Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-MH-569 | August 29, 2019 Page 1 of 13

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

Megan Shipley 

Marion County Public Defender Agency

Indianapolis, Indiana 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Jenny R. Buchheit

Stephen E. Reynolds

Gregory W. Pottorff

Sean T. Dewey

Ice Miller LLP 

Indianapolis, Indiana 

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

In the Matter of the Civil 

Commitment of M.T.

M.T., 

Appellant,

v.

Community Health Network 

Inc. of Marion County d/b/a 

Adult & Child MHC,

Appellee. 

August 29, 2019

Court of Appeals Case No.

19A-MH-569 

Appeal from the Marion Superior 

Court 

The Honorable Melanie Kendrick, 

Judge Pro Tempore 

Trial Court Cause No.

49D08-1901-MH-3702 

Brown, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-MH-569 | August 29, 2019 Page 2 of 13

[1] M.T. appeals the trial court’s February 7, 2019 Order of Temporary 

Commitment. We affirm. 

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On January 28, 2019, Adult & Child MHC filed an Application for Emergency 

Detention of Mentally Ill Person, with information provided by V.L., who is 

M.T.’s brother, together with a physician’s statement. On January 30, 2019, 

M.T. was admitted to the hospital, and on February 4, 2019, a Report 

Following Emergency Detention and a physician’s statement signed by Dr. 

Kanwal Sidhu were filed. Dr. Sidhu’s report stated that he believed M.T. was 

suffering from schizoaffective disorder and was gravely disabled. 

[3] On February 7, 2019, the court held a hearing at which Dr. Sidhu, V.L., and 

M.T. testified. Dr. Sidhu testified that he is a psychiatrist with Community 

Hospital North, that M.T. was admitted by his outpatient clinic Adult & Child 

MHC because of worsening psychosis, and that he saw M.T. for an evaluation 

on January 30th. According to Dr. Sidhu, M.T. reported that he had been 

healed and that Jesus had been talking to him. He testified that M.T. “has 

euphoria, grandiosity, distractibility, poor sleep, [and] confusion” and that 

M.T. reported that “he had not eaten for three days and was surviving only on 

water and now because of the grace of God.” Transcript Volume II at 5. He 

testified that M.T. had extreme paranoia, “was responding to internal stimuli 

which means he was hearing voices,” reported that he had not been taking his

medications “for a long time, over seven months,” and “basically denied he had 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-MH-569 | August 29, 2019 Page 3 of 13

any mental illness and his outpatient team was really worried about him 

because of his rapid decompensation due to his state of worsening psychosis 

and suicidal behaviors, so they admitted him.” Id. Dr. Sidhu testified he had 

seen M.T. many times, he had seen him every year for at least three years, he 

saw him in 2013 when he was admitted, and “in two other circumstances but 

more of the suicidal behaviors.” Id. at 6. 

[4] Dr. Sidhu indicated that, in August 2018, M.T. was admitted under his care 

and at that time M.T. was psychotic, delusional, and suicidal, that he had drank 

soap because voices told him to do so, and he talked about a plan to cut his 

throat with scissors. He testified that M.T. has a diagnosis of Schizoaffective 

Disorder Bipolar Type in which he has psychotic symptoms including paranoia, 

hearing voices, distractibility, poor concentration, and poor functioning as well 

as “some manic symptoms where he is euphoric, grandiose, he needs to sleep 

which leads to poor functioning – actually he is barely functioning. So we 

diagnosed him with having this [dis]order for many, many years.” Id. at 7. He 

testified that M.T. “cannot function and is not able to do well in life.” Id. 

When asked to give an example of how M.T. is exhibiting paranoia, Dr. Sidhu 

testified “[h]e is very guarded,” “[t]hat is the first sign of paranoia that he will 

not reveal much and he looks around scared,” “[h]e does that most of the day 

in the hospital,” “he is paranoid about his family’s intentions – about what they 

could do to him,” “most of the paranoia tendered [sic] around religious themes, 

the devil,” and “[t]his time he is not really talking about it as much as he is 

guarded.” Id. He testified that M.T. “thinks Jesus talks to him and that he can 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-MH-569 | August 29, 2019 Page 4 of 13

go without food for days at a time.” Id. at 8. He indicated that M.T. does not 

believe he has a mental illness, has refused to take any medications since he has 

been hospitalized, and does not think he needs medication. 

