The Indiana Court of Appeals (the “Court”) affirmed a trial court’s order for a regular involuntary commitment, holding that when clear and convincing evidence shows treatment would likely extend past 90 days, regular commitment is appropriate. In re Commitment of D.W., No. 24A-MH-2284 (Ind. Ct. App., May 30, 2025).
Background
D.W., 46, voluntarily presented to the hospital in August 2024 with anxiety, paranoia and suicidal thoughts. After a 48-hour emergency detention, the hospital sought a regular commitment. A treating psychiatrist testified to multiple recent hospitalizations, several suicide attempts, a history of bipolar disorder with psychotic features and long-term dependence on sedatives and opioids. The psychiatrist assessed a “very high” suicide risk if released and recommended commitment for a period beyond 90 days to allow for sustained medication management and stabilization. The trial court granted regular commitment, finding D.W. mentally ill, dangerous to himself and gravely disabled.
The Court’s Analysis
On appeal, D.W. argued there was insufficient evidence to support a regular commitment rather than a temporary commitment. The Court disagreed, emphasizing that the sole question on review was whether D.W. met the statutory standard under Ind. Code § 12-26-7-1(2), that is, whether he was “reasonably expected to require custody, care, or treatment in a facility for more than ninety (90) days.” The Court also relied on the deferential standard of review governing the sufficiency of the evidence and found clear support for the trial court’s decision. Civil Commitment of T.K. v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 27 N.E.3d 271 (Ind. 2015). Specifically, the Court noted that the trial court considered evidence that D.W. had spent 70-80 days hospitalized in the prior year, exhibited a sustained pattern of suicidal behavior, continued expressing suicidal ideation up to the day before the commitment hearing, experienced compounding long-term chemical dependency and withdrawal, voluntary residential treatment had failed and intensive outpatient therapy had failed. Based on this record, the Court concluded that clear and convincing evidence supports the trial court’s finding that D.W.’s condition warranted a regular commitment as opposed to a temporary commitment.
Practical Takeaways
- Evidentiary Standard Remains High: Indiana courts continue to require clear and convincing evidence of each statutory element. Beyond demonstrating mental illness and danger or grave disability, the petitioner must present clear and convincing evidence that extended inpatient care is appropriate.
- Key Factors to Consider for Regular vs. Temporary Commitments: The Court affirmed D.W.’s regular commitment because the evidence presented went beyond showing ongoing mental illness or danger; it demonstrated why shorter-term treatment had already failed and why sustained inpatient care remained necessary. Specifically, the Court gave weight to:
-
- The number of days the patient had been hospitalized in the past year;
- Failed attempts at both voluntary residential and intensive outpatient programs, establishing that less restrictive alternatives had proven insufficient; and
- Physician testimony that the patient required extended, ongoing inpatient treatment.
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.
