IN RE: the Civil Commitment of: C.H. (2018)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[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. 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.

Vaidik, Chief Judge.

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