IN RE: the COMMITMENT OF: N.D. (2018)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[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.

Kirsch, Judge.

Vaidik, C.J., and Riley, J., concur.