In In Re: Commitment of G.M., the Indiana Court of Appeals (the “Court”) affirmed the trial court’s refusal to allow a patient to waive the right to counsel in commitment proceedings. No. 24A-MH-2677, 2025 WL 928559 (Ind. Ct. App. Mar. 27, 2025). The decision highlighted the importance of civil commitment proceedings, the effect of the collateral consequences of civil commitment and the value of the patient’s statutory procedural rights.
Background
G.M. was admitted to an inpatient psychiatric facility in October 2024. Because G.M. suffered from schizophrenia and exhibited paranoia, auditory hallucinations and erratic behavior, including possessing another person’s mail, the treating providers emergently detained G.M. and subsequently sought temporary commitment.
At the commitment hearing, G.M. insisted on representing himself and repeatedly stated that he did not want a lawyer. A patient’s right to counsel in civil commitment proceedings is statutory, and a patient may only waive that right when “capable of making such a decision … knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently.” In re: Commitment of L.B., 191 N.E.3d 281, 284 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022). The trial court determined G.M. was not competent to waive that right.
Indiana Law Protects the Procedural Rights of Patients Facing Civil Commitment
Indiana’s laws protect a patient’s procedural rights in civil commitment proceedings. These rights include adequate notice of the proceedings, representation by counsel, testifying, cross-examination of witnesses and the right to appeal an order for commitment per I.C. § 12-26-2-1 et seq. To further protect the procedural rights of patients, the Indiana Supreme Court coordinated with Marion County to implement a Pilot Program for expedited appeals of temporary commitments. However, G.M. did not appeal whether the commitment was supported by clear and convincing evidence; thus, G.M. could not expedite the appeal and had to argue that the appeal was not moot and could be heard.
Instead, the appeal argued the trial court did not determine whether G.M. was capable of knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waiving the right to counsel. In evaluating G.M.’s capacity, the trial court considered G.M.’s constant interruptions, inappropriate responses, irrelevant statements and delusional rants. Ultimately, the Court held the trial court “functionally” found G.M. was not competent to waive counsel and therefore cautioned trial courts to make such findings explicitly and on the record.
Practical Takeaways
- Patients Are Protected by Procedural Rights in Commitment Proceedings: Indiana’s laws offer patients procedural protections—which can be waived only if the patient is capable of doing so knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently.
- Trial Courts Must Determine Any Waivers On-the-Record Before Hearing Evidence: While the Court upheld a “functional” denial, counsel for a provider should insist the trial court explicitly rule on the waiver prior to the evidentiary portion of the hearing.
If you have questions or would like more information about this topic, please contact:
- Ryan McDonald at (317) 429-3671 or rmcdonald@hallrender.com;
- Kathryn Daggett at (317) 977-1415 or kdaggett@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 give legal advice outside of an attorney-client relationship.
