In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: C.H. v. Options Behavioral Health System; In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: L.C. v. Community Health Network; et al. (mem. dec.)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. Nov 14 2018, 6:13 am CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES Deborah Markisohn Victoria L. Bailey Marion County Public Defender Agency Indianapolis, Indiana Jenny R. Buchheit Stephen E. Reynolds Gregory W. Pottorff Ice Miller LLP Indianapolis, Indiana IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: C.H., Appellant-Respondent, v. November 14, 2018 Court of Appeals Case No. 18A-MH-638 Appeal from the Marion Superior Court The Honorable Steven Eichholtz, Judge Options Behavioral Health System, The Honorable Kelly M. Scanlan, Master Commissioner Appellee-Petitioner Trial Court Cause No. 49D08-1802-MH-7269 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-MH-638 | November 14, 2018 Page 1 of 3 In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Court of Appeals Case No. 18A-MH-638 L.C., Appeal from the Marion Superior Court Appellant-Respondent, v. Community Health Network, Inc., Appellee-Petitioner The Honorable Steven Eichholtz, Judge The Honorable Kelly M. Scanlan, Master Commissioner Trial Court Cause No. 49D08-1802-MH-6672 In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Court of Appeals Case No. 18A-MH-638 D.P., Appeal from the Marion Superior Court Appellant-Respondent, v. Community Health Network, Inc., Appellee-Petitioner The Honorable Steven Eichholtz, Judge The Honorable Kelly M. Scanlan, Master Commissioner Trial Court Cause No. 49D08-1803-MH-11837 Vaidik, Chief Judge. [1] In these consolidated appeals, C.H., L.C., and D.P. challenge orders temporarily committing them (i.e., for up to ninety days) to mental-health facilities. They argue that the orders are invalid because they were signed only by the commissioner who presided over the commitment hearings and not by the probate judge. They are right, as we recently held in another case involving the same commissioner and judge. See In re Civil Commitment of L.J., Case No. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-MH-638 | November 14, 2018 Page 2 of 3 18A-MH-152, slip op. at 4-6 (Ind. Ct. App. Oct. 18, 2018). But we will not disturb the orders (all of which expired several months ago). None of the appellants raised this issue in the trial court, which would have given that court an opportunity to address the error. Therefore, the appellants waived this issue for purposes of appeal. See City of Indianapolis v. Hicks, 932 N.E.2d 227, 231 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (“[D]efects in the authority of a court officer, as opposed to the jurisdiction of the trial court itself, to enter a final order will be waived if not raised through a timely objection.”). Given this waiver, we affirm the nowexpired orders of temporary commitment. [2] Affirmed. Riley, J., and Kirsch, J., concur. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-MH-638 | November 14, 2018 Page 3 of 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
