In re: The Mental Health Commitment of K.H. (mem. dec.) ( 2020 )

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