Jump To

Top Caption Disposition Combined Opinion The text of this document was obtained by analyzing a scanned document and may have typos.

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

Feb. 27, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Commitment of A D

Indiana Supreme Court

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 26S-MH-00065
• Panel: Mark S. Massa, Loretta H. Rush
• Judges: Rush, Massa, Slaughter, Goff, Molter

• Disposition: Affirmed in Part, Vacated in Part

• Opinion

• Authorities (5)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Disposition

Affirmed in Part, Vacated in Part

Combined Opinion

IN THE

Indiana Supreme Court
FILED
Supreme Court Case No. 26S-MH-65 Feb 27 2026, 1:37 pm

CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court

In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of A.D., Court of Appeals
and Tax Court

Appellant-Respondent,

–v–

Community Fairbanks Behavioral Health,
Appellee-Petitioner.

Decided: February 27, 2026

Appeal from the Marion Superior Court
No. 49D08-2512-MH-58042
The Honorable David J. Certo, Judge

On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals
No. 25A-MH-3292

Per Curiam Opinion
Chief Justice Rush and Justices Massa, Slaughter, Goff, and Molter concur.
Per curiam.

This matter is before the Indiana Supreme Court on A.D.’s expedited
transfer petition. See Appellate Rule 57; In re Marion Cnty. Expedited Mental
Health Appeals Pilot Project, No. 24S-MS-190 (Ind. July 16, 2024). Following
an evidentiary hearing, the Marion County Probate Court entered an
order on December 22, 2025, finding A.D. has a mental illness—namely,
schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type—and is gravely disabled. The court
committed A.D. to Community Fairbanks Behavioral Health
(“Community”) for no more than 90 days of treatment.

A.D. appealed her involuntary commitment, and the Court of Appeals
affirmed in a published opinion. See A.D. v. Cmty. Fairbanks Behav. Health, -
-- N.E.3d ---- (Ind. Ct. App. Feb. 3, 2026). On transfer, A.D. argues that (1)
the Court of Appeals misstated the standard of review for involuntary
commitments; and (2) Community failed to prove by clear and convincing
evidence that she has a mental illness, as I.C. § 12-26-2-5(e) requires. While
we agree with A.D. on her first assertion, we find sufficient evidence to
support her temporary commitment.

We reiterated the standard of review in these cases as recently as last
year in J.W. v. Comty. Fairbanks Behav. Health:

Appellate courts will affirm a civil commitment “if, ‘considering
only the probative evidence and the reasonable inferences
supporting it, without weighing evidence or assessing witness
credibility, a reasonable trier of fact could find [the necessary
elements] proven by clear and convincing evidence.’”
Commitment of T.K., 27 N.E.3d [271,] 273 (Ind. 2015).
Probative evidence is that which “tends to prove or disprove a
point in issue.” Galloway v. State, 938 N.E.2d 699, 711 (Ind.
2010) (quoting Black's Law Dictionary 639 (9th ed. 2009)). And
“[i]n order to be clear and convincing, the existence of a fact must
be highly probable.” Commitment of B.J. v. Eskenazi Hosp./Midtown
CMHC, 67 N.E.3d 1034, 1038 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).

260 N.E.3d 946, 951 (Ind. 2025).

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 26S-MH-65 | February 27, 2026 Page 2 of 3
Yet, the Court of Appeals—in this case and in others1—has also stated,
“If the trial court's commitment order represents a conclusion that a
reasonable person could have drawn, the order must be affirmed, even if
other reasonable conclusions are possible.” Slip Op. at *3, ¶ 11 (citing
Commitment of Heald, 785 N.E.2d 605, 613 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003)). We
expressly disapproved of this language in Commitment of T.K., 27 N.E.3d at
274, as it dilutes the petitioner’s “clear-and-convincing” burden of proof in
the trial court. And we continue to disapprove of it here.

Accordingly, we grant transfer and summarily affirm the Court of
Appeals opinion per Appellate Rule 58(A)(2), with the exception of the
cited language from Heald in paragraph 11, which is hereby vacated.

Rush, C.J., and Massa, Slaughter, Goff, and Molter, JJ., concur.

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT
Talisha R. Griffin
Marion County Public Defender Agency, Appellate Division
Indianapolis, Indiana

Joel M. Schumm
Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Jenny R. Buchhheit
Abby V. DeMare
Rani B. Amani
Ice Miller, LLP
Indianapolis, Indiana

1See also Commitment of J.M., 62 N.E.3d 1208, 1211 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), trans. not sought; E.F. v.
St. Vincent Hosp. and Health Care Ctr., 194 N.E.3d 1130, 1135 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022), trans. not
sought; K.S. v. St. Vincent Hosp. and Health Care Ctr., No. 23A-MH-2712 at *4 (Ind. Ct. App. Apr.
24, 2024) (mem.), trans. not sought; N.H. v. Indiana University Health Methodist Hosp., No. 23A-
MH-2828 at *4 (Ind. Ct. App. May 16, 2024) (mem.), trans. not sought; K.C. v. St. Vincent Hosp.
and Health Care Ctr., No. 24A-MH-2336 at *3 (Ind. Ct. App. Oct. 24, 2024) (mem.), trans. not
sought.

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 26S-MH-65 | February 27, 2026 Page 3 of 3