In re Commitment of T.G.
| Decision Date | 17 December 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. 19A05–1306–MH–303.,19A05–1306–MH–303. |
| Citation | 999 N.E.2d 468 (Table) |
| Parties | In the Matter of the COMMITMENT OF T.G., Appellant–Respondent. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Steven E. Ripstra, Ripstra Law Office, Jasper, IN, Attorney for Appellant.
Following a series of hearings, T.G. appeals a regular mental health commitment2 order, raising the following consolidated and restated issues:
We affirm.
In November 2011, T.G., then twenty-seven years old, was placed under temporary mental health commitment and was admitted as a patient to Southern Hills Counseling Center (“Southern Hills”) in Jasper, Indiana, where he stayed until December 12, 2011. His discharge diagnosis was “schizoaffective disorder
, bipolar type versus bipolar I mania with psychosis.” Appellant's App. at 13. He was also diagnosed with “marijuana and K2 dependence and antisocial personality disorder.” Id. Upon release, he was instructed to take certain medications, which he has admitted he did not take.
At issue in this case is T.G.'s behavior in the weeks leading up to November 28, 2012. Earlier that month, T.G. lost his job and encountered issues regarding housing. For a period of time, T.G. was living in a tent on family-owned wooded property. His relationship with his parents was strained and included conflict. T .G. was angry that his parents had contacted law enforcement concerning his living situation in the tent and that the police had checked on his well-being.
On November 5, 2012, T.G. arrived at Southern Hills as a walk-in and was seen by Amber Linne (“Linne”), an on-call therapist. T.G. came back the next day as a walk-in and asked to see her again. Stacy Moore–Nolan, the clinic manager, explained to T.G. that Linne was not available, and T.G. became agitated with her. T.G. both telephoned Southern Hills and came to the premises on November 19, 20, and 21. On November 26, T.G. returned and met with Michael Cepic, a case manager. They met for several hours, with the purpose of providing assistance to T.G. in getting food stamps. On November 27, T.G. appeared again at Southern Hills, wanting to see if an emergency therapist could talk with him. While waiting, T.G. saw case manager Angie Hill (“Hill”) outside the facility in the parking lot. Hill ultimately filled out an incident report that indicated she saw T.G. pacing the premises outside, and he approached her and complained about his situation. Because she was consulting with another client at the time, she tried to explain she could not meet with him. He followed Hill as she walked to her car, and he prevented her from closing the door. Eventually, he slammed her door but continued swearing at her. T.G. then entered the building and staff arranged with T.G. that he should come back on November 28, to meet with Doug Hayworth (“Hayworth”), a licensed social worker. T.G. returned as scheduled to meet with Hayworth, but during that meeting, T.G. became angry and attempted to make a citizen's arrest on Hayworth for being a fraud, and T.G. called the police. An officer arrived at the scene, and T.G. was verbally abusive to the officer. T.G. left the premises, but Hayworth felt T .G. was gravely disabled and acutely psychotic.
Therefore, on November 28, 2012, Hayworth filed an application for the emergency detention of T.G., which alleged that T.G. was gravely disabled and a danger to himself and others. The trial court granted the application on the same day. On November 29, Jasper police picked up T.G. and transported him to Memorial Hospital Behavioral Health Unit (“Hospital”) in Jasper, Indiana, where he was admitted.
An evidentiary commitment hearing was held at the Hospital on December 4, 2012; present at the hearing were T.G. and his counsel, along with Southern Hills personnel Hayworth and treating psychiatrist Robert L. White, M.D. (“Dr.White”). Dr. White testified that his diagnosis for T.G. was that he suffered from schizoaffective disorder and bipolar
disorder and that T.G. was gravely disabled. Hayworth testified as to events leading up to Hayworth's emergency petition for detention.
