Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A02-1508-MI-1075 | March 17, 2016 Page 1 of 18

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Ana M. Quirk

Muncie, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

Frances Barrow

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Norma Jackson,

Appellant-Respondent,

v.

Indiana Adult Protective 

Services,

Appellee-Petitioner 

March 17, 2016

Court of Appeals Case No.

18A02-1508-MI-1075

Appeal from the Delaware Circuit 

Court

The Honorable Linda Ralu Wolf, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

18C03-1504-MI-44

Mathias, Judge.

[1] Norma Jackson (“Jackson”) appeals a protective services order issued by the 

Delaware Circuit Court requiring her to receive twenty-four-hour care and 

supervision at a nursing facility. Jackson argues that Adult Protective Services 

(“APS”) failed to present sufficient evidence that she was an “endangered 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A02-1508-MI-1075 | March 17, 2016 Page 2 of 18

adult” and that a life threatening emergency existed under Indiana Code section 

12-10-3-28. 

[2] We reverse and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion. 

Facts and Procedural History

[3] On April 9, 2015, while driving, Jackson hit a small pine tree across the street 

from her home. The accident caused extensive damage to Jackson’s vehicle,

and it was towed away by a wrecking company. Jackson was not injured in the 

accident, but she could not remember what happened to her car the next day, so 

she called the police approximately twenty times asking for its location. The 

police explained to her that it was towed by a wrecking company. Jackson was 

clearly confused by this answer, and she continued to call the police about the 

location of her car. She eventually told the police that they had no right to tow 

her car. Jackson also repeatedly asked the police if her car had been repaired.

and they responded that she would have to contact her insurance company 

about that.

[4] After this incident, and because of Jackson’s repeated calls, on April 11, 2015, 

the Muncie Police Department decided to conduct a welfare check on Jackson. 

Jackson was eighty-one years old and living alone at this time.1 When the police 

arrived at her residence, Jackson would not let the officers in her home because 

 

1 Jackson is now eighty-two years old.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A02-1508-MI-1075 | March 17, 2016 Page 3 of 18

she did not know them. Through her locked screen door, the officers asked 

Jackson to name the day. Jackson responded that she did not have any need to 

keep track of the days. The officers also asked her to name the current mayor of 

Muncie, to which she responded, “Who cares.” Appellee’s App. p. 10. The 

police asked Jackson to name the current president of the United States, as well. 

Jacksons stated that she thought it was Barack Obama but was not sure if he 

was still President. 

[5] Based on this interaction, the officers believed that Jackson would benefit from 

a psychological evaluation. After an hour of talking to Jackson through the 

screen door, a helicopter flew overhead. When Jackson stepped out onto the 

porch to look at the helicopter, officers blocked her entry back into the home. 

The officers then loaded Jackson into the ambulance, and she was taken to IU 

Health/Ball Memorial Hospital. Jackson was admitted to the Gero-Psychiatric 

Unit of Meridian Services at the hospital.

[6] That same day, Meridian Services submitted an application for emergency 

detention of a mentally ill and dangerous person which stated that Jackson had 

a “psychiatric disorder that substantially disturbed her thinking, feeling or 

behavior and impaired her ability to function.” Appellee’s App. p. 3. The 

application also indicated that Jackson was gravely disabled and in need of 

immediate restraint because of “increased confusion, poor tracking, substantial 

impairment in judgment/reasoning.” Id.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A02-1508-MI-1075 | March 17, 2016 Page 4 of 18

[7] In the corresponding physician’s statement submitted to the mental health court 

on April 15, 2015, Doctor Abdulmalek Sadehh (“Dr. Sadehh”) stated that 

Jackson was suffering from a psychiatric disorder, specifically “Dementia NOS 

[not otherwise specified] most likely Alzheimer’s type.” Id. at 6. Dr. Sadehh 

also noted that Jackson had poor short-term memory, poor insight and 

impaired judgment, and was unable to manage some personal needs such as 

driving a car, managing finances, and living safely at home. Id. Dr. Sadehh also

recommended that Jackson be placed in the custody, care, or treatment in an 

appropriate facility and suggested placement in the Meridian Services GeroPsychiatric Unit for no more than ninety-days. The medical team was

concerned that if Jackson returned home, she would not take her medication or 

let home health workers into her house. On April 17, 2015, the court granted 

the hospital’s application, and Jackson was placed under a temporary ninetyday commitment. 

