ILCS » Chapter 405 · Act 5
Illinois Compiled Statutes

405 ILCS 5/3-811 (2026)

Involuntary admission; alternative mental health facilities

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(405 ILCS 5/3-811) (from Ch. 91 1/2, par. 3-811)
    Sec. 3-811. Involuntary admission; alternative mental health facilities.
    (a) If any person is found subject to involuntary admission on an inpatient basis, the court shall consider alternative mental health facilities which are appropriate for and available to the respondent, including but not limited to hospitalization. The court may order the respondent to undergo a program of hospitalization in a mental health facility designated by the Department, in a licensed private hospital or private mental health facility if it agrees, or in a facility of the United States Veterans Administration if it agrees. If any person is found subject to involuntary admission on an outpatient basis, the court may order the respondent to undergo a program of alternative treatment; or the court may place the respondent in the care and custody of a relative or other person willing and able to properly care for him or her. The court shall order the least restrictive alternative for treatment which is appropriate.
    (b) Whenever a person is found subject to involuntary admission on an inpatient or outpatient basis, notice shall be provided to the petitioner, orally and in writing, of his or her right to receive notice of the recipient's discharge pursuant to Section 3-902(d).
    (c) An order that a person is found subject to involuntary admission on an inpatient basis does not eliminate any obligations under the federal Emergency Medical Transport and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) of the transferring facility toward the receiving facility. Before implementing an order, the transferring facility shall notify the receiving facility of the recipient and obtain medical clearance for the recipient.
(Source: P.A. 96-570, eff. 1-1-10; 96-1399, eff. 7-29-10; 96-1453, eff. 8-20-10; 97-130, eff. 7-14-11.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1997–2021 · leading case: In re Amanda H., 2017 IL App (3d) 150164 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re Amanda H., 2017 IL App (3d) 150164 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017). · cites it 3× “treatment settings nor presented evidence suggesting that involuntary commitment was the least restrictive available treatment for the respondent, in violation of section 3-810 of the Code (405 ILCS 5/3- 810 (West 2014)), (3) the trial court failed to consider alternative…”
People v. Lillie M., 875 N.E.2d 157 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007). · cites it 3× “At issue is whether the State presented sufficient evidence to prove that Lillie was unable to provide for her basic physical needs so as to guard herself from serious harm (405 ILCS 5/1-119(2) (West 2006)) and whether the court ordered the least-restrictive treatment…”
In Re Joseph M., 939 N.E.2d 959 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010). · cites it 2× “Thus, the State failed to provide any factual basis to connect the need for continued medication with the need for continued admission and also failed to give the court any basis to conclude that no less restrictive alternatives were appropriate or available. This omission is…”
People v. Louis S., 838 N.E.2d 218 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005). “Thus, it appears the only means by which respondent could have been transferred to McFarland was (1) in a dispositional order after he was found to be a person subject to involuntary commitment (see 405 ILCS 5/3-811 (West 2004)) or (2) by a discharge from Memorial and the…”
People v. Moore, 686 N.E.2d 641 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997). “" 405 ILCS 5/3-811 (West 1996). Here, Philippe testified that a less restrictive alternative to hospitalization would be inappropriate because, in her opinion, respondent cannot "take care of herself outside.”
People v. Johnson, 965 N.E.2d 602 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012). “¶ 10 In addition, a civilly committed patient must be treated in the least restrictive setting appropriate (405 ILCS 5/3-811 (West 2006)), while a patient admitted after a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity is to be admitted to a secure facility unless there are…”
In re H.L., 2016 IL App (2d) 140486-B (Ill. App. Ct. 2016). “pts to analogize the requirement that the trial court find that commitment to the Department is the least restrictive alternative pursuant to section 5-750(1)(b) with the requirement that a trial court order the least restrictive alternative in involuntary- commitment cases…”
In Re Lisa GC, 871 N.E.2d 794 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007). “Section 3-810 of the Code requires that the trial court instruct that a report be prepared as to appropriateness and availability of alternative treatment settings.”
People v. Johnson, 2012 IL App (5th) 70573 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012). “¶ 10 In addition, a civilly committed patient must be treated in the least restrictive setting appropriate (405 ILCS 5/3-811 (West 2006)), while a patient admitted after a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity is to be admitted to a secure facility unless there are…”
In re Joseph M. (Ill. App. Ct. 2010). · cites it 2× “405 ILCS 5/3-811 (West 2008); In re Nancy A.”
In re Lillie M. (Ill. App. Ct. 2007). · cites it 2× “405 ILCS 5/3-811 (West 2006). The State has the burden of proving the need for involuntary admission by clear and convincing evidence.”
In re James H. (Ill. App. Ct. 2010). · cites it 2× “405 ILCS 5/3-601 (West 2008); 405 ILCS 5/3-811 (West Supp. 2009). The challenge in the underlying appeal of the suffi- ciency of the evidence as to the least-restrictive treatment alternative does not meet the public-interest exception.”
Show all 19 citing cases →
— 405 ILCS 5/3-811(a) — 2 cases
In re Amanda H., 2017 IL App (3d) 150164 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017). “treatment settings nor presented evidence suggesting that involuntary commitment was the least restrictive available treatment for the respondent, in violation of section 3-810 of the Code (405 ILCS 5/3- 810 (West 2014)), (3) the trial court failed to consider alternative…”
In re Mary T., 2021 IL App (3d) 180621-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2021).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.