Opinion
Court of Appeals Case No. 18A-MH-1328
10-24-2018
In the Matter of the Commitment of: N.D. N.D., Appellant-Respondent, v. Indiana University Health Bloomington Hospital, Appellee-Petitioner.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Amy P. Payne Monroe County Public Defender's Office Bloomington, Indiana
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
Amy P. Payne
Monroe County Public Defender's
Office
Bloomington, Indiana
Appeal from the Monroe Circuit Court
The Honorable Mary Ellen Diekhoff
Trial Court Cause No. 53C07-1805-MH-168
Kirsch, Judge.
[1] In In re: Commitment of J.M., 62 N.E.3d 1208, (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), we noted that the question of how persons subject to involuntary commitment are treated by our trial courts is a matter of great importance to both society and to the person who has been committed. Accordingly, our statutory and case law affirm that the value and dignity of the individual facing commitment or treatment is a matter of great societal concern. See Ind. Code 12-26-5-1 (establishing procedures for seventy-two-hour commitment); Ind. Code 12-26-6-2 (establishing procedures for ninety-day commitment); In re: Mental Health Commitment of M.P., 510 N.E.2d 645, 646 (Ind. 1987) (noting that the statute granting a patient the right to refuse treatment "profoundly affirms the value and dignity of the individual and the commitment of this society to insuring humane treatment of those we confine")
[2] Here, N.D. appeals the trial court order of her involuntary mental health commitment and forced medication contending that it was not supported by clear and convincing evidence. "When a court is unable to render effective relief to a party, the case is deemed moot and usually dismissed." In re: J.B., 766 N.E.2d 798 (Ind.Ct.App.2002) (citing In re Lawrance, 579 N.E.2d 3(Ind. 1991)). We have previously considered, discussed, and resolved the issues that N.D. raises here, and they are moot. See In re: Commitment of J.R., 766 N.E.2d 795, 798 (Ind. Ct. App., 2002) and In re Commitment of J.M., 62 N.E.3d 1208 (2016).
[3] Dismissed.
Vaidik, C.J., and Riley, J., concur.