[8] After Jackson was committed, Meridian Services contacted APS to assist 

placing Jackson in a nursing facility. Appellant’s App. p. 6. On April 27, 2015, 

Steve Sumner (“Sumner”) of APS filed a verified petition for emergency 

services. That same day, a hearing was held, and the trial court entered an order 

for emergency services, directing Jackson to be transported to The Woodlands 

Care Center (“The Woodlands”). The trial court scheduled a hearing on the 

petition for emergency services and to appoint a guardian ad litem and fiduciary 

conservator for May 8, 2015. After Jackson requested a continuance, a hearing 

was held on these matters on June 26, 2015.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A02-1508-MI-1075 | March 17, 2016 Page 5 of 18

[9] After arriving at The Woodlands, Jackson was under the care of Doctor Lynn 

Valena (“Dr. Valena”). Dr. Valena observed that Jackson was forgetful and 

needed help taking her medication. Dr. Valena believed that Jackson would 

benefit from receiving twenty-four-hour care. She also noted that Jackson was 

in relatively good physical shape. A social worker at The Woodlands, Katie 

Lucas (“Lucas”), also agreed that Jackson had cognitive issues, making her a 

good candidate for services. Lucas specifically explained that Jackson is unable 

to identify the day of the week, so she does not know when to go to work, pay 

bills, or take out the trash. Certified nursing aide at The Woodlands, Athena 

Jackson,

2 would sometimes remind Jackson where her room and bathroom 

were located and worried that if Jackson was sent home that she could not 

completely take care of herself. However, Jackson brushes her teeth, bathes,

feeds, and dresses herself without any assistance from the nursing staff.

[10] Jackson has no immediate family, but Jackson’s former sister-in-law, Lillian 

Pullins (“Pullins”), used to bring Jackson milk every so often. Pullins agreed 

that Jackson would not likely take her medication on her own but said that 

Jackson has done “good” over the years. Statement of Evidence p. 7.

3 Pullins 

explained that when Jackson lived on her own she purchased her own 

 

2 Athena Jackson is not in any way related to Norma Jackson. 

3 Because a large portion of the transcript was “indiscernible” due to the tape recorder not containing an 

external microphone, Jackson filed a motion to certify statement of evidence on November 23, 2015. With 

no objections from APS, the trial court granted the motion the next day.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A02-1508-MI-1075 | March 17, 2016 Page 6 of 18

groceries, paid off the mortgage on her house, and arranged for bills to be paid 

by her bank.

[11] The trial court entered a protective services order on June 30, 2015, finding 

Jackson to be an endangered adult in need of protective services for twentyfour-hour care and supervision. The court ordered Jackson to remain at The 

Woodlands until a medical doctor determines that she is ready for discharge 

into a less restrictive environment. Jackson now appeals. 

Jackson’s Commitment

[12] Although Jackson appeals the trial court’s protective services order determining 

that she was an endangered adult involved in a life threatening emergency, we 

begin our analysis with Jackson’s temporary commitment.

Civil commitment is a significant deprivation of liberty that 

requires due process protections. Because everyone exhibits some 

abnormal conduct at one time or another, loss of liberty calls for 

a showing that the individual suffers from something more 

serious than is demonstrated by idiosyncratic behavior. The 

petitioner. . . is required to prove by clear and convincing 

evidence that the individual is: (1) mentally ill and (2) either

dangerous or gravely disabled and that (3) commitment is 

appropriate. Ind. Code § 12-26-2-5(e). In order to carry its burden 

of proof, the petitioner is not required to prove that the individual 

is both dangerous and gravely disabled. However, there is no 

constitutional basis for confining a mentally ill person who is not 

dangerous and can live safely in freedom. 

