In the Matter of the Commitment of: N.D. N.D. v. Indiana University Health Bloomington Hospital (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: October 24, 2018
• Docket: 18A-MH-1328
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be Oct 24 2018, 7:56 am regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK court except for the purpose of establishing Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals the defense of res judicata, collateral and Tax Court

estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Amy P. Payne Monroe County Public Defender’s Office Bloomington, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

In the Matter of the October 24, 2018 Commitment of: N.D. Court of Appeals Case No. 18A-MH-1328 N.D., Appeal from the Monroe Circuit Court Appellant-Respondent, The Honorable v. Mary Ellen Diekhoff Trial Court Cause No. Indiana University Health 53C07-1805-MH-168 Bloomington Hospital, Appellee-Petitioner.

Kirsch, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-MH-1328 | October 24, 2018 Page 1 of 3 [1] In In re: Commitment of J.M., 62 N.E.3d 1208, (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), we noted

that the question of how persons subject to involuntary commitment are treated

by our trial courts is a matter of great importance to both society and to the

person who has been committed. Accordingly, our statutory and case law

affirm that the value and dignity of the individual facing commitment or

treatment is a matter of great societal concern. See Ind. Code 12-26-5-1

(establishing procedures for seventy-two-hour commitment); Ind. Code 12-26-6-

2 (establishing procedures for ninety-day commitment); In re: Mental Health

Commitment of M.P., 510 N.E.2d 645, 646 (Ind. 1987) (noting that the statute

granting a patient the right to refuse treatment “profoundly affirms the value

and dignity of the individual and the commitment of this society to insuring

humane treatment of those we confine”)

[2] Here, N.D. appeals the trial court order of her involuntary mental health

commitment and forced medication contending that it was not supported by

clear and convincing evidence. “When a court is unable to render effective

relief to a party, the case is deemed moot and usually dismissed.” In re: J.B., 766

N.E.2d 798 (Ind.Ct.App.2002) (citing In re Lawrance, 579 N.E.2d 3(Ind. 1991)).

We have previously considered, discussed, and resolved the issues that N.D.

raises here, and they are moot. See In re: Commitment of J.R., 766 N.E.2d 795,

798 (Ind. Ct. App., 2002) and In re Commitment of J.M., 62 N.E.3d 1208 (2016).

[3] Dismissed.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-MH-1328 | October 24, 2018 Page 2 of 3 Vaidik, C.J., and Riley, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-MH-1328 | October 24, 2018 Page 3 of 3