COA 375906 IN RE LM Opinion - Per Curiam - Unpublished 7/15/2026

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to
revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.
-1-
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N
C O U R T O F A P P E A L S
In re LM.
AMY MONTGOMERY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
UNPUBLISHED
July 15, 2026
8:46 AM
v No. 375906
Washtenaw Probate Court
LM, LC No. 25-000336-MI
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: M. J. KELLY, P.J., and PATEL and KOROBKIN, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Respondent appeals as of right the probate court’s initial order for mental-health treatment.
We affirm for the reasons stated in this opinion.
I. SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION
Respondent first argues that the trial court did not properly consider a report on alternative
treatment options and that the failure deprived the court of subject-matter jurisdiction. We
disagree. “Subject-matter jurisdiction is the right of the court to exercise judicial power over a
class of cases, not the particular case before it. In re Eddins, 342 Mich App 529, 538; 995 NW2d
604 (2022). It is well-established that probate courts have exclusive legal and equitable
jurisdiction over proceedings brought under the Mental Health Code, MCL 330.1001 et seq. Id.
That subject-matter jurisdiction is not dependent upon strict compliance with the Mental Health
Code. Id. Thus, regardless of whether the probate court properly considered an alternative
treatment report, the court had subject-matter jurisdiction over the proceeding.

-- 1 of 3 --

-2-
II. FAILURE TO CONSIDER REPORT ON ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT
A. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Respondent argues that the trial court erred because it did not strictly comply with the
requirements in MCL 330.1469a. This issue is not preserved for appellate review because it was
not raised in the trial court. In re MAT, ___Mich App ___, ___; ___ NW3d ___ (2024) (Docket
No. 369255); slip op at 2-3; see also id. at ___; slip op at 2. Accordingly, our review is for plain
error affecting respondent’s substantial rights. Id. Under the plain-error standard, “a party must
show that an error occurred, that it was clear or obvious, and that it caused prejudice, i.e., that the
error affected the outcome of the proceedings.” Id. at ___; slip op at 3 (quotation marks and
citation omitted).
B. ANALYSIS
The Mental Health Code provides the statutory framework for imposing involuntary
mental-health treatment on an individual. MCL 330.1403. See also In re Portus, 325 Mich App
374, 382; 926 NW2d 33 (2018). “ ‘Involuntary mental health treatment’ means ‘court-ordered
hospitalization, assisted outpatient treatment, or combined hospitalization and assisted outpatient
treatment as described in [MCL 330.1468].’ ” In re Londowski, 340 Mich App 495, 504-505; 986
NW2d 659 (2022), citing MCL 330.1400 (f). Involuntary mental-health treatment may be ordered
if the probate court finds that the individual is a “person requiring treatment” under
MCL 330.1401(1)(a) through (c). Id. See also MCL 330.1468(2).
A probate court “does not have unfettered discretion to choose a form of treatment and
placement for an individual found to be a person requiring treatment.” Portus, 325 Mich App
at 390. Instead, before ordering a course of treatment, the probate court must comply with
MCL 330.1453a and MCL 330.1469a. See id.
MCL 330.1453a provides that a probate court must order a “report assessing the current
availability and appropriateness for the individual of alternatives to hospitalization” when it
receives a petition for a determination that an individual is a person requiring treatment along with
a clinical certificate executed by a physician, licensed psychologist, and/or psychiatrist; or when
it receives a demand to convene a temporarily deferred hearing. See also MCL 330.1452(1)(a) to
(d). MCL 330.1453a requires that the report be prepared by “the community mental health
services program” with preference given to the agency familiar “with the treatment resourced in
the individual’s home community.”
In the present case, the probate court ordered a report on alternative treatments after it
received the petition and two clinical certificates, and after it received petitioner’s demand to
reconvene the previously deferred hearing. The probate court received the report before the
scheduled hearing for involuntary mental-health treatment. The report was completed by a
licensed social worker at Washtenaw Community Health and provided details about the only
available and applicable alternative to hospitalization, i.e., assisted outpatient treatment. The
report noted that other alternative treatments were either not applicable or not recommended. By
ordering the report, the probate court properly complied with MCL 330.1453a.

-- 2 of 3 --

-3-
Respondent contends, however, that the probate court did not strictly comply with
MCL 330.1469a. MCL 330.1469a(1) provides in relevant part that before a probate court orders
a course of treatment, it must review the report on alternative treatments “not more than 15 days
before the court issues the order.” In the present case, the probate court received the report the
day before the hearing. Respondent suggests that the court did not review the report because the
court did not state on the record that it had reviewed the report. However, trial judges are presumed
to know the applicable law. See Auto-Owners Ins Co v Keizer-Morris, Inc, 284 Mich App 610,
612-613; 773 NW2d 267 (2009). Considering that presumption, and the fact that the court ordered
the report and timely received it prior to the hearing, we conclude that respondent has not shown
that an error occurred that is clear or obvious. Moreover, respondent has not established that her
substantial rights were affected by the court’s alleged failure to consider the report. As stated
earlier, the report detailed alternative treatment options and there is nothing on the record to
suggest that the court would have reached a different conclusion if it had considered the report.
Respondent, therefore, has not established plain error affecting her substantial rights.
Affirmed.
/s/ Michael J. Kelly
/s/ Sima G. Patel
/s/ Daniel S. Korobkin

-- 3 of 3 --