[5] When asked how M.T.’s Schizoaffective Disorder affects his ability to function 

independently, Dr. Sidhu testified that it affects his ability to hold a job, to 

function in society, and to have a stable place of residence, that he has to 

depend on his family for some of his needs, and that he has not been 

functioning well outside of the hospital. When asked if there were tasks M.T. is 

unable to do because of his illness, he answered “holding a stable job,”

“[h]aving functioning relationships with other people,” and “he is not eating 

and feeding himself properly because of his delusions.” Id. at 8. When asked if 

he is able to provide himself with food clothing, shelter, and other essential 

human needs, Dr. Sidhu testified “not that I know of,” that M.T. is not 

employed, and that he may have had odd jobs in the past but at this time he is 

unable to do those things on a stable basis due to his mental illness. Id. at 9. 

He indicated that M.T. is gravely disabled and that his opinion is based on 

M.T.’s chronic mental illness. When asked if M.T. presented a substantial risk 

of harming himself, Dr. Sidhu testified that he had a lung collapse and that

M.T. had told him that he wanted to slit his throat with scissors and one time 

had jumped off of a three-story building. He testified that “having a mental 

illness places you at high risk when you are in an acute decompensated state,” 

“[y]ou are likely to act on your impulses,” “he has not told me that he wants to 

do that this time but he still is a risk because of not getting treated,” and “I 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-MH-569 | August 29, 2019 Page 5 of 13

know he had told me in the past that voices told him to drink soap” and that 

“he has talked about in the past about cutting his throat with scissors because of 

the mental illness – the voices.” Id. at 10. 

[6] When asked why a commitment for a period not to exceed ninety days was 

necessary to provide an improvement in M.T.’s condition, Dr. Sidhu testified “I 

think that the minimum amount of time we need for the medication to work 

and to . . . get a good treatment plan established for him with his counseling 

and group therapy, case management and . . . get some other (inaudible) 

solutions so he can have a long term outcome that is positive for him.” Id. at 

11. He testified that, if the commitment were granted, he planned to start M.T. 

on an injectable medication and have a case management team involved to help 

him with outpatient follow-up, that his living situation will determine if he is 

able to go back to live with his family or independently, that he would “have 

him establish with the outpatient team,” and “[s]o he would stay in the hospital 

for about less than a week – he should be able to be discharged from the 

hospital and do outpatient follow up.” Id. He indicated the medications he 

mentioned were used for the treatment of Schizophrenia, Schizoaffective 

Disorder, and Bipolar Disorder. He testified that M.T.’s condition “is pretty 

serious right now. With his psychosis.” Id. at 12. He indicated that he 

believed the medications he prescribed will be a substantial benefit in treating 

M.T.’s mental illness, that the probable benefits from the proposed treatment 

with medication greatly outweigh the risk of harm and the personal concerns of 

the patient, that he did not believe that a less restrictive form of treatment 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-MH-569 | August 29, 2019 Page 6 of 13

would be effective, and that M.T. responds well when he takes the medication, 

is able to function better, does not have the voices or paranoia, and is at less risk 

of causing himself harm. 

[7] V.L. testified that he is M.T.’s older brother and, when asked why he felt the 

need for the application for emergency detention, replied “[b]ecause since he 

has not been taking any medication, when he drive, he drive very fast – number 

one. Number two, he – he said he was living in an apartment and – but – one 

time he left the door open and nobody was there in inside.” Id. at 15. He 

indicated that occurred on January 16, 2019. V.L. testified when questioned as 

follows: 

A. So me and my mom, we always go and check every day at 

his apartment to see if his car is parked in the parking lot. 

And the day the door was left open – it was since, you know, 

since the whole day. And then he was disappeared for like 

four or five days and by the time we know he was in . . . 

what do you call – Chicago. And I had my best friend in 

Chicago – he went to their church. He wanted to be member 

of their church. And then one day he was outside – I mean 

outside the church parking lot under extreme weather. And 

he was praying like half an hour at least.

[M.T.’s Counsel]: Objection. Hearsay. Move to strike the 

evidence.

Q. How did you come to learn about him being outside?

A. Because they took a picture and sent it to my phone. I have 

that evidence in my phone.

Q. You had seen a picture of him outside the church parking 

lot?
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-MH-569 | August 29, 2019 Page 7 of 13

A. Yes. Do you want to see that? I do have that.

Q. That is okay.

The Court: Overruled.

Q. Thank you. So could you describe what you saw in the 

picture?

A. He was sitting outside in the snow. He was sitting and he 

was doing like this.

Q. And when was that?

A. I think it is on January twenty-first. Yes, January twentyfirst of this year. 

Q. You mentioned he drives very fast. Could you describe your 

concern about that?

A. If he does not obey the traffic signs, if there is a speed limit 

thirty – he does not – he does not know how to obey so he 

just drive. 

