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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I'm not sure what's more depressing: the fact that people would pay $35,000 per year to attend an unaccredited law school, or the fact that the same people "are hanging in there and willing to follow the dean’s lead in going forward" after the same school fails to gain accreditation, rendering their $70,000 and counting education worthless. Maybe it's a good thing these people can't sit for the bar.

  2. Such is not uncommon on law school startups. Students and faculty should tap Bruce Green, city attorney of Lufkin, Texas. He led a group of studnets and faculty and sued the ABA as a law student. He knows the ropes, has advised other law school startups. Very astute and principled attorney of unpopular clients, at least in his past, before Lufkin tapped him to run their show.

  3. Not that having the appellate records on Odyssey won't be welcome or useful, but I would rather they first bring in the stray counties that aren't yet connected on the trial court level.

  4. Aristotle said 350 bc: "The most hated sort, and with the greatest reason, is usury, which makes a gain out of money itself, and not from the natural object of it. For money was intended to be used in exchange, but not to increase at interest. And this term interest, which means the birth of money from money, is applied to the breeding of money because the offspring resembles the parent. Wherefore of an modes of getting wealth this is the most unnatural.

  5. Oh yes, lifetime tenure. The Founders gave that to the federal judges .... at that time no federal district courts existed .... so we are talking the Supreme Court justices only in context ....so that they could rule against traditional marriage and for the other pet projects of the sixties generation. Right. Hmmmm, but I must admit, there is something from that time frame that seems to recommend itself in this context ..... on yes, from a document the Founders penned in 1776: " He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good."

ADVERTISEMENT