Baker, J.
The Veterans Affairs (VA) Hospital filed a petition to involuntarily commit M.E. by way of forcible medication after M.E. was brought there by local police. The trial court issued an Order of Regular Commitment, committing M.E. to the hospital until discharged, and granted an order to medicate M.E. unless he did not substantially benefit from the medications. M.E. now appeals his involuntary commitment. Finding that M.E. did not receive appropriate notice, that his waiver was invalid, and that the VA did not carry its burden of proof with respect to the elements of dangerousness and grave disability, we reverse and remand with instructions to vacate the order of involuntary commitment.
….
M.E. argues that he was not served with any of these documents, evidenced by the fact that none contained a certificate of service, and he testified at the commitment hearing that he first learned of the allegations supporting his emergency detention and the sought-after commitment from his counsel, despite the fact that M.E. was represented by counsel beginning in 2015 and was represented by counsel when he was involuntarily committed on March 31, 2016.
The VA relies on Cheek v. State, in which this Court found that where “an individual appears with counsel, it is apparent that the notice was actually received despite the fact that a sheriff’s return is not included in the trial record.” 567 N.E.2d 1192, 1195-96 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991) (emphasis original).
We find that M.E. was never served with the pleadings related to the commitment petition. We decline to follow Cheek and find instead that service and proof of service is required for all civil commitment cases. The mere fact that an individual appeared at a hearing with counsel is insufficient to prove service—indeed, the individual and his counsel may have learned of the hearing through purely serendipitous circumstances, which is precisely what occurred in the present case.
….
Fair notice requires that individuals who may be civilly committed and their counsel receive the petitions and documents supporting the requests for civil commitment. We find, therefore, that the VA’s failure to serve these documents on M.E. and his counsel violated Trial Rule 5’s requirement that each party must be served with every pleading, including and subsequent to the original complaint, and that service must be made upon an attorney of a represented party.
….
The judgment of the trial court is reversed and remanded with instructions to vacate the order of involuntary commitment.
Riley, J., and Robb, J., concur.