In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: C.H. v. Options Behavioral Health System In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: L.C. v. Community Health Network (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Nov 14 2018, 6:13 am

regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK
court except for the purpose of establishing Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES
Deborah Markisohn Jenny R. Buchheit
Victoria L. Bailey Stephen E. Reynolds
Marion County Public Defender Agency Gregory W. Pottorff
Indianapolis, Indiana Ice Miller LLP
Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

In the Matter of the Civil November 14, 2018
Commitment of: Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-MH-638
C.H.,
Appeal from the Marion Superior
Appellant-Respondent, Court
v. The Honorable Steven Eichholtz,
Judge
Options Behavioral Health The Honorable Kelly M. Scanlan,
System, Master Commissioner

Appellee-Petitioner Trial Court Cause No.
49D08-1802-MH-7269

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-MH-638 | November 14, 2018 Page 1 of 3
 In the Matter of the Civil Court of Appeals Case No.
Commitment of: 18A-MH-638
Appeal from the Marion Superior
L.C.,
Court
Appellant-Respondent, The Honorable Steven Eichholtz,
Judge
v.
The Honorable Kelly M. Scanlan,
Master Commissioner
Community Health Network,
Inc., Trial Court Cause No.
49D08-1802-MH-6672
Appellee-Petitioner

In the Matter of the Civil Court of Appeals Case No.
Commitment of: 18A-MH-638
Appeal from the Marion Superior
D.P.,
Court
Appellant-Respondent, The Honorable Steven Eichholtz,
Judge
v.
The Honorable Kelly M. Scanlan,
Master Commissioner
Community Health Network,
Inc., Trial Court Cause No.
49D08-1803-MH-11837
Appellee-Petitioner

Vaidik, Chief Judge.

[1] In these consolidated appeals, C.H., L.C., and D.P. challenge orders

temporarily committing them (i.e., for up to ninety days) to mental-health

facilities. They argue that the orders are invalid because they were signed only

by the commissioner who presided over the commitment hearings and not by

the probate judge. They are right, as we recently held in another case involving

the same commissioner and judge. See In re Civil Commitment of L.J., Case No.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-MH-638 | November 14, 2018 Page 2 of 3
 18A-MH-152, slip op. at 4-6 (Ind. Ct. App. Oct. 18, 2018). But we will not

disturb the orders (all of which expired several months ago). None of the

appellants raised this issue in the trial court, which would have given that court

an opportunity to address the error. Therefore, the appellants waived this issue

for purposes of appeal. See City of Indianapolis v. Hicks, 932 N.E.2d 227, 231

(Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (“[D]efects in the authority of a court officer, as opposed

to the jurisdiction of the trial court itself, to enter a final order will be waived if

not raised through a timely objection.”). Given this waiver, we affirm the now-

expired orders of temporary commitment.

[2] Affirmed.

Riley, J., and Kirsch, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-MH-638 | November 14, 2018 Page 3 of 3