Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A02-1607-MH-1610 | January 18, 2017 Page 1 of 15

MEMORANDUM DECISION

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.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Ana M. Quirk

Muncie, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Frances Barrow

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

K.J.,

Appellant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee.

January 18, 2017

Court of Appeals Case No.

18A02-1607-MH-1610

Appeal from the Delaware Circuit 

Court

The Honorable Linda Ralu Wolf,

Judge

The Honorable Timothy Hollems, 

Master Commissioner

Trial Court Cause No.

18C03-1310-MH-201

Bradford, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A02-1607-MH-1610 | January 18, 2017 Page 2 of 15

Case Summary

[1] Appellant K.J. suffers from Schizo-Affective Disorder. As a result of her 

condition, K.J. was committed to the Division of Mental Health and Addiction 

of Richmond State Hospital (“RSH”) in November of 2013. At some point, 

K.J.’s condition stabilized and her commitment was transferred to a less 

restrictive placement with Meridian Health Services (“MHS”). In July of 2016, 

a representative of MHS filed a petition seeking an expedited review of K.J.’s 

case and requesting a more restrictive placement. Following a hearing, the trial 

court issued an order continuing the regular commitment of K.J. and placed her 

at RSH.

[2] On appeal, K.J. contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the trial 

court’s order continuing her regular commitment. She also contends that the 

statutes setting forth the procedures relating to regular commitments are 

unconstitutional. Concluding otherwise, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] On October 2, 2013, K.J. was seen by medical personnel in the emergency 

room at Ball Memorial Hospital (“BMH”). Merrill McKinley, a licensed 

medical social worker with MHS, filed an emergency detention petition and 

K.J. was subsequently admitted to BMH after the treating medical personnel 

determined that she was gravely disabled and in need of immediate restraint. 

At the time, K.J. appeared to be delusional and exhibited tangential thinking, 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A02-1607-MH-1610 | January 18, 2017 Page 3 of 15

auditory hallucinations, and paranoid thoughts. K.J. was subsequently 

diagnosed with suffering from Schizo-Affective Disorder.

[4] Following a hearing on the emergency detention petition, the trial court found 

that K.J. (1) was suffering from Schizo-Affective disorder, (2) was gravely 

disabled, and (3) was in need of commitment to an appropriate mental health 

facility for a period that was expected to exceed ninety days. The trial court 

further found that the least restrictive environment suitable to provide K.J. with 

the necessary care was a mental health facility operated by Appellee the State of 

Indiana (“the State”). K.J. was subsequently admitted to RSH on or about 

November 27, 2013. 

[5] On September 19, 2014, the Superintendent of RSH filed the statutorilymandated annual periodic report on a regularly-committed individual. In this 

report, the Superintendent of RSH noted that K.J.’s condition had stabilized, 

she met all discharge criteria, and she was not a danger to herself or others. In 

light of K.J.’s improved condition, the Superintendent of RSH requested that 

K.J. be transferred to MHS. On September 24, 2014, the trial court entered an 

order continuing K.J.’s regular commitment without first conducting a hearing.1 

K.J. was then discharged from RSH and transferred to MHS.2 

 

1

 K.J. does not challenge this order in the instant appeal.

2

 On September 27, 2014, K.J. was again admitted to BMH after presenting with auditory 

hallucinations, racing thoughts, extreme agitation, extreme confusion, and displaying suicidal 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A02-1607-MH-1610 | January 18, 2017 Page 4 of 15

[6] On September 2, 2015, an appropriate representative of MHS filed the 

statutorily-mandated annual periodic report on a regularly-committed 

individual. This report indicated that K.J. suffered from Schizo-Affective 

Disorder, Borderline Personality Disorder, and Polysubstance Dependence. 

The report further indicated that, while K.J. was not a danger to herself, she 

was gravely disabled. On September 3, 2015, the trial court entered an order 

continuing K.J.’s regular commitment without first conducting a hearing.3

[7] On October 6, 2015, BMH filed an application for the emergency detention of a 

mentally-ill and dangerous person. The application indicated that K.J. heard 

voices that told her to overdose on pills, was emotionally unstable and 

distraught, had delusional thoughts, and felt overwhelmed and hopeless. The 

application also indicated that K.J. was suicidal and was suffering from 

hallucinations. K.J. was dismissed from the hospital on October 19, 2015.

