In Re the Commitment of G.M.
938 N.E.2d 302
Ind. Ct. App.2010Background
- G.M. appeals an involuntary regular commitment to Logansport State Hospital.
- The trial court found G.M. gravely disabled and in danger due to inability to provide basic needs.
- Petition by Dr. Thompson alleged G.M.’s schizophrenia with addiction prevents independent functioning.
- At the commitment hearing, Dr. Thompson testified that G.M. required the structured environment of the Hospital to function.
- The commitment order stated gravely disabled under the statute’s definition of inability to provide for essential needs.
- Court remanded for a review proceeding within fifteen days to assess current care and potential step-down treatment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether grave disability was proven by evidence of relapse risk | G.M. contends relapse concern is insufficient. | State argues Thompson’s testimony shows risk of decompensation without treatment. | Remand affirmed; evidence supports gravely disabled under alternative theory. |
| Whether the court could affirm on gravely disabled ground even if not the basis stated | G.M. argues lack of clear showing of inability to provide basic needs. | State shows substantial evidence of disability via doctor’s opinions and history. | Court may affirm based on clear and convincing evidence of gravely disabled even if not the court’s stated basis. |
| Remedy when the commitment basis is unsupported | reversal and release if basis unsupported. | remand for review and treatment plan adjustment. | Remand to conduct a twenty-fifteen day review and consider step-down plan. |
Key Cases Cited
- G.P.H. v. Giles, 578 N.E.2d 729 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991) (affirmation despite alternative basis for gravely disabled)
- J.S. v. Ctr. for Behavioral Health, 846 N.E.2d 1106 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (affirmation based on gravely disabled ground when dangerousness not proven)
- K.F. v. St. Vincent Hosp. and Health Care Ctr., 909 N.E.2d 1063 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (clear and convincing evidence required for grave disability when inability to provide basic needs asserted)
- Mitchell v. Mitchell, 695 N.E.2d 920 (Ind. 1998) (appellate review may address alternative dispositive theory)
- In re Turner, 439 N.E.2d 201 (Ind. Ct. App. 1982) (error to commit without establishing mental illness; relevance to commitment review)