Riley, J.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant-Respondent, M.L., appeals the trial court’s grant of AppelleePetitioner’s, The Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion County d/b/a/ Eskenazi Health/Midtown Mental Health CMHC (Eskenazi), request for temporary commitment.
We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand with instructions.
ISSUES
M.L. raises one issue for our review, which we restate as: Whether Eskenazi presented sufficient evidence to support the special condition of commitment.
Eskenazi presents one issue, which we restate as: Whether Eskenazi is entitled to appellate attorney’s fees pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 66(E).
….
M.L. contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it included the special condition in its Order of Commitment and therefore, the condition should be stricken. Indiana Code section 12-26-14-3 permits a trial court to order special conditions when an individual is involuntarily committed to outpatient care… Such special conditions “must be reasonably designed to protect the individual as well as the general public.” Golub v. Giles, 814 N.E.2d 1034, 1041 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans. denied. There must be “sufficient evidence in the record for the trial court to conclude” that the special condition “bears a reasonable relationship” to the committed individual’s treatment and to the protection of others. Id. When we review a challenge to the sufficiency of this evidence, we look to the evidence most favorable to the trial court’s decision and draw all reasonable inferences from that decision. Id. at 1040. We may neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of the witnesses. Id.
The propriety of an appellate challenge to a special condition of commitment has been considered only twice previously: Golub v. Giles, 814 N.E.2d 1034 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans. denied, and M.M. v. Clarian Health Partners, 826 N.E.2d 90 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied. In both precedents, we struck the special condition.
….
Likewise here, the record is barren as to M.L.’s use of alcohol or drugs and there is no suggestion that the special condition bears any relationship to M.L.’s treatment or the protection of the public. During her testimony, Dr. Patel requested the trial court to prohibit M.L. to abuse alcohol or to use any drugs other than those prescribed by a certified medical doctor. When asked on direct examination, “[d]oes he use any substances; alcohol or drugs?” (Tr. p. 10). Dr. Patel responded, “No.” (Tr. p. 10). In a footnote, Eskenazi claims that “[i]t should be obvious that M.L.’s use of alcohol or drugs would have exacerbated his conditions of grave disability and dangerousness.” (Appellee’s Br. p. 14, fn. 2). But, as in Golub, Eskenazi did not present any evidence supporting this ‘obvious’ statement. Accordingly, as there is insufficient evidence to support the imposition of this special condition, we affirm the trial court’s order in part but reverse in part with instruction to strike the special condition prohibiting M.L. from consuming alcohol and drugs, not prescribed by a certified medical doctor, from the Order of Commitment.
….
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, we affirm the trial court’s order in part but reverse in part with instruction to strike the special condition prohibiting M.L. from consuming alcohol and drugs, not prescribed by a certified medical doctor, from the Order of Commitment. We deny Eskenazi’s request for appellate attorney’s fees pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 66(E).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.
Najam, J. concurs
Bradford, J. dissents with separate opinion.
Bradford, Judge, dissenting.
I respectfully disagree with the majority’s conclusion that M.L. adequately preserved his claim that Eskenazi presented insufficient evidence to support a special condition of his commitment, specifically, that he refrain from using alcohol or unauthorized drugs should he attain outpatient status. Consequently, I respectfully dissent.
… Because I would conclude that M.L. has waived any challenge he might have had to the imposition of the special condition, I would affirm the judgment of the trial court.