[8] On June 7, 2016, MHS filed a petition for expedited review of K.J.’s case. The 

petition also included a request for more restrictive placement. The petition 

indicated that K.J.’s condition had not improved and that she was currently in 

the inpatient unit at BMH. The petition further indicated that K.J. had 

previously been admitted to BMH’s Psychiatry Unit from May 17-20, 2016 and 

 

thoughts. Though the exact date is not clear from the record, she was subsequently discharged 

back to MHS.

3

 K.J. does not challenge this order in the instant appeal.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A02-1607-MH-1610 | January 18, 2017 Page 5 of 15

on May 31, 2016, “and now needs to be committed to a State operated facility.” 

Appellant’s App. Vol. II, p. 73.

[9] The trial court conducted a hearing on MHS’s petition on June 10, 2016. 

During this hearing, Carol Miller, a Behavior Clinician at MHS who worked 

with K.J. on a regular basis, testified that K.J.’s condition had deteriorated such 

that she believed that a more restrictive placement was necessary. Also during 

this hearing, Dr. Rohit Borkhetaria, a staff psychiatrist with MHS who has 

treated K.J., testified that K.J. suffers from “Schizo-Affective Disorder, 

Unspecified Anxiety Disorder, Poly-Substance Abuse Disorder, by history, and 

Borderline Personality Disorder.” Tr. p. 10. Dr. Borkhetaria testified that 

based on K.J.’s current condition, a more restrictive placement was necessary to 

effectively treat K.J. Dr. Borkhetaria testified that K.J. was a danger to herself 

and suffered from “a substantial impairment or obvious deterioration of her 

judgment, reasoning or behavior that results in her inability to function 

independently[.]” Tr. p. 12.

[10] Following the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court issued an order in which 

it found that K.J. continues to suffer from mental illness and is both dangerous 

to herself and gravely disabled. The trial court further found that RSH is the 

least restrictive environment suitable to provide her with the necessary care, 

treatment, and protection. The trial court ordered that K.J. should continue 

under a regular commitment and placed K.J. at the RSH. This appeal follows.

Discussion and Decision
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A02-1607-MH-1610 | January 18, 2017 Page 6 of 15

[11] On appeal, K.J. challenges the trial court’s commitment order by arguing that 

the evidence presented is insufficient to prove that a regular commitment is 

necessary. K.J. alternatively argues that Indiana Code chapter 12-26-15, which 

sets forth the procedures which are to be followed when completing the 

required annual review of a regular commitment, is unconstitutional.

I. Sufficiency of the Evidence

A. Standard of Review

[12] When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence 

with respect to commitment proceedings, we will only look to the 

evidence most favorable to the trial court’s decision and all 

reasonable inferences drawn therefrom. Golub v. Giles, 814 

N.E.2d 1034, 1038 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans. denied. In 

reviewing the evidence supporting the judgment, we may neither 

reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of the witnesses. 

Id. “Where the evidence is in conflict, we are bound to view only 

that evidence that is most favorable to the trial court’s judgment.” 

Id. If the trial court’s commitment order represents a conclusion 

that a reasonable person could have drawn, we will affirm the 

order even if other reasonable conclusions are possible. Id.

M.Z. v. Clarian Health Partners, 829 N.E.2d 634, 637 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).

[13] In completing this review, we acknowledge that a civil commitment is a 

significant deprivation of liberty that requires due process protections. Civil 

Commitment of W.S. v. Eskenazi Health, Midtown Cmty. Mental Health, 23 N.E.3d 

29, 33 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (internal quotation omitted), trans. denied. “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 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A02-1607-MH-1610 | January 18, 2017 Page 7 of 15

is demonstrated by idiosyncratic behavior.” Id. (internal quotation omitted). 

As such, the petitioner seeking a civil commitment is required to prove by clear 

and convincing evidence that the individual for whom the commitment is 

sought is (1) mentally ill and (2) either dangerous or gravely disabled and that 

(3) commitment is appropriate. Id. (citing Ind. Code § 12-26-2-5(e)). 

[14] “In order to carry its burden of proof, the petitioner is not required to prove that 

the individual is both dangerous and gravely disabled.” Id. (internal quotation 

omitted). “However, there is no constitutional basis for confining a mentally ill 

person who is not dangerous and can live safely in freedom.” Id. (internal 

quotation omitted).