After the hearing, the trial court issued an Order of Regular Commitment (“December Order”), finding that (1) T.G. suffers from schizoaffective disorder
, bipolar type versus bipolar I disorder with psychotic features, (2) T.G. is gravely disabled as defined in Indiana Code section 12–7–2–96, (3) T.G. is in need of commitment to an appropriate facility for a period expected to exceed ninety days, and (4) the appropriate facility is Southern Hills. Appellant's App. at 39. The December Order committed T.G. to Southern Hills “until he is discharged or the Court terminates the commitment.” Id. The trial court also issued Additional Findings Pursuant to Regular Commitment Order for Out–Patient Treatment (“Additional Findings”) stating, among other things, that: (1) T.G. admitted that he did not regularly take prescribed medications while on prior temporary commitment; (2) Dr. White testified that the prescribed medications will be of substantial benefit in treating T.G.'s condition; and (3) although T.G. opposed medication by injection, the benefits of giving T.G. the medications by injection outweigh the risks and personal concerns of T.G., and there exists no less restrictive alternative treatment. The Additional Findings also ordered that “medication by injection shall occur during the regular commitment.” Id. at 38. The same date, the trial court also issued Conditions Pertaining to Order of Regular Commitment for Out-patient Treatment (“Conditions”), which required T.G. to take all prescribed medications, participate in medication monitoring, not consume alcohol or illicit substances, allow for random drug screens, live in housing approved by Southern Hills, and if housed in Southern Hills, required T.G. to participate in the patient trust account. Id. at 44.
The trial court received correspondence from T.G. in early January 2013, asking for an ex-parte hearing. Instead, the trial court set the matter for a review hearing on January 10, 2013, in order to allow T.G. to present additional evidence. The January 10 hearing was started but not completed, and after a series of conflicts and continuances, the matter was concluded at an April 30 hearing, which—like the December 4 hearing—was conducted in a room designated and used as a courtroom at the Hospital. While T.G. requested at the January 10 hearing that the trial court hold a public hearing, the trial court denied the request explaining that mental health hearings are not public and that holding the hearing at the Hospital was logistically easier for witness purposes, rather than requiring doctor(s) and social worker(s) to travel to the courthouse. At the conclusion of the April 30 hearing, the trial court took the matter under advisement.
On May 23, 2013, the trial court issued an Order of Regular Commitment (“May Order”), essentially identical to its December Order, in which it ordered a regular commitment of T.G. to Southern Hills for a period to exceed ninety days, and the trial court also issued corresponding Conditions and Additional Findings, just as it had in December 2012. T.G. now appeals.
Civil commitment is a significant deprivation of liberty, and it requires due process protections. In re Commitment of S.T. v. Cmty. Hosp. N., 930 N.E.2d 684, 687 (Ind.Ct.App.2010) ; In re Commitment of C.J. v. Health & Hosp. Corp. of Marion Cnty., 842 N.E.2d 407, 409 (Ind.Ct.App.2006). To satisfy the requirements of due process, the State must prove the facts justifying an involuntary commitment by clear and convincing evidence. S.T., 930 N.E.2d at 687. Specifically, for a person to be involuntarily committed, the petitioner must prove by clear and convincing evidence that (1) the individual is mentally ill and either dangerous or gravely disabled and (2) commitment is appropriate. Ind.Code § 12–26–2–5(e) ; see also Ind.Code § 12–26–7–1 (concerning regular commitment).
Indiana Code section 12–7–2–130 defines mental illness as a psychiatric disorder that “(A) substantially disturbs an individual's thinking, feeling, or behavior; and (B) impairs the individual's ability to function.” Because symptoms of mental illness can range from the benign to the severe, the determination whether an involuntary commitment is appropriate is fact-sensitive. S.T., 930 N.E.2d at 689–90. “Dangerousness” for our purposes is defined as “a condition in which an individual as a result of mental illness, presents a substantial risk that the individual will harm the individual or others.” Ind.Code § 12–7–2–53. The determination of dangerousness under the involuntary commitment statute is a question of fact for the trial court to decide. S.T., 930 N.E.2d at 689. “Dangerousness must be shown by clear and convincing evidence indicating that the behavior used as an index of a person's dangerousness would not occur but for the person's mental illness.” T.K., 993 N.E.2d at 249. “Gravely disabled” is defined as a condition in which an individual, as a result of mental illness, is in danger of coming to harm because the individual: (1) is unable to provide for that individual's food, clothing, shelter, or other essential human needs; or (2) has a substantial impairment or an obvious deterioration of that individual's judgment, reasoning, or behavior that results in the individual's inability to function independently. Ind.Code § 12–7–2–96 ; In re Commitment of A.W.D., 861 N.E.2d 1260, 1265 (Ind.Ct.App.2007), trans. denied.
Upon review of an order for involuntary commitment, we will consider only the...
To continue reading
Request your trial