ILNews

Court affirms woman is ‘gravely disabled’ requiring involuntary commitment

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals declined to reweigh the evidence used to find a woman needed to be involuntarily committed because she was gravely disabled after claiming she was bitten by poisonous spiders in her home for the fourth time.

C.P. went to the emergency room Aug. 18, 2013, saying she had been bitten by spiders at home and the “venom” left her feeling “heavily sedated or drugged.” Doctors could not find any spider bites and referred her to psychiatry for an evaluation. She was admitted on an emergency detention. Five days later, a psychiatrist recommended C.P. be committed for 90 days to stabilize her on anti-psychotic medication. He believed she could be released sooner and treated on an outpatient basis.

C.P. doesn’t believe she has delusions or a mental illness. She is unable to live at home because of her belief about the spiders and she lost her job. The psychiatrist testified her mental illness impairs her ability to function independently and ability to take medication. The psychiatrist believed C.P. was gravely disabled at the time, requiring the commitment.

C.P. on appeal in In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of C.P., C.P. v. Community Hospital North/Gallahue Mental Health, 49A02-1309-MH-770, challenges the finding that she is “gravely disabled” as defined in I.C. 12-7-2-96, arguing there are no underlying facts that show she cannot function independently. But the judges pointed to the psychiatrist’s testimony and refused to re-weigh the evidence.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT