ILNews

Threats of violence sufficient to order involuntary commitment

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Although an Indianapolis man never harmed another individual, his persistent threats of violence were sufficient to support his involuntary commitment to a mental health facility.

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court in In the Matter of the Commitment of T.K. v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 49A05-1303-MH-100. It concluded the evidence showed that without treatment, T.K. was a danger to others and upheld the order for regular commitment to ensure T.K. received the needed long-term treatment.

T.K. appealed the trial court’s order for involuntary commitment on the grounds the evidence was insufficient. He conceded he had made “colorful verbal threats” but there was no evidence that he “has ever followed through with any assaultive, violent or dangerous behavior.”

The Court of Appeals rejected his argument. It found his behavior - which included more than 25 threatening phone calls that T.K. made in one week to Adult and Child, Inc., and the agency staff’s consideration that he was hostile, actively psychotic and delusional – was sufficient for the trial court to find him dangerous.

Further, pointing to prior court decisions, the Court of Appeals stated Indiana precedent indicates that the trial court did not have to wait until T.K. acted upon his threats before finding him dangerous.

The Court of Appeals also upheld the finding that a “regular commitment” which is the most restrictive form of involuntary commitment, was warranted. In particular, it noted T.K.’s prior commitments and his need for inpatient treatment followed by outpatient assistance.  
 

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. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  2. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  3. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  4. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  5. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

ADVERTISEMENT