In any event, this court has recognized that "forfeiture is not apt [when] the issue relates to public and liberty interests relating to the administration of psychotropic drugs upon an unwilling patient." In re Katarzyna G. , 2013 IL App (2d) 120807, ¶ 10, 374 Ill.Dec. 446, 995 N.E.2d 585 ; see also In re H.P. , 2019 IL App (5th) 150302, ¶ 27, 432 Ill.Dec. 840, 130 N.E.3d 382 ("Because the involuntary administration of psychotropic medication implicates fundamental rights, we often review forfeited claims in mental health cases under the plain error doctrine."). We thus reject the State's suggestion that Rob's due process argument is forfeited.
However, claims that "relate to the type of evidence the State must present to meet its statutory burden, rather than the weight of the evidence presented," have " ‘broader implications than most sufficiency-of-the-evidence claims.’ " In re H.P. , 2019 IL App (5th) 150302, ¶ 17, 432 Ill.Dec. 840, 130 N.E.3d 382 (quoting In re Joseph M. , 405 Ill. App. 3d 1167, 1173, 345 Ill.Dec. 779, 939 N.E.2d 959 (2010) ). ¶ 33 Both of Robert's claims challenge the sufficiency of the evidence.
¶ 63 This court has held that the "possibility of harm resulting from drug interactions is a crucial consideration in determining whether the benefits of a proposed course of treatment outweigh the risk of harm." In re H.P., 2019 IL App (5th) 150302, ¶ 36. "Without pertinent information on the possibility of such harm, courts do not have adequate information to make a meaningful determination." Id.
¶ 54 This court has held that the possibility of harm resulting from drug interactions is a crucial consideration in determining whether the benefits of a proposed course of treatment outweigh the risk of harm. In re H.P., 2019 IL App (5th) 150302, ¶ 36. "Without pertinent information on the possibility of such harm, courts do not have adequate information to make a meaningful determination." Id.
Similarly, this court has also found, if the petitioner intends to administer, or anticipates the potential administration of, medications in combination, the State must present evidence about the benefits and potential side effects of those medications being administered together. In re H.P., 2019 IL App (5th) 150302, ¶ 34, 130 N.E.3d 382. Contrary to the circuit court's ruling in this case, producing said evidence is not just ideal, but rather, required.
¶ 147 We review questions of statutory compliance de novo.In re H.P. , 2019 IL App (5th) 150302, ¶ 24, 432 Ill.Dec. 840, 130 N.E.3d 382. In the context of a due process challenge, this court held that whether the trial court's procedures in conducting a termination hearing by audio-video conference violated respondent's constitutional rights is reviewed de novo in In re R.L. , 2021 IL App (1st) 210419, ¶ 10, 457 Ill.Dec. 644, 195 N.E.3d 780.
In any event, this court has recognized that "forfeiture is not apt [when] the issue relates to public and liberty interests relating to the administration of psychotropic drugs upon an unwilling patient." In re Katarzyna G., 2013 IL App (2d) 120807, ¶ 10; see also In re H.P., 2019 IL App (5th) 150302, ¶ 27 ("Because the involuntary administration of psychotropic medication implicates fundamental rights, we often review forfeited claims in mental health cases under the plain error doctrine."). We thus reject the State's suggestion that Rob's due process argument is forfeited.
¶ 30 Illinois courts "have consistently construed the statute to require the State to present expert testimony describing both the expected benefits and the possible side effects of each medication requested in the petition." In re H.P. , 2019 IL App (5th) 150302, ¶ 33, 432 Ill.Dec. 840, 130 N.E.3d 382. "The rationale underlying these holdings is that courts are not able to meaningfully assess whether the benefits of treatment outweigh the risk of harm unless they are presented with evidence of both the benefits and the harms that might occur as a result of the proposed treatment." Id.
¶ 20 This court has jurisdiction over an appeal that is moot if it falls within any one of the recognized exceptions to the mootness doctrine. See In re H.P. , 2019 IL App (5th) 150302, ¶ 15, 432 Ill.Dec. 840, 130 N.E.3d 382 ; see also In re Beverly B. , 2017 IL App (2d) 160327, ¶ 19, 416 Ill.Dec. 994, 86 N.E.3d 1279 ("Because the order at issue here has expired and because we do not generally decide moot questions, we must consider the extent to which respondent's claims fall under any exception to the mootness doctrine before we may address the merits of her claims." (Emphasis added.)).
¶ 147 We review questions of statutory compliance de novo. In re H.P., 2019 IL App (5th) 150302, ¶ 24. In the context of a due process challenge, this court held that whether the trial court's procedures in conducting a termination hearing by audio-video conference violated respondent's constitutional rights is reviewed de novo in In re R.L., 2021 IL App (1st) 210419, ¶ 10.