A.A. v. Eskenazi Health/Midtown CMHC, 97 N.E.3d 606

A.A. was emergency detained after his mother filed an application reporting psychiatric disturbance; physicians recommended regular involuntary commitment.
At the September 12, 2016 commitment hearing A.A. was not present; his appointed counsel stated A.A. was "agitated" and counsel "waive[d] his appearance."
The trial court accepted counsel's statement and proceeded; witnesses (physician and A.A.'s mother) testified and the court ordered regular involuntary commitment.
A.A. appealed, arguing his due process right to be present was waived improperly; the Court of Appeals affirmed but with guidance on waiver timing.
The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer to resolve whether respondents or counsel may waive the right to appear, when a court must make a statutory waiver finding, and whether waiver errors are subject to harmless-error review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (A.A.)	Defendant's Argument (Eskenazi)	Held
1. Who may waive a respondent's right to appear?	A respondent cannot validly waive (court of appeals precedent); A.A. argued counsel's waiver was invalid.	Counsel and/or court can effectively waive presence; counsel waived here.	A mentally competent respondent may personally waive with a knowing, voluntary, intelligent waiver; an attorney may not waive on the respondent's behalf.
2. When must a court exercise its independent statutory waiver authority (I.C. §12-26-2-2(b)(3)(B))?	The court must decide at the outset of the hearing; otherwise the right is hollow.	Court can hear evidence first and then decide waiver at any point.	The court must make the statutory waiver determination at the beginning of the proceeding (but may hear waiver-related evidence early and incorporate it later).
3. Is an improper waiver determination structural error or subject to harmless-error review?	Improper waiver is structural and not subject to harmless-error analysis.	Any error is reviewable for harmlessness against the record.	Failure to make the required waiver finding is reviewable for harmless error; here the error was not harmless and reversal was required.

Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (1979) (states’ parens patriae interest and standard for civil commitment)
Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (1991) (distinguishing structural errors from those subject to harmless-error review)
T.K. v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs (In re Civil Commitment of T.K.), 27 N.E.3d 271 (Ind. 2015) (noting seriousness of civil commitment and due process protections)
GPH v. Giles (In re Commitment of GPH), 578 N.E.2d 729 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991) (waiver of statutory due process rights requires knowing, voluntary, intelligent waiver)
M.E. v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs (In re Commitment of M.E.), 64 N.E.3d 855 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (Court of Appeals’ dictum conflating mental illness with incompetence—disapproved)
Anderson v. State, 699 N.E.2d 257 (Ind. 1998) (distinguishing mental illness from legal incompetence)
In re Mental Commitment of M.P., 510 N.E.2d 645 (Ind. Ct. App. 1987) (recognizing forced medication’s intrusion on liberty)