Q. Have you been with him in the car?

A. No, my mom.

Id. at 16. When asked what happens when M.T. stops taking his medications, 

V.L. testified that his behavior changes, “he sometime kind of suicidal when he 

is off of medication,” and he is more aggressive, unrealistic, and cannot 

socialize very well. Id. at 17. When asked about he and his mother checking 

on M.T., V.L. replied “we just checked the parking lot to see if his car is 

parking or not,” “[s]o other day, his car was not parking there. The door was 

left,” and “[s]o every day – like every three or four hours we went and checked 

in front of his apartment just to see if his car is there.” Id. at 17-18. When 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-MH-569 | August 29, 2019 Page 8 of 13

asked what he observed personally that led him to believe M.T. was a danger to 

himself, V.L. testified “I would say the driving pattern . . . would be very 

dangerous to him and others too.” Id. at 18. He also testified: “If he is taking 

medication, he is a very, very good person. If he is not taking medication, he is 

totally different person. So I will say if he is taking medication, everything will 

be fine. But since his denial in taking medication by saying, ‘I have got

delivered from God.’ That is also kind of extreme religious belief too, which is

unrealistic. So if he is taking any medication or if he got injection in a form of 

any kind of medication, he will be fine.” Id. at 18-19. On cross-examination, 

when asked, “going to the car and to him speeding – have you ever been in the 

vehicle with him while he is doing that,” V.L. answered “[n]o,” and when 

asked “[a]nd just for purposes of the record, you were not in Chicago,” V.L. 

replied “I was not in Chicago.” Id. at 19. 

[8] M.T. testified: “I was healed and delivered (inaudible) from my health 

condition since near the end of last year - about four months. I have not had 

my meds since about October last year. It has been October, November, 

December, January, February – about five months that I have no longer needed 

meds after receiving healing and deliverance from the Lord, Jesus Christ. To 

God all the glory.” Id. at 20-21. He indicated he had a place to live and a 

vehicle, was filling out job applications, and going to job fairs. 

[9] The trial court issued an Order of Temporary Commitment dated February 7, 

2019, which found that M.T. is suffering from a psychiatric disorder which is a 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-MH-569 | August 29, 2019 Page 9 of 13

mental illness and is gravely disabled.1

 It found M.T. is need of custody, care, 

and treatment at Community Hospital North for a period not expected to 

exceed ninety days and ordered that, upon attaining outpatient status, M.T. was 

required to take all medications as prescribed, attend all clinic sessions as 

scheduled, and maintain a current address and phone number with the court 

and designated facility. 

Discussion

[10] In Indiana, an individual who is alleged to be mentally ill and either dangerous 

or gravely disabled may be committed to a facility for not more than ninety 

days under Ind. Code §§ 12-26-6.2

 The petitioner is required to prove by clear 

and convincing evidence that the individual is mentally ill and either dangerous 

or gravely disabled and detention or commitment of that individual is 

appropriate. Ind. Code § 12-26-2-5(e)3

; Civil Commitment of T.K. v. Dep’t of 

Veterans Affairs, 27 N.E.3d 271, 273 (Ind. 2015). The clear and convincing 

 

1 There is a checkmark in the field on the pre-printed form order to indicate that M.T. is gravely disabled and 

no checkmark in the fields indicating that he is dangerous to self or others. 

2 The Indiana Supreme Court has stated: 

In Indiana, an adult person may be civilly committed either voluntarily or involuntarily. 

Involuntary civil commitment may occur under four circumstances if certain statutorily 

regulated conditions are satisfied: (1) “Immediate Detention” by law enforcement for up 

to 24 hours, see Ind. Code § 12-26-4 et seq.; (2) “Emergency Detention” for up to 72 

hours, see Ind. Code § 12-26-5 et seq.; (3) “Temporary Commitment” for up to 90 days, 

see Ind. Code § 12-26-6 et seq.; and (4) “Regular Commitment” for an indefinite period of 

time that may exceed 90 days, see Ind. Code § 12-26-7 et seq.

Civil Commitment of T.K. v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 27 N.E.3d 271, 273 n.1 (Ind. 2015). 

3 Ind. Code § 12-26-2-5 provides that it applies under Ind. Code §§ 12-26-6. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-MH-569 | August 29, 2019 Page 10 of 13

evidence standard is an intermediate standard of proof greater than a 

preponderance of the evidence and less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. 

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

(Ind. Ct. App. 2015). In order to be clear and convincing, the existence of a fact 

must be highly probable. Id. In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence 

supporting a determination requiring clear and convincing evidence, we will 

consider only the evidence favorable to the judgment and all reasonable 

inferences drawn therefrom, and we will not reweigh the evidence or judge the 

credibility of witnesses. Id. 

