COA finds evidence sufficient for Chapter 55 medication order
Winnebago County v. L.J.F.G., 2025AP2645-FT, 4/8/26, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
In a rare appeal from an involuntary medication order related to a protective placement order, COA affirms despite some of the County’s missteps.
The circuit court can order involuntary medication in connection with a protective placement order if the County satisfies the requirements of § 55.14. Relevant to this appeal, the County needs to prove “the individual will incur a substantial probability of physical harm, impairment, injury, or debilitation or will present a substantial probability of physical harm to others.”
The statute provides two evidentiary pathways for satisfying that standard.
First, the County can rely on a “history of at least 2 episodes, one of which has occurred within the previous 24 months, that indicate a pattern of overt activity, attempts, threats to act, or omissions that resulted from the individual’s failure to participate in treatment, including psychotropic medication, and that resulted in a finding of probable cause for commitment under s. 51.20 (7), a settlement agreement approved by a court under s. 51.20 (8) (bg), or commitment ordered under s. 51.20 (13).”
Second, the County can prove that the person meets the dangerous criteria under 51.20(1)(a)2.a. to e.
The County does not respond to “Emily’s” argument as to a pattern of acts, thereby conceding that issue in her favor. (¶22). It focuses, instead, as to whether Emily was proven dangerous under the Chapter 51 standards. (¶23). Even though the circuit court failed to specifically cite the applicable statute in its oral ruling or in the written order, COA is satisfied that the record as a whole establishes Emily’s dangerousness under the second standard, requiring proof of “a substantial probability of physical harm to other individuals as manifested by evidence of recent homicidal or other violent behavior, or by evidence that others are placed in reasonable fear of violent behavior and serious physical harm to them, as evidenced by a recent overt act, attempt or threat to do serious physical harm.” (Id.). Here, the appointed examiner testified that Emily has made threats to others, including statements about “killing other people.” (Id.). Emily identified specific people she desired to kill, including her husband and her psychiatrist. (¶25). These statements qualify as evidence of dangerousness even if the targets never learned of Emily’s threatening comments, which she voiced during the evaluation in this case. (Id.)