In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: C.H. v. Options Behavioral Health System In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: L.C. v. Community Health Network (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: November 14, 2018
• Docket: 18A-MH-638
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be Nov 14 2018, 6:13 am

regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK court except for the purpose of establishing Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES Deborah Markisohn Jenny R. Buchheit Victoria L. Bailey Stephen E. Reynolds Marion County Public Defender Agency Gregory W. Pottorff Indianapolis, Indiana Ice Miller LLP Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

In the Matter of the Civil November 14, 2018 Commitment of: Court of Appeals Case No. 18A-MH-638 C.H., Appeal from the Marion Superior Appellant-Respondent, Court v. The Honorable Steven Eichholtz, Judge Options Behavioral Health The Honorable Kelly M. Scanlan, System, Master Commissioner

Appellee-Petitioner Trial Court Cause No. 49D08-1802-MH-7269

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-MH-638 | November 14, 2018 Page 1 of 3 In the Matter of the Civil Court of Appeals Case No. Commitment of: 18A-MH-638 Appeal from the Marion Superior L.C., Court Appellant-Respondent, The Honorable Steven Eichholtz, Judge v. The Honorable Kelly M. Scanlan, Master Commissioner Community Health Network, Inc., Trial Court Cause No. 49D08-1802-MH-6672 Appellee-Petitioner

In the Matter of the Civil Court of Appeals Case No. Commitment of: 18A-MH-638 Appeal from the Marion Superior D.P., Court Appellant-Respondent, The Honorable Steven Eichholtz, Judge v. The Honorable Kelly M. Scanlan, Master Commissioner Community Health Network, Inc., Trial Court Cause No. 49D08-1803-MH-11837 Appellee-Petitioner

Vaidik, Chief Judge.

[1] In these consolidated appeals, C.H., L.C., and D.P. challenge orders

temporarily committing them (i.e., for up to ninety days) to mental-health

facilities. They argue that the orders are invalid because they were signed only

by the commissioner who presided over the commitment hearings and not by

the probate judge. They are right, as we recently held in another case involving

the same commissioner and judge. See In re Civil Commitment of L.J., Case No. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-MH-638 | November 14, 2018 Page 2 of 3 18A-MH-152, slip op. at 4-6 (Ind. Ct. App. Oct. 18, 2018). But we will not

disturb the orders (all of which expired several months ago). None of the

appellants raised this issue in the trial court, which would have given that court

an opportunity to address the error. Therefore, the appellants waived this issue

for purposes of appeal. See City of Indianapolis v. Hicks, 932 N.E.2d 227, 231

(Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (“[D]efects in the authority of a court officer, as opposed

to the jurisdiction of the trial court itself, to enter a final order will be waived if

not raised through a timely objection.”). Given this waiver, we affirm the now-

expired orders of temporary commitment.

[2] Affirmed.

Riley, J., and Kirsch, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-MH-638 | November 14, 2018 Page 3 of 3