[11] M.T. does not dispute the finding “that he suffered from a mental illness, 

Schizoaffective Disorder.” Appellant Brief at 13. Rather, he challenges the 

finding that he is gravely disabled. Ind. Code § 12-7-2-96 provides:

“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:

(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, reasoning, or behavior that 

results in the individual’s inability to function independently.

[12] M.T. argues that the evidence does not show that he was unable to provide for 

his own needs or function independently, that prior to his hospitalization he 

lived independently in an apartment and was looking for work, that his 

behavior did not rise beyond idiosyncratic behavior, and that an adult’s failure
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-MH-569 | August 29, 2019 Page 11 of 13

to communicate with his family for four or five days is not evidence that he is 

gravely disabled. He contends that denial of illness and refusal to medicate 

standing alone are insufficient to establish grave disability, he started eating 

again in the hospital, and there was no evidence he was malnourished. He 

argues that, while Dr. Sidhu testified that he had a history of suicidal thoughts 

and actions and at some unspecified point in the past he jumped off of a 

building and stated he wanted to slit his throat, he did not have any such active 

suicidal behaviors at the time of his hospitalization in January and February 

2019 and the court did not find that he was dangerous to himself. He also 

argues the court erred in admitting V.L.’s testimony regarding what his friend 

in Chicago told him. Community Health Network, Inc., maintains that it 

proved by clear and convincing evidence that M.T. is gravely disabled under 

Ind. Code § 12-7-2-96(1) and (2). It also argues that V.L.’s testimony regarding 

what he observed in a photograph of M.T. is not hearsay and that, even if it was 

hearsay, admission of the testimony was harmless. 

[13] The record reveals Dr. Sidhu’s testimony that M.T. presented with “euphoria, 

grandiosity, distractibility, poor sleep, [and] confusion,” had not eaten for three 

days, had “extreme paranoia,” was responding to internal stimuli or hearing 

voices, and reported that he had not taken his medications for over seven 

months. Transcript Volume II at 5. Dr. Sidhu testified regarding M.T.’s 

diagnoses, history, and symptoms. He testified that M.T. was “barely 

functioning.” Id. at 7. He testified that M.T. thinks that he can go without 

food for days at a time. He indicated that M.T. refused to take any 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-MH-569 | August 29, 2019 Page 12 of 13

medications. He indicated M.T.’s disorder affects his ability to maintain 

employment and a residence and function in society. He testified that M.T. 

was “not eating and feeding himself properly because of his delusions.” Id. at 

8. Dr. Sidhu also testified regarding M.T. presenting in the past with a 

collapsed lung and his reports of jumping from a building, wanting to cut his 

throat, and voices telling him to drink soap. He testified that M.T.’s condition 

“is pretty serious right now. With his psychosis.” Id. at 12. Further, V.L. 

testified regarding M.T.’s behavior and how, when he does not take his 

medication, he is more aggressive, more unrealistic, and cannot socialize well. 

The court also heard M.T.’s testimony indicating his belief that he did not need 

medication. It also heard Dr. Sidhu’s testimony regarding the anticipated

treatment and follow-up outpatient services. 

[14] Based upon the record, we conclude that clear and convincing evidence 

supports the trial court’s determination that M.T. was gravely disabled for 

purposes of his involuntary commitment. As to M.T.’s assertion the court erred 

in admitting certain hearsay testimony, we note that V.L. testified regarding a 

photograph of M.T. and what it depicted, specifically, that it showed M.T. 

“sitting outside in the snow . . . doing like this.” Transcript Volume II at 16. 

To the extent V.L.’s testimony included inadmissible hearsay, we will presume

the trial court did not consider the challenged statements. See Morfin v. Estate of 

Martinez, 831 N.E.2d 791, 800 n.5 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (noting that we presume 

that a trial court in a bench trial rendered its judgment solely on the basis of 

admissible evidence). Further, the other testimony elicited from Dr. Sidhu and 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-MH-569 | August 29, 2019 Page 13 of 13

V.L. as set forth above and in the record is sufficient to support the court’s 

determination that M.T. was gravely disabled. See Commitment of M.M. v. 

Clarian Health Partners, 826 N.E.2d 90, 96 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (finding the 

improper admission of certain statements was harmless as a doctor’s testimony 

regarding his personal observations of M.M. during her detention adequately 

supported the commitment order), trans. denied. 

[15] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s February 7, 2019 Order of 

Temporary Commitment of M.T. 

[16] Affirmed. 

Altice, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.