In re: The Mental Health Commitment of K.H. (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: January 17, 2020
• Docket: 19A-MH-901
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Jan 17 2020, 9:03 am court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Danielle L. Flora Fort Wayne, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

In re: The Mental Health January 17, 2020 Commitment of K.H., Court of Appeals Case No. Appellant-Respondent. 19A-MH-901 Appeal from the Allen Superior Court The Honorable David J. Avery, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 02D01-1903-MH-321

Robb, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-MH-901 | January 17, 2020 Page 1 of 5 Case Summary and Issue [1] K.H. appeals the trial court’s order for her involuntary temporary commitment

at the Park Center, contending there was insufficient evidence that she was

“gravely disabled” due to her mental illness. Sua sponte, we address the

dispositive issue of whether K.H.’s appeal should be dismissed as moot because

her period of involuntary commitment has passed. We dismiss.

Facts and Procedural History [2] On March 24, 2019, local law enforcement officers brought K.H. to Parkview

Behavioral Health (“PBH”) for immediate detention. K.H.’s family had

contacted law enforcement alleging that K.H. was confused and had been

sitting in her car for hours. Upon admission to PBH, K.H. was seen by

psychiatrist Dr. Kevin Murphy. On March 27, 2019, Felicia Williams, PBH

social worker, filed a petition for the involuntary commitment of K.H., whom

she had reason to believe was a mentally ill person. In his physician’s

statement, Dr. Kevin Murphy stated that K.H. is “grossly psychotic, responding

to internal stimuli, is delusional, paranoid, and has severely fragmented speech

and thought processes. She has a history of greater than 14 psychiatric

admissions in Ohio for similar psychotic/manic episodes[.]” Appellant’s

Appendix, Volume 2 at 11.

[3] The trial court held a hearing on April 4, 2019. Dr. Murphy testified that K.H.

suffers from schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type, and as a result of her mental

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-MH-901 | January 17, 2020 Page 2 of 5 illness, she has a substantial impairment or obvious deterioration of her

judgment, reasoning, or behavior that results in her inability to function

independently. See id. at 22-23; see also Hearing on Petition for Temporary

Commitment, Volume 2 at 5. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court

determined that K.H. meets the definition of “gravely disabled” pursuant to

Indiana Code section 12-7-2-96 and ordered that K.H. be committed to Park

Center for a temporary period not to exceed ninety days.

[4] K.H. filed her Notice of Appeal on April 24, 2019 and notably, served all filings

on the Indiana Attorney General as well as Park Center and Williams. In

September 2019, the Attorney General filed a Notice of Non-Involvement, in

which it asserted that it has no interest in the case as K.H. was not committed

to a state institution and the proper appellee in the matter would be Williams or

Park Center. However, neither Williams nor Park Center filed an appellate

brief in this matter.1 K.H. has since been released from commitment.2

Discussion and Decision [5] K.H. appeals the trial court’s involuntary commitment order, which was issued

on April 4, 2019 and set to expire ninety days later, and argues there was

1 Given that neither Park Center nor Williams filed a brief, we appreciate the State entering an appearance to be able to review the pleadings and K.H.’s brief for the purpose of determining whether it had an interest in this case and then concisely informing this court of the proper parties to this case. 2 It is unclear the exact date K.H. was released; however, the trial court ordered that her commitment not exceed a period of ninety days and K.H. concedes the period has passed. See Brief of Appellant at 9.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-MH-901 | January 17, 2020 Page 3 of 5 insufficient evidence to support the trial court’s commitment order. Here, we

are faced with the threshold issue of mootness as K.H.’s period of temporary

commitment has lapsed. K.H. admits her period of temporary involuntary

commitment in this case has expired. Therefore, this court cannot render

effective relief to her.

[6] When a court is unable to render effective relief to a party, the case is deemed

moot and usually dismissed. R.P. v. Optional Behavior MHS, 26 N.E.3d 1032,

1035 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). “The long-standing rule in Indiana courts has been

that a case is deemed moot when no effective relief can be rendered to the

parties before the court.” T.W. v. St. Vincent Hosp. & Health Care Ctr., Inc., 121

N.E.3d 1039, 1042 (Ind. 2019). And although moot cases are usually

dismissed, our courts have recognized that a case may be decided on its merits

under an exception to the general rule when the case involves questions of

“great public interest[,]” typically involving issues that are likely to recur. In re

Commitment of J.B., 766 N.E.2d 795, 798 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). “The question of

how persons subject to involuntary commitment are treated by our trial courts

is one of great importance to society. Indiana statutory and case law affirm that

the value and dignity of the individual facing commitment or treatment is of

great societal concern.” Id.

[7] However, we decline to apply that exception in the instant matter as we have

previously considered, discussed, and resolved the issue K.H. raises in her

appeal, namely the sufficiency of the evidence as to whether an individual

meets the statutory definition of “gravely disabled.” See, e.g., T.A. v. Wishard

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-MH-901 | January 17, 2020 Page 4 of 5 Health Serv., Midtown Cmty. Mental Health Ctr., 950 N.E.2d 1266 (Ind. Ct. App.

2011); A.L. v. Wishard Health Servs., Midtown Cmty. Mental Health Ctr., 934

N.E.2d 755 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), trans. denied; Golub v. Giles, 814 N.E.2d 1034

(Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans. denied. Moreover, we are careful to consider the

merits of moot involuntary commitments only when there is an issue of great

public importance and K.H. has not argued, nor do we find, an issue of great

public importance based on these facts. Therefore, we dismiss K.H.’s appeal.

Conclusion [8] K.H.’s period of involuntary commitment has expired, and we cannot provide

effective relief. Therefore, this matter is moot and accordingly, we dismiss.

[9] Dismissed.

Bradford, C.J., and Altice, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-MH-901 | January 17, 2020 Page 5 of 5