Civil Commitment of W.S. v. Eskenazi Health, Midtown Cmty. Mental Health 

Ctr., 23 N.E.3d 29, 33 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (quoting M.L. v. Meridian 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A02-1508-MI-1075 | March 17, 2016 Page 7 of 18

Servs., Inc., 956 N.E.2d 752, 755 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (quotation marks 

and some citations omitted), trans. denied. 

[13] Although we have not reviewed the transcript of the commitment hearing, the 

emergency detention application and physician’s statement was included in the 

record to support APS’s argument. See Appellee’s App. pp. 3, 6. In its 

application for emergency detention, Meridian Services alleged that Jackson 

needed to be committed because she was mentally ill and gravely disabled. Id. 

A mental illness is defined as a psychiatric disorder that substantially disturbs 

an individual’s thinking, feeling, or behavior and impairs the individual’s ability 

to function. Ind. Code § 12-7-2-130. Dr. Sadehh indicated that Jackson was 

mentally ill and diagnosed her with dementia NOS, most likely the Alzheimer’s 

type. Further, Dr. Saddeh expressed that Jackson was gravely disabled as 

defined in Indiana Code section 12-7-2-96:

“Gravely disabled”, for purposes of IC 12-26, means a condition 

in which an individual, as a result of mental illness is in danger of 

coming to harm because the individual:

***

(2) has a substantial impairment or an obvious 

deterioration of that individual’s judgment, reasoning, or 

behavior that results in the individual’s inability to 

function independently. 

[14] Dr. Saddeh believed that Jackson was gravely disabled under Indiana Code 

section 12-7-2-96(2) because Jackson has “poor short-term memory, poor 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A02-1508-MI-1075 | March 17, 2016 Page 8 of 18

insight and impaired judgment, and is unable to manage some personal needs 

such as driving a car, managing finances, and living safely at home.” See 

Appellee’s App. p. 6. Again, we have not been presented with the transcript 

from the commitment hearing, but we must emphasize that there is no 

constitutional basis for confining a mentally ill person who is not dangerous 

and can live safely in freedom. See Civil Commitment of W.S, 23 N.E.3d at 33.

[15] After examining the evidence presented at the hearing on emergency services, 

we note that although Jackson undoubtedly suffers from cognitive impairment 

due to dementia, she is not dangerous and has been able to function safely. 

Before she was admitted to the Gero-Psychiatric Unit at Meridian Services, 

Jackson purchased her own groceries, cooked meals, bathed and dressed 

herself, brushed her teeth, took out the trash, and arranged for the bank to pay 

her bills. This same evidence might not have been presented at the commitment 

hearing, but because Jackson’s temporary commitment essentially was 

converted into an involuntary protective order, it is crucial to question whether 

Jackson’s underlying temporary commitment to the Gero-Psychiatric Unit was 

proper. 

Jackson’s “Emergency” Protective Order

[16] After Jackson was committed, Meridian Services contacted APS because they 

believed that Jackson needed nursing home services, which Meridian Services 

does not provide. To maneuver around the temporary commitment and provide 

Jackson with more extensive supervision and care, APS filed a verified petition 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A02-1508-MI-1075 | March 17, 2016 Page 9 of 18

for emergency services on April 27, 2015, which the trial court granted the same 

day. The order for emergency services directed Jackson to be transported to The 

Woodlands. Given that Meridian Services referred Jackson to APS, the petition 

for emergency services relied on similar grounds as the emergency detention

application.

[17] Indiana Code section 12-10-3-28 outlines the process for obtaining an 

emergency protective order:

(a) If: 

(1) an alleged endangered adult does not or is unable to 

consent to the receipt of protective services arranged by the 

division or the adult protective services unit or withdraws 

consent previously given; and

(2) the endangered adult is involved in a life threatening 

emergency;

the adult protective services unit, either directly or through the 

prosecuting attorney’s office of the county in which the alleged 

endangered adult resides, may petition the superior or circuit

court in the county where the alleged endangered adult resides 

for an emergency protective order.

