Guardian, Guardian-Appellee).\nFourth District\nNo. 4 \u2014 02 \u2014 0148\nArgued November 13, 2002.\nOpinion filed December 10, 2002.\nBarry G. Lowy (argued), of Equip for Equality, Inc., of Springfield, for appellant.\nJames E. Ryan, Attorney General, of Chicago (Joel D. Bertocchi, Solicitor General, and Michael P. Doyle (argued), Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for appellee.\nMark J. Heyrman, of Edwin E Mandel Legal Aid Clinic, of Chicago, for amicus curiae.\nDaniel J. Depke, of Law Offices of Daniel J. Depke, of Quincy, and James B. Moses, Jr., of Guardianship and Advocacy Commission, of Peoria, guardian ad litem." }, "file_name": "1079-01", "first_page_order": 1097, "last_page_order": 1102 }