A.G., Appellant-Respondent, v. Community Fairbanks Behavioral Health, Appellee-Petitioner. (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] A.G. appeals her involuntary temporary commitment to Community Fairbanks Behavioral Health (Community) following a hearing in the Marion Superior Court. A.G. presents a single issue for our review, namely, whether Community presented sufficient evidence to establish that she is gravely disabled.¹ We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] A.G. is a forty-four-year-old woman diagnosed with “unspecified schizophrenia spectrum” also referred to as “psychosis unspecified.” Appellant's App. Vol. II, p. 14; Tr. Vol. 1, p. 7. On September 3, 2026, A.G. was admitted to Community after first visiting Community's emergency department. A.G. reported that law enforcement officers brought her to the hospital after she did not enter her daughter's house quickly enough. Community filed an Application for Emergency Detention on September 4, which was granted. Dr. Syed Hasan filed a Petition for Commitment Hearing and Physician's Statement attesting that in his professional opinion, A.G. was suffering from “unspecified schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorder,” was gravely disabled and was in need of care, custody, or treatment in an appropriate facility for a period of time not to exceed ninety days. Appellant's App. Vol. II, pp. 14-17.

[3] The trial court conducted a hearing on Community's Petition on September 18. Both A.G. and Dr. Hasan testified at the hearing. Dr. Hasan testified that he had examined A.G. multiple times beginning on September 14 and continuing through the morning of the hearing. In his opinion A.G. has “psychosis unspecified.” Tr. Vol. 1, p. 17. She also has a history of depression, including postpartum depression, anxiety, and psychosis.

[4] He further testified that A.G. exhibited paranoid and delusional thinking, particularly regarding Community and its staff. According to Dr. Hasan, A.G. had difficulty trusting hospital staff, expressed concerns about using products Community provided for her use, and stated that she did not want to remain hospitalized. He observed A.G. wandering around the unit carrying her belongings in a “hypervigilant” manner. Id. at 15. He added that A.G. was guarded and vague when answering questions, provided limited information regarding her psychiatric symptoms and history, and was reluctant to interact with staff or participate in group activities. When asked whether she was experiencing hallucinations, A.G. responded, ‘[i]f I give you the answer yes, what's the outcome?” Id. at 15. A.G. also reported experiencing depression and being treated for psychosis in the past but was unwilling to elaborate.

[5] Additionally, Dr. Hasan testified that A.G. reported feeling exhausted, overwhelmed, anxious, and withdrawn. He noted that she exhibited confusion, disorganization, delayed responses, and signs of possible catatonia, which raised concerns that her condition was deteriorating. He also testified that A.G. has no insight into her mental illness and did not believe she needed psychiatric treatment. He thought this affected her willingness to seek care and take prescribed medication. A.G. had been hospitalized for around fourteen days by the time of the hearing, continued to refuse to take her medication, and had shown little improvement. He believed that she would not consistently take medication on her own, and he was concerned that her condition would deteriorate without treatment.

[6] Dr. Hasan also testified about how A.G.’s mental illness prevented her from meeting her basic needs and caring for herself. He stated that A.G. was overwhelmed, exhausted, suffered from disrupted sleep, and spent much of her time lying in bed. He also had concerns about her personal hygiene. He said she was malodorous, had refused to shower, and had not brushed her teeth since she was admitted to Community on September 2. Dr. Hasan explained that poor oral hygiene could lead to infections that could spread to the brain and result in death. He observed trash accumulating beside her bed and noted that she had eaten little during her hospitalization. According to Dr. Hasan, A.G. had not demonstrated an ability to care for herself while in the hospital, therefore, he did not believe she could meet her basic needs or manage complex tasks, such as handling finances, preparing meals, or making medical decisions, without a temporary commitment.

