COA affirms commitment order under third standard and finds Ch. 55 exception does not apply
Washington County v. J.E.C., 2025AP2798, 4/29/26, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
COA relies on the respondent’s frequent absconding from her group home to find dangerousness and also holds that the existing Ch. 55 order is insufficient to meet J.E.C.’s needs.
J.E.C. presents two issues on appeal. First, she argues the evidence was insufficient to find her dangerousness under the third standard. (¶14). Here, the examiner testified that “Jennifer” has impaired judgment and does not take her medications. (Id.). The record also shows that Jennifer engaged in a pattern of acts “in which she left her group home, was unwilling to return on her own, and required law enforcement intervention for her safety.” (Id.). This included an incident where Jennifer left the group home and entered a stranger’s residence without permission. (¶15). “The evidence shows that Jennifer exhibited a pattern of wandering away from her group home, refusing to take her medication, and refusing to return to her group home, which renders it more likely than not that she will injure herself, if not others.” (¶16).
Jennifer also argues “that the County cannot prove dangerousness under WIS. STAT. § 51.20(1)(a)2.c. because it did not show that the WIS. STAT. ch. 55 exclusion did not apply.” (¶17). Even though Jennifer was under a Chapter 55 order, the examiner’s testimony establishes that “Jennifer required care in a locked inpatient unit because her treatment needs could not be met through ch. 55 services.” (Id.). COA rejects her argument that the existence of the Chapter 55 order categorically exempts her from being committed under Chapter 51 and finds that commitment under this statutory scheme “is clearly available for persons subject to an order for protective placement or services.”