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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  2. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  3. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  4. Different rules for different folks....

  5. I would strongly suggest anyone seeking mediation check the experience of the mediator. There are retired judges who decide to become mediators. Their training and experience is in making rulings which is not the point of mediation.

ADVERTISEMENT