[7] Dr. Hasan also offered his opinion that A.G.’s mental illness substantially impaired her judgment, reasoning, and behavior. He testified that A.G. exhibited confused and disorganized thinking and had difficulty providing logical answers to questions, particularly those involving her housing situation. When asked where she would live after her discharge, A.G. made statements about finding somewhere to get something to drink but could not explain where she intended to go or how she would get there. She reported to him that she did not have a home and could not provide clear answers or a realistic plan for obtaining housing after her discharge.

[8] Based on his interactions with A.G., Dr. Hasan believed that she was gravely disabled as a result of her mental illness. He testified that Community's proposed treatment plan was to restart A.G. on Invega Sustenna injections while continuing to encourage her to participate in group activities, improve her hygiene and self-care, and engage in outpatient treatment. He said that it would take ten days for the medication to reach a therapeutic level and anticipated that A.G. would remain hospitalized for another seven to ten days before transitioning to outpatient care. He described A.G.’s prognosis with treatment as guarded and believed, without treatment, her condition would continue to deteriorate.

[9] A.G. testified that law enforcement officers brought her to the hospital because she had not entered her daughter's home quickly enough. She acknowledged that she had previously been hospitalized for mental health treatment in Hendricks County. However, she disagreed with Dr. Hasan's characterization of her responses to his questions and did not believe that she needed to be committed. In response to questions about her medication and mental health, A.G. gave responses that were, at times, difficult to follow, and she frequently touched her face making it difficult to understand her. She admitted that she had not taken any medication during her hospitalization. However, she said she did so out of concern for possible side effects or allergic reactions. And she stated that it had been some time since she last took medication.

[10] As for her personal hygiene, A.G. agreed that she had showered only once during her hospitalization and that she had not brushed her teeth at all. She explained that her face had become dry and she was concerned about using products provided by Community, including whether they were Johnson & Johnson products.

[11] A.G. was uncertain about her living arrangements and finances. She testified that she had been living with her daughter's father and had stayed at other locations. However, she could not identify where she would live upon discharge. She also acknowledged that she was unemployed, but claimed she supported herself with social security benefits.

[12] The trial court granted Community's request for a temporary commitment, finding Community had proven by clear and convincing evidence that A.G. was suffering from psychosis unspecified, which was a mental illness; was gravely disabled, and was in need of custody, care, and treatment at Community Fairbanks Behavioral Health for a period of time not expected to exceed ninety days.

Discussion and Decision

[13] A.G. contends that Community did not present sufficient evidence to show that she was gravely disabled to justify her temporary commitment. Our Supreme Court has confirmed our standard of review in these cases as follows:

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. Probative evidence is that which tends to prove or disprove a point in issue. And [i]n order to be clear and convincing, the existence of a fact must be highly probable.

A.D. v. Cmty Fairbanks Behav. Health, 274 N.E.3d 463, 464 (Ind. 2026) (quoting J.W. v. Cmty Fairbanks Behav. Health, 260 N.E.3d 946, 951 (Ind. 2025)) (internal quotations and citations omitted).

[14] The trial court found that A.G. suffers from unspecified psychosis and is gravely disabled. The court's order included the following explanation:

The court considers the evidence collectively when making a determination of grave disability, including but not limited to, paranoid and guarded about products in the hospital, withdrawn, not eating the last two days, not brushing teeth or showering, denial of illness, refusal to medicate, disorganized thoughts, issues with sleeping, lack of insight into her mental condition, and patient does not have housing.

Appellant's App. Vol. II, p. 7.

[15] A.G. does not challenge the finding of mental illness. Instead, A.G. challenges the sufficiency of the evidence that she is gravely disabled, alleging that Community did not establish that she “is in danger of suffering harm.” Appellant's Br. p. 2. Therefore, we turn to the statutory requirements for a finding that a person is gravely disabled.