B. Analysis

[15] We initially note that K.J. does not challenge the trial court’s determination 

that she suffers from mental illness pursuant to Indiana Code section 12-7-2-

130, which defines mental illness as “a psychiatric disorder that: (A) 

substantially disturbs an individual’s thinking, feeling, or behavior; and (B) 

impairs the individual’s ability to function.” Instead, K.J. argues that the State 

failed to present sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s determination 

that she is gravely disabled. The term “gravely disabled” is defined as follows:

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

in danger of coming to harm because the individual:

(1) is unable to provide for that individual’s food, 

clothing, shelter, or other essential human needs; or

(2) has a substantial impairment or an obvious 

deterioration of that individual’s judgment, 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A02-1607-MH-1610 | January 18, 2017 Page 8 of 15

reasoning, or behavior that results in the individual’s 

inability to function independently.

Ind. Code § 12-7-2-96. 

As we have often noted, because this statute is written in the 

disjunctive, a trial court’s finding of grave disability survives if we 

find that there was sufficient evidence to prove either that the 

individual is unable to provide for [her] basic needs or that [her]

judgment, reasoning, or behavior is so impaired or deteriorated 

that it results in [her] inability to function independently.

Civil Commitment of W.S., 23 N.E.3d at 34 (citing T.A. v. Wishard Health Servs., 

950 N.E.2d 1266, 1271 n. 2 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011); A.L. v. Wishard Health Servs., 

934 N.E.2d 755, 762 n. 2 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), trans. denied).

[16] Here, the evidence most favorable to the trial court’s determination that K.J. is 

gravely disabled indicates that K.J. continues to suffer from a psychiatric 

disorder such that she is both (1) a danger to herself and (2) suffers from a 

substantial impairment which renders her unable to function independently. 

Miller, who, again, has worked with K.J. at MHS on a regular basis, testified 

during the June 16, 2016 hearing that K.J.’s condition had deteriorated such 

that she believed that a more restrictive placement was necessary. Specifically, 

Miller testified as follows:

[K.J.] has been increasingly getting worse with her symptoms to 

the point that our staff is no longer able to manage her care. We 

have a deep fear of her being either suicidal, drug overdose, [or] 

homicidal. She has been very hostile toward her family to the 

point that they are afraid for their safety. She makes very 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A02-1607-MH-1610 | January 18, 2017 Page 9 of 15

impulsive decisions that, you know, put her in harmful 

situations. She’s not really taking her medication like she used, 

you know, like she should. Even though we go every day to 

watch her take her morning meds, she doesn’t always take her 

evening meds. Like, we’ll sit down, talk to her and make a plan 

of treatment. She is not very cooperative with her treatment. 

We have a hard time, you know, getting her to be compliant. 

Understanding, you know, the choices she makes impacts her 

life, you know, in a negative way. She’s been hospitalized five 

(5) times in the last month. I mean as soon as she gets out of this 

inpatient, she’s back in the ER. Usually she is either drug 

seeking or she’s psychotic.

Tr. pp. 5-6. Miller further testified that she believed K.J. was a danger to 

herself, stating as follows:

She put herself in some risky situations that has really, you know, 

concerned the team.... she had got, she was released from 

inpatient a couple weeks ago, she went out and got alcohol, and 

got drunk. Her mom called us saying that, you know, she came 

there drunk and, I mean, it was like an ongoing situation from 

the time she got out of the hospital to the time, for the next four 

(4) days, trying to, you know, resolve that issue, work with her 

on, you know, using better decision, judgment, you know, using 

her coping skills, you know, understanding that, you know, 

drinking, drugging is not the way to go, especially when you 

have a mental illness, make sure she [is] taking her medication, 

you know, communicating with her family. She would go to her, 

her mom[’s] house and get disruptive. Her mom had to call the 

police on her, and I had came [sic] that day to take her to see [the 

doctor], and I told her, I said, well, I said if the police come here 

let them know that she’s at [MHS]. And she saw [the doctor], 

and then, the next thing I know she, she, um, a couple hours 

later, a few hours later, she went to the ER saying that she was 

psychotic, delusional and paranoid. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A02-1607-MH-1610 | January 18, 2017 Page 10 of 15

Tr. pp. 6-7. Miller also testified that she believed that K.J. suffered from a 

substantial impairment or an obvious deterioration in her judgment which 

rendered her unable to function. 