(Emphasis added). 

[18] The emergency protective order must stipulate: (1) the objectives of the 

emergency protective order, (2) the least restrictive emergency protective 

services necessary to attain the objectives of the emergency protective order that 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A02-1508-MI-1075 | March 17, 2016 Page 10 of 18

the endangered adult must receive, and (3) the duration during which the 

endangered adult must receive the emergency protective services. Ind. Code § 

12-10-3-28(d)(1)-(3). Specifically, under subsection (f): 

An emergency protective order issued under this section may not 

remain in effect for longer than:

(1) ten (10) days; or

(2) thirty (30) days if the adult protective services unit 

shows the court that an extraordinary need exists that 

requires the order to remain in effect for not more than 

thirty (30) days.

Further, subsection (g) provides:

If at the expiration of an order the adult protective services unit 

determines that the endangered adult is in need of further 

protective services and the endangered adult does not consent to 

the receipt of the services, a petition may be filed under section 

21 of this chapter.

[19] In its emergency services order issued on April 27, 2015, the trial court 

stipulated the objectives of the emergency protective order and the least 

restrictive emergency protective services necessary to attain the objectives of the 

order. However, regarding duration the order reads:

Norma Jackson upon discharge from the Gero-Psychiatric Unit 

of Meridian Services [], shall be transported to The Woodlands 

Care Center [], where she can continue to receive 24 hour 

medical and day to day care, until such time when she can be 

released by the Court under a Court Order with a letter from her 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A02-1508-MI-1075 | March 17, 2016 Page 11 of 18

medical doctor stating she is able and ready for discharge into a 

lesser restrictive environment.

Appellant’s App. p. 10. 

[20] The language in the court’s order is at issue because the duration of the 

emergency services is indefinite. An emergency protection order may not 

remain in effect for more than ten days, or at most thirty days if APS can show 

that an extraordinary need for services exists. See Ind. Code § 12-10-3-28(f). The 

purpose of emergency services is to remedy a life-threatening emergency. 

Jackson exhibited signs of dementia, which alone is not a life-threatening 

emergency.4 In effect, the trial court entered an involuntary protective services 

order that is outlined in Indiana Code section 12-10-3-21. Under Indiana Code 

section 12-10-3-28(g), after an emergency services protective order expires, APS 

is required to file a petition under section 21 if it believes that the endangered 

adult is in further need of protective services. APS only filed a verified petition 

for emergency services here, but nevertheless, the court treated it like an 

involuntary protective services petition.

[21] Furthermore, a hearing was held on June 26, 2015, on the emergency services 

petition. The trial court issued a protective services order on June 30, 2015, 

 

4 We will address whether Jackson was involved in a life-threatening emergency in the sufficiency of the 

evidence section. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A02-1508-MI-1075 | March 17, 2016 Page 12 of 18

which included the same language as the April 27, 2015 emergency services 

order: 

It is considered, ordered, adjudged, and decreed by the Court 

that [Jackson] remain in the care of The Woodlands Care Center

[], until such time when she can be released by the Court under a 

Court Order with a letter from her medical doctor stating she is 

able and ready for discharge into a lesser restrictive environment.

Appellant’s App. p. 15. The emergency services order required that Jackson

remain at The Woodlands for seventy-four days before the protective services 

order was issued. The protective services extended Jackson’s placement at The 

Woodlands until a doctor approves her release. In reality, this means that 

Jackson could remain at the Woodlands for the remainder of her life. 

