The Indiana Court of Appeals (the “Court”) in In re: the Civil Commitment of C.R. upheld the trial court’s Order for Regular Commitment, holding sufficient evidence supported the trial court’s finding that C.R. was dangerous to himself and gravely disabled. In re Commitment of C.R., No. 24A-MH-1485, 2024 WL 5153983 (Ind. Ct. App. Dec. 18, 2024). The decision outlined the importance of suicidal ideation and periods of crisis as evidence.
Background
C.R., diagnosed with schizophrenia, presented with suicidal ideations, homicidal ideations and command hallucinations. His provider noted that C.R. endorsed his homicidal ideations, made disorganized remarks and required continued inpatient hospitalization for mood stabilization, medication titration and clinical improvement. His provider sought involuntary regular commitment due to the severity of C.R.’s mental illness and his refusal to take medication, which led to chronic hospital and emergency room recidivism.
Analysis of Dangerousness
The Court affirmed the finding that C.R. was a danger to himself because the evidence clearly and convincingly established that C.R. was aggressive, homicidal and suicidal when he wasn’t taking his medication as prescribed. The Court noted that “a trial court is not required to wait until harm has nearly or actually occurred before determining that an individual is dangerous to himself or others.” The Court also affirmed the trial court’s consideration of C.R.’s failure to take his medications historically—which had led to him harming himself.
Analysis of Grave Disability
The Court acknowledged that C.R.’s lack of insight into his mental illness and refusal to medicate are not clear and convincing evidence of grave disability by themselves, but affirmed the finding that C.R. was gravely disabled. First, the Court affirmed the trial court’s analysis of C.R.’s inability to provide for his housing and nutrition. Second, the Court affirmed the trial court’s recognition of C.R.’s frequent hospitalizations and inability to properly manage his mental illness with medication.
The Court rejected C.R.’s assertion that he was not gravely disabled because he began to take his medications as ordered, therefore calming him down. Rather, the Court found instructive that C.R.’s consistent rehospitalization was probative in whether he should be involuntarily committed.
Practical Takeaways
- Medication Noncompliance as Evidence: Historical noncompliance with medication and repeat hospitalizations can support a finding of dangerousness or grave disability.
- Dangerousness: Suicidal ideation and/or a history of self-harm are evidence of dangerousness to self; courts need not wait until the harm occurs to consider this evidence.
If you have any questions or would like more information on this topic, please contact:
- Ryan McDonald at (317) 429-3671 or rmcdonald@hallrender.com;
- Kennedy Bunch at (317) 977-1420 or kbunch@hallrender.com; or
- Your primary Hall Render contact.
Hall Render blog posts and articles are intended for informational purposes only. For ethical reasons, Hall Render attorneys cannot—outside of an attorney-client relationship—answer specific questions that would be legal advice.