[17] In addition, Dr. Borkhetaria, who, again, has treated K.J. at MHS, testified that 

K.J. suffers from “Schizo-Affective Disorder, Unspecified Anxiety Disorder, 

Poly-Substance Abuse Disorder, by history, and Borderline Personality 

Disorder.” Tr. p. 10. Dr. Borkhetaria testified that based on K.J.’s current 

condition, a more restrictive placement was necessary to effectively treat K.J. 

Dr. Borkhetaria testified that K.J. was a danger to herself and suffered from “a 

substantial impairment or obvious deterioration of her judgment, reasoning or 

behavior that results in her inability to function independently[.]” Tr. p. 12.

[18] The foregoing evidence clearly and convincingly demonstrates that K.J. is in 

danger of coming to harm because she suffers from a substantial impairment of 

her judgment, reasoning, and behavior. The evidence further demonstrates that 

in light of this impairment, K.J. is unable to function independently. Based 

upon the evidence presented, the trial court’s determination that K.J. is gravely 

disabled is reasonable. As such, we conclude that the trial court’s order 

providing for the continuation of K.J.’s regular commitment is supported by 

clear and convincing evidence. K.J.’s contention to the contrary is merely an 

invitation for this court to reweigh the evidence, which we will not do. See 

M.Z., 829 N.E.2d at 637. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A02-1607-MH-1610 | January 18, 2017 Page 11 of 15

II. Constitutional Concerns

[19] K.J. alternatively argues that Indiana Code chapter 12-26-15 is unconstitutional 

because it does not require an automatic hearing on the statutorily-mandated 

annual review of a regular commitment, but rather places the burden on the 

committed individual, or a representative of the committed individual, to 

request a hearing on said review.

A. Indiana Code Chapter 12-26-15

[20] With respect to an individual subject to a regular commitment, Indiana Code 

section 12-26-15-1 provides that “[a]t least annually, ... the superintendent of 

the facility or the attending physician including the superintendent or attending 

physician of an outpatient therapy program, shall file with the court a review of 

the individual’s care and treatment.” This review “must contain a statement of 

the following: (1) [t]he mental condition of the individual[;] (2) [w]hether the 

individual is dangerous or gravely disabled[; and] (3) [w]hether the individual: 

(A) needs to remain in the facility; or (B) may be cared for under a 

guardianship.”

[21] “Upon receipt of the report required by section 1 of this chapter, the court shall

do one (1) of the following: (1) [o]rder the individual’s continued custody, care, 

and treatment in the appropriate facility or therapy program[;] (2) [t]erminate 

the commitment or release the individual from the therapy program[; or] (3) 

[c]onduct a hearing [.]” Ind. Code § 12-26-15-2(a) (emphasis added). “The 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A02-1607-MH-1610 | January 18, 2017 Page 12 of 15

court may, in order to make provision for the individual’s continued care, 

appoint a guardian for the individual.” Ind. Code § 12-26-15-2(b).

[22] Upon receiving a copy of the court order, the individual or the 

individual’s representative may request a hearing for review or 

dismissal of the commitment or order concerning the therapy 

program. The right to review of the regular commitment or 

therapy order is limited to one (1) review each year, unless the 

court determines that there is good cause for an additional 

review.

Ind. Code § 12-26-15-3(a). “When a hearing request is received, the court shall 

set a hearing date and provide at least five (5) days notice to all of the following:

(1) [t]he individual[;] (2) [t]he individual’s counsel[; and] (3) [o]ther interested 

parties.” Ind. Code § 12-26-15-3(b). The hearing may be held “at a facility or 

other suitable place not likely to have a harmful effect on the individual’s health 

or well-being.” Ind. Code § 12-26-6-5.

B. Analysis

[23] In arguing that Indiana Code chapter 12-26-15 violates a committed 

individual’s right to due process, K.J. relies on our prior opinion in In re Matter 

of Tedesco, 421 N.E.2d 726 (Ind. Ct. App. 1981). This reliance is misplaced, 

however, because Tedesco can easily be distinguished from the instant matter. 

