BAILEY, J.
The Indiana Family and Social Services Administration (“State”) challenges a single sentence of the trial court’s order for the continued civil commitment of J.W.B. [stating that J.W.B. is not to be transferred or released “without ten (10) days written notice to the court.”] The State argues that it, rather than the trial court, has authority to control whether a civilly committed person is transferred within a facility. Concluding that the General Assembly has placed this authority with the Executive Branch, rather than the Judicial Branch, we reverse and remand.
. . . .
It is clear from the plain language of [Ind. Code chs. 12-26-11, -12, and -15] that the superintendent of a facility controls whether to transfer an individual, where to transfer the individual, and whether to discharge an individual. The trial court can require the superintendent to provide certain notices, consider disputes regarding the superintendent’s decision, and, upon submission of a superintendent’s review, decide whether to continue or terminate the commitment. Thus, the authority to decide where an individual should receive treatment and the responsibility for that decision rest with the superintendent of the facility. The trial court therefore exceeded its statutory authority in issuing the appealed order.
Reversed and remanded.
BAKER, C.J., and ROBB, J., concur.