[16] The former statute, Indiana Code section 12-7-2-96, defining what it means to be “gravely disabled” was repealed on July 1, 2026. According to Indiana Code section 12-7-2.1-170 (2026), which is applicable to this case, “gravely disabled,” as it is now recodified and defined,

means a condition in which an individual as a result of mental illness, is in danger of coming to harm because the individual:

(1) is unable to provide for that individual's food, clothing, shelter, or other essential human needs;

(2) has a substantial impairment or an obvious deterioration of that individual's judgment, reasoning, or behavior that results in the individual's inability to function independently; or

(3) lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate shelter, resulting in the individual remaining outdoors in places not designed for or ordinarily used for sleeping during weather conditions that are likely to result in death or serious physical injury, if:

(A) the individual has refused transportation to a shelter or mental health service provider; and

(B) a shelter or mental health service provider was reasonably offered and available.

The new statutory definition retains its disjunctive nature. That is, “the evidence needs to support only one of those [ ] prongs for a person to be found gravely disabled.” A.S. v. Ind. Univ. Health Bloomington Hosp., 148 N.E.3d 1135, 1140 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020).

[17] The trial court reached its decision by considering many factors collectively. While A.G. urges us to break down the separate components when examining the sufficiency of the evidence, we do not do so. See Appellant's Br. pp. 7-10. This approach asks us to reweigh the evidence, a task we will not undertake. A.D., 274 N.E.3d at 464.

[18] In K.K. v. Community Health Network, 215 N.E.3d 382, 386-87 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023), trans denied, the patient was experiencing cognitive decline, was not eating or maintaining her hygiene, refused medication, and lacked permanent housing. We considered all of those factors together when finding sufficient evidence that the patient was gravely disabled. Id. The facts of this case present similar collective concerns.

[19] Although A.G. offered explanations for her behavior while hospitalized, those explanations belie her paranoia and delusional thinking. She exhibited a distrust of Community's staff and of the provided hygiene products. The evidence established that she showered only once during her hospitalization and she refused to brush her teeth. Dr. Hasan testified that a failure to maintain oral hygiene could lead to infections that could spread to the brain and result in her death. He also testified that she had been suffering from disrupted sleep and spent much of her time lying in bed. Trash was accumulating near her bed. And A.G.’s condition was worsening. Dr. Hasan testified that he observed signs of catatonia. A.G. walked the halls hyper-vigilantly guarding her possessions. Additionally, A.G. refused to take her medications. These observations reflect A.G.’s inability to care for herself or take care of her basic needs where housing (hospitalization) was provided for her.

[20] The record further shows that A.G. was unable to provide for her own shelter. The testimony at the hearing established that she had hopes for housing at different places after her discharge from treatment. However, she did not testify about any concrete plans in place for her housing. And to the extent A.G. argues that Dr. Hasan's testimony was “muddled,” she also acknowledges that his testimony was based on conversations he had with her. Appellant's Br. p. 8. There is sufficient evidence in the record to support the conclusion that A.G. had no housing, and thus, A.G. is unable to provide for shelter.

[21] Furthermore, her testimony demonstrated uncertainty concerning her finances. She was unemployed and had no housing, but she stated that she believed she had a bank card that was funded through social security. Her testimony supported Dr. Hasan's testimony that she suffered from disorganized thinking and was overwhelmed even while in Community's care.

[22] All of this evidence when considered collectively supports the trial court's finding that A.G. is gravely disabled. We conclude that the evidence is sufficient to support the trial court's order for A.G.’s involuntary temporary commitment to Community.

Conclusion

[23] Based on the record before us, we conclude that the trial court's order for A.G.’s involuntary temporary commitment to Community is supported by sufficient evidence that A.G. is gravely disabled. Therefore, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

[24] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   On July 16, 2024, our Supreme Court issued an order establishing the Marion County Expedited Mental Health Appeals Pilot Project, whereby the briefing schedule for these time-sensitive appeals has been altered to allow this Court to review temporary commitments when we can still provide meaningful relief to appellants. On August 24, 2026, our Supreme Court extended the term of the Marion County Expedited Mental Health Appeals Pilot Project until February 28, 2027.

Robb, Senior Judge.

Tavitas, C.J., and Foley, J., concur.