[22] This procedure caused Jackson to be detained against her will for over seventy 

days, when Indiana Code section 12-10-3-28(f) explicitly limits the duration of 

an emergency services protective order to thirty days, at most. Accordingly, the 

trial court erred by not stating a duration of thirty days or less in its emergency 

services order. APS then failed to file a petition under Indiana Code section 12-

10-3-21 when they believed that Jackson was in need of continued protective 

services. As such, the trial court’s underlying protective services order is 

unauthorized by statute. After considering this well-meant but erroneous 

procedure, we now consider Jackson’s argument. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A02-1508-MI-1075 | March 17, 2016 Page 13 of 18

Sufficiency of the Evidence

[23] Jackson argues that APS failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that 

she was an “endangered adult” and that a life-threatening emergency existed 

under Indiana Code section 12-10-3-28. Specifically, Jackson asserts that she 

has been involuntarily detained and deprived of her liberty and property.

[24] In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a determination 

requiring clear and convincing evidence, we will consider only the evidence 

most favorable to the judgment and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom.

T.D. v. Eskenazi Health Midtown Cmty. Mental Health Ctr., 40 N.E.3d 507, 510 

(Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (citing Commitment of L.W. v. Midtown Cmty. Health Ctr., 

823 N.E.2d 702, 703 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005)). To be “clear and convincing,” the 

existence of a fact must be probable. Id. (citing Lazarus Dep’t Store v. Sutherlin, 

544 N.E.2d 513, 527 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989)), reh’g denied, trans. denied. We will 

not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses. Id. (citing Civil 

Commitment of T.K. v. Dept. of Veterans Affairs, 27 N.E.3d 271, 273 (Ind. 2015)).

A. Endangered Adult 

[25] Under Indiana Code section 12-10-3-28, for a trial court to enter an order for 

emergency protective services, clear and convincing evidence must exists that 

an individual is (1) an endangered adult, (2) a life threatening emergency exists, 

and (3) the endangered adult is in need of the proposed emergency services. 

Indiana code section 12-10-3-2(a) defines an “endangered adult” as:
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A02-1508-MI-1075 | March 17, 2016 Page 14 of 18

An individual who is:

(1) at least eighteen (18) years of age;

(2) incapable by reason of mental illness, intellectual 

disability, dementia, habitual drunkenness, excessive use 

of drugs, or other physical or mental incapacity of 

managing or directing the management of the individual’s 

property or providing or directing the provision of selfcare; and

(3) harmed or threatened with harm as a result of:

(A) neglect;

(B) battery; or

(C) exploitation of the individual’s personal services 

or property.

[26] In its petition for emergency services, APS included as an exhibit the 

physician’s report that accompanied Meridian Services’ application for 

emergency detention, which indicated that Jackson was diagnosed with 

dementia NOS. See Appellee’s App. p. 6. At the hearing, APS presented 

evidence from Dr. Valena that Jackson scored a six out of ten on a mental 

status examination after arriving at The Woodlands. She also testified that 

Jackson is very forgetful and her short-term memory is compromised. APS also 

called a certified nursing aide who testified that sometimes Jackson has trouble 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A02-1508-MI-1075 | March 17, 2016 Page 15 of 18

finding her room and bathroom at The Woodlands but does a great job taking 

care of herself.

[27] After reviewing the evidence in the record, the trial court determined that 

Jackson was an “endangered adult.” Based on the evidence and circumstances, 

the finding that Jackson has dementia, which inhibits her ability to manage her 

property and self-care, is certainly probable. Therefore, we respect the trial 

court’s discretion and will not reweigh the evidence. However, in a society 

where more and more elder adults suffer from dementia, a life-threatening 

emergency is needed to justify restraint of such an elder adult’s liberty.

B. Life Threatening Emergency

[28] “Life Threatening Emergency” is defined by Indiana Code section 12-10-3-4 as: 

a situation in which: (1) a severe threat to life or health of an 

endangered adult exists; (2) immediate care or treatment is 

required to alleviate that threat; and (3) the endangered adult is 

unable to provide or obtain the necessary care or treatment.

