Indiana Code
Ind. Code § 12-26-2-5 (2026)
Representation by counsel; appointment; proof required by petitioner
✓ current as of May 2026
Sec. 5. (a) This section applies under the following statutes:
(1) IC 12-26-6.
(2) IC 12-26-7.
(3) IC 12-26-12.
(4) IC 12-26-15.
(b) A petitioner may be represented by counsel.
(c) The court may appoint counsel for a petitioner upon a showing of the petitioner's indigency and the court shall pay for such counsel if appointed.
(d) A petitioner, including a petitioner who is a health care provider under IC 16-18-2-295(b), in the petitioner's individual capacity or as a corporation is not required to be represented by counsel. If a petitioner who is a corporation elects not to be represented by counsel, the individual representing the corporation at the commitment hearing must present the court with written authorization from:
(1) an officer;
(2) a director;
(3) a principal; or
(4) a manager;
of the corporation that authorizes the individual to represent the interest of the corporation in the proceedings.
(e) The petitioner is required to prove by clear and convincing evidence that:
(1) the individual is mentally ill and either dangerous or gravely disabled; and
(2) detention or commitment of that individual is appropriate.
[Pre-1992 Revision Citation: 16-14-9.1-9(g).]
As added by P.L.2-1992, SEC.20. Amended by P.L.1-1993, SEC.152; P.L.2-1995, SEC.60; P.L.6-1995, SEC.21; P.L.256-1999, SEC.2; P.L.14-2000, SEC.33; P.L.1-2007, SEC.126.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 117
cases (28 in the last 5 years), 2000–2026 · leading case: In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of T.K. v. Dep't of Vets. Affairs, 27 N.E.3d 271 (Ind. 2015).
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of T.K. v. Dep't of Vets. Affairs, 27 N.E.3d 271 (Ind. 2015). “” Ind.Code § 12-26-2-5(e) -(2012). The trial court’s order of commitment declared that, by clear and convincing evidence, T.”
In the Matter of Commitment of Awd, 861 N.E.2d 1260 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). “1-10 [relevant portion now found at Ind.Code § 12-26-2-5(d)] does not require the petitioner to be represented by counsel at the commitment hearing.”
A.J. v. Logansport State Hosp., 956 N.E.2d 96 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). “" Ind.Code § 12-26-2-5. "Mental illness," for purposes of Indiana Code Article 12-26, means "a psychiatric disorder that: (A) substantially disturbs an individual's thinking, feeling, or behavior; and (B) impairs the individual's ability to function.”
In Re the Commitment of Golub v. Giles, 814 N.E.2d 1034 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). “" Ind.Code § 12-26-2-5(e). II. Golub's Claims A.”
In Re Commitment of Heald, 785 N.E.2d 605 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). “Ind.Code § 12-26-2-5(e) (2001). A regular commitment, as opposed to an emergency or temporary commitment, may be made where the individual is reasonably expected to require custody, care, or treatment in a facility for more than ninety days.”
In the Matter of the Commitment of J.M., J.M. v. Ne. Ctr., Inc., 62 N.E.3d 1208 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). “” Ind.Code § 12-26-2-5(e). Id. at 799. [7] J.”
J.S. v. Ctr. for Behavioral Health, 846 N.E.2d 1106 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). “" Ind.Code § 12-26-2-5(e). Here, the trial court found that: "No evidence, except for [J.”
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of B.J. v. Eskenazi Hosp./Midtown CMHC (mem. dec.), 67 N.E.3d 1034 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). “(quoting Ind.Code § 12-26-2-5(e)). In T.K, our supreme court recently criticized a line of cases in which this Court did not adequately apply the clear and convincing standard of review and instead affirmed civil commitment orders if such an order “ ‘represented] a conclusion…”
In the Matter of the Commitment of M.E. v. Dep't of Vets. Affairs, 64 N.E.3d 855 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). “[26] Indiana Code section 12-26-2-5(e) provides that the petitioner in a case involving the involuntary treatment of mentally ill individuals must prove by clear and convincing evidence that 1) the individual is mentally ill and either dangerous or gravely disabled; and 2)…”
In Re the Commitment of J.B., 766 N.E.2d 795 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). “" Ind.Code § 12-26-2-5(e). J.B. premises his argument on the following assertion: "There may be evidence of other places in the record of the events that led to these commitment proceedings, but that evidence was not incorporated into the petitioner's case in the final hearing.”
