81 N.E.3d 629
Ind. Ct. App.2017Background
- A.A., a 36-year-old diagnosed with schizophrenia and previously hospitalized, was placed on emergency detention and taken to Eskenazi Health.
- A civil commitment hearing was held on Sept. 12, 2016; A.A. was not physically present at the hearing.
- A.A.’s counsel told the court A.A. was agitated, would not answer calls, was not brought over, and that they were waiving his appearance.
- Testimony (treating psychiatrist and family) described A.A. as delusional, responding to internal stimuli, physically aggressive toward staff and others, noncompliant with medication, and previously restrained and sedated.
- The trial court found A.A. dangerous and gravely disabled and entered a regular commitment order; A.A. appealed only the waiver/presence issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an involuntarily detained person can validly waive the right to personally appear at commitment hearing | A.A.: A detained, mentally ill person cannot knowingly and voluntarily waive presence | Eskenazi: Counsel waived appearance; court may accept waiver; presence was dangerous | Court: A detained respondent cannot validly waive presence personally — waiver invalid |
| Whether counsel may waive the respondent's presence | A.A.: Counsel has no authority to waive respondent’s right to be present; trial court erred in accepting waiver | Eskenazi: Counsel represented waiver and notified court; presence would be injurious | Court: Counsel cannot validly waive the right; counsel’s waiver was error |
| Whether the trial court may waive the respondent's presence under statute | A.A.: Trial court lacked authority to waive or should not have done so without more inquiry | Eskenazi: Statute allows court to waive presence if injurious and evidence supports it | Court: Trial court has statutory authority under IND. CODE §12-26-2-2(b) to waive presence if record shows presence would be injurious; affirmed |
| Procedural requirement for waiving presence when respondent absent | A.A.: Waiver should not have been accepted after the fact without initial on-record finding | Eskenazi: (implied) existing record justified waiver | Court: On future practice, court must decide waiver at outset of hearing with evidence showing injurious effect; evidence may incorporate detention application/report/physician statement |
Key Cases Cited
- T.K. v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 27 N.E.3d 271 (Ind. 2015) (civil commitment implicates significant liberty interest and due process)
- Morton v. Ivacic, 898 N.E.2d 1196 (Ind. 2008) (due process requires notice and opportunity to be heard)
- Cheek v. State, 567 N.E.2d 1192 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991) (effective notice of due process rights is essential)
- M.E. v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 64 N.E.3d 855 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (an involuntarily detained individual cannot validly waive presence)
- A.L. v. Wishard Health Servs., 934 N.E.2d 755 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (definition and standard for fundamental error)