[29] We must first determine whether APS established that Jackson was in a 

situation with a severe threat to her life or health. Jackson was admitted to the 

Gero-Psychiatric Unit of Meridian Services after a series of events where she hit 

a small pine tree near her home, could not remember the location of her car, 

and called the police over twenty times attempting to locate the vehicle. 

Jackson was not injured in this accident, but the police determined that Jackson 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A02-1508-MI-1075 | March 17, 2016 Page 16 of 18

would benefit from a psychological evaluation after conducting a welfare check

at her home. 

[30] Until the car accident occurred, and arguably after, Jackson was self-sufficient 

despite the forgetfulness caused by her dementia. Jackson purchased groceries, 

cooked meals, took out the trash, authorized the bank to pay her bills, and 

practiced good personal hygiene. Based on these facts and circumstances, we 

cannot conclude that Jackson’s dementia at this stage and by itself, constitutes a 

severe threat to her life or health.

[31] Even if Jackson’s dementia allegedly caused a severe threat to her life or health, 

the evidence indicates that immediate care or treatment was not required to 

alleviate the threat. Dr. Valena testified at the hearing that Jackson’s treatment 

includes taking Zyprexa and Depakote. She also stated that Jackson needs 

assistance taking her medication, that she needs twenty-four-hour care, and that 

she “may not be safe.” Statement of Evidence p. 6. 

[32] Jackson was not treated for any injuries related to the underlying auto accident.

Rather, she was admitted to the Gero-Psychiatric Unit several days after the 

accident. While taking medication for memory issues may assist Jackson to 

function more coherently, it is not immediate treatment that alleviates a severe

threat to her life or health.

[33] Indiana Code section 12-10-3-28 seeks to provide emergency protective services 

to an endangered adult for a limited period of time. Here, Jackson may 

arguably be an endangered adult, but the treatment that Dr. Valena 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A02-1508-MI-1075 | March 17, 2016 Page 17 of 18

recommended is long-term nursing home care, not immediate, emergency care. 

If APS believed that Jackson was in further need of care and treatment after the 

emergency protective services order expired, then it should have filed a petition 

under Indiana Code section 12-10-3-21. However, APS only filed a petition for 

emergency services. 

[34] Lastly, we assess whether Jackson is unable to provide or obtain the necessary 

care or treatment for herself. Before she was admitted to the hospital, Jackson 

was self-sufficient. She lived alone in her home, with no immediate family 

nearby, but as previously mentioned could and did care for herself, or requested 

help from others when she needed it. 

[35] Social worker Lucas testified that Jackson never knows the day of the week and 

needs to know the date so she can work, pay bills, and take out the trash. 

However, Lucas also conceded that Jackson did not work, had the bank pay her 

bills, and had no issues with trash accumulating in her home, so knowledge of 

the day of the week is not important to her health. Based on the record, it 

appears that the medical team at The Woodlands is most concerned that 

Jackson will not take her medication if she returns home. 

[36] Jackson testified at the hearing that she would take medicine if she needed it 

but does not like to take “a bunch of drugs.” Tr. p. 29. It is also worth noting 

that APS did not present any evidence at the hearing to show that Jackson’s 

memory or cognition has improved or is functioning at a higher level because 

she is taking these medications. For all of these reasons, we cannot conclude 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A02-1508-MI-1075 | March 17, 2016 Page 18 of 18

that APS proved by clear and convincing evidence that Jackson’s dementia 

constituted a life-threatening emergency. 

Conclusion

[37] The trial court erred when it failed to stipulate a duration of thirty days or less

for Jackson’s emergency services order under the authorizing statute. 

Notwithstanding this error, APS established by clear and convincing evidence 

that Jackson was an “endangered adult.” However, APS did not present 

sufficient evidence that Jackson was involved in a life-threatening emergency 

under Indiana Code section 12-10-3-28. We therefore reverse the trial court’s 

order and remand with instructions that the trial court release Jackson from The 

Woodlands and allow her to return to her home. 

[38] Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. 

Kirsch, J., and Brown, J., concur.