[24] In Tedesco, Tedesco’s father filed a petition for the involuntary regular 

commitment of Tedesco. 421 N.E.2d at 727. In this petition, Tedesco’s father 

alleged that Tedesco talked to dead relatives, threatened to kill his father and 

brothers, and was suicidal. Id. Tedesco was detained in the Madison State 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A02-1607-MH-1610 | January 18, 2017 Page 13 of 15

Hospital a for a period of fourteen days before the trial court conducted a 

probable cause hearing on his father’s petition. Id. On appeal, we were faced 

with the question of whether the delay of fourteen days before conducting a 

hearing following Tedesco’s initial detention violated his due process rights. Id. 

at 728-731. In finding that it did, we acknowledged that a trial court should 

conduct a hearing following an initial detention within a reasonable time and 

found fourteen days did not meet this standard. Id. at 730. However, we 

concluded that absent any indication that Tedesco’s regular commitment 

hearing was tainted by his prehearing detention, dismissal of the proceedings 

was not warranted. Id. at 731. In reaching this conclusion, we noted that 

Tedesco had not challenged the regular commitment hearing as being 

procedurally defective or the sufficiency of the evidence which led the trial court 

to commit him for a period to exceed ninety days. Id.

[25] Unlike in Tedesco, in the instant matter, K.J. makes no challenge to the initial 

commitment hearing which was conducted in 2013. Instead, she challenges the 

procedures relating to the statutorily-mandated annual review of her case. Our 

conclusion in Tedesco, which, again, considered only the time limitations for 

conducting an initial hearing when committing an individual, therefore has no 

bearing on the question at issue in the instant appeal.

[26] Further, K.J. does not argue that she was denied a hearing after a request for a

hearing was made or that the hearing conducted by the trial court was 

procedurally deficient. The record reveals that upon receiving K.J.’s request for 

a hearing, the trial court followed the relevant statutorily-mandated procedures 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A02-1607-MH-1610 | January 18, 2017 Page 14 of 15

for providing notice of and conducting said hearing. During this hearing, K.J., 

through her attorney, was provided with the opportunity to cross-examine the 

State’s witnesses and to present evidence on her behalf. This is all that is 

required by due process. See Ind. State Bd. of Educ. v. Brownsburg Cmty. Sch. 

Corp., 842 N.E.2d 885, 889 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (providing that due process 

generally requires notice, an opportunity to be heard, and an opportunity to 

confront witnesses). K.J., therefore, failed to demonstrate that she was denied 

due process with regard to the challenged order of the trial court.

[27] Furthermore, even if we were to consider K.J.’s challenges to Indiana Code 

chapter 12-26-15 as a blanket challenge to Indiana Code chapter 12-26-15,

rather than considering only the facts and circumstances of this case, we 

conclude that such a challenge would also fail. K.J. points to no authority, and 

we find none, suggesting that due process requires that a trial court conduct a 

hearing in all annual reviews of a committed individual’s case. Again, 

“[g]enerally stated, due process requires notice, an opportunity to be heard, and 

an opportunity to confront witnesses.” Id. (citing In re M.L.K., 751 N.E.2d 293, 

295-96 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001)). “The notice provided must be reasonably 

calculated, under all the circumstances, to afford the interested parties an 

opportunity to present their objections.” Id. (citing In re M.L.K., 751 N.E.2d at 

296). “‘Such notice must reasonably convey the required information to the 

affected party, must afford a reasonable time for that party to respond, and is 

constitutionally adequate when the practicalities and peculiarities of the case 

are reasonably met.’” Id. (quoting In re M.L.K., 751 N.E.2d at 296).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A02-1607-MH-1610 | January 18, 2017 Page 15 of 15

[28] As is set forth above, Indiana Code chapter 12-26-15 provides for notice of a 

trial court order to continue an individual’s commitment to the committed 

individual as well as for an opportunity to be heard. Specifically, Indiana Code 

chapter 12-26-15 provides that upon receiving a copy of the court order, a 

committed individual, or the individual’s representative, may request a hearing 

for review or dismissal of the commitment order. Ind. Code § 12-26-15-3. 

During this hearing, the committed individual, either individually or by 

counsel, is given the opportunity to be heard and to confront the petitioner’s, 

i.e., the State’s, witnesses. This procedure satisfies the requirements of due 

process.4 We therefore conclude that K.J.’s challenge to the constitutionality of 

Indiana Code chapter 12-26-15 is without merit.

[29] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Vaidik, C.J., and Brown, J., concur. 

 

4

 Stated differently, although K.J. argues that a hearing should be conducted automatically 

rather than only upon request, due process requires only that an individual be given the 

opportunity to be heard, an opportunity which is provided for by Indiana Code chapter 12-26-

15.