Commitment of M.M. v. Clarian Health Partners, 826 N.E.2d 90 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). “For the purpose of a temporary civil commitment, “mental illness” is defined as “a psychiatric disorder that: (A) substantially disturbs an individual’s thinking, feeling, or behavior; and (B) impairs the individual’s ability to function.”
A.A. v. Eskenazi Health/Midtown CMHC, 97 N.E.3d 606 (Ind. 2018). “First, at the outset of the hearing, the court determines whether the respondent's presence would be injurious to the respondent's mental health or well-being.”
Ind. Code § 12-26-2-5(d): 1 case
In the Matter of Commitment of Awd, 861 N.E.2d 1260 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). “1-10 [relevant portion now found at Ind.Code § 12-26-2-5(d)] does not require the petitioner to be represented by counsel at the commitment hearing.”
Ind. Code § 12-26-2-5(e): 58 cases
In Re the Commitment of Golub v. Giles, 814 N.E.2d 1034 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). “" Ind.Code § 12-26-2-5(e). II. Golub's Claims A.”
In Re Commitment of Heald, 785 N.E.2d 605 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). “Ind.Code § 12-26-2-5(e) (2001). A regular commitment, as opposed to an emergency or temporary commitment, may be made where the individual is reasonably expected to require custody, care, or treatment in a facility for more than ninety days.”
In the Matter of Commitment of Awd, 861 N.E.2d 1260 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). “1-10 [relevant portion now found at Ind.Code § 12-26-2-5(d)] does not require the petitioner to be represented by counsel at the commitment hearing.”
J.S. v. Ctr. for Behavioral Health, 846 N.E.2d 1106 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). “" Ind.Code § 12-26-2-5(e). Here, the trial court found that: "No evidence, except for [J.”
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of B.J. v. Eskenazi Hosp./Midtown CMHC (mem. dec.), 67 N.E.3d 1034 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). “(quoting Ind.Code § 12-26-2-5(e)). In T.K, our supreme court recently criticized a line of cases in which this Court did not adequately apply the clear and convincing standard of review and instead affirmed civil commitment orders if such an order “ ‘represented] a conclusion…”
Ind. Code § 12-26-2-5(e)(1): 7 cases
In the Matter of the Commitment of J.M., J.M. v. Ne. Ctr., Inc., 62 N.E.3d 1208 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). “” Ind.Code § 12-26-2-5(e). Id. at 799. [7] J.”
In the Matter of the Commitment of K.K., K.K. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), No. 19A-MH-953 (Ind. Ct. App. Jan. 15, 2020).
Commitment of S C, No. 22A-MH-03071 (Ind. Ct. App. Aug. 8, 2023).
In the Matter of the Involuntary Commitment of G.M. v. Columbus Reg'l Hosp. Mental Health Facility & Dr. Michael Stark, No. 03A01-1312-MH-533 (Ind. Ct. App. Aug. 25, 2014).
In Re The Civil Commitment of: J.B. v. Cmty. North Hosp. Gallahue Mental Health, No. 49A04-1202-MH-85 (Ind. Ct. App. Sept. 21, 2012).
Ind. Code § 12-26-2-5(e)(1)(2): 2 cases
In Re Commitment of GM, 743 N.E.2d 1148 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001).
G.M. v. State, 743 N.E.2d 1148 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001).
Ind. Code § 12-26-2-5(e)(2): 4 cases
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of B.N. B.N. v. Cmty. Health Network, Inc., No. 19A-MH-1037 (Ind. Ct. App. Dec. 20, 2019).
Commitment of F L, No. 24A-MH-02216 (Ind. Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2024).
Commitment of J W, No. 25S-MH-00153 (Ind. June 24, 2025).
In the Matter of the Involuntary Commitment of G.M. v. Columbus Reg'l Hosp. Mental Health Facility & Dr. Michael Stark, No. 03A01-1312-MH-533 (Ind. Ct. App. Aug. 25, 2014).
Ind. Code § 12-26-2-5(e)(l): 3 cases
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of T.K. v. Dep't of Vets. Affairs, 27 N.E.3d 271 (Ind. 2015). “” Ind.Code § 12-26-2-5(e) -(2012). The trial court’s order of commitment declared that, by clear and convincing evidence, T.”
In Re the Involuntary Commitment of A.M., 959 N.E.2d 832 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).
In the Matter of the Commitment of J.M., J.M. v. Ne. Ctr., Inc., 62 N.E.3d 1208 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). “” Ind.Code § 12-26-2-5(e). Id. at 799. [7] J.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.