COA finds evidence sufficient, rejects DJW argument, and affirms 51 extension order
Winnebago County v. T.R.A., , 2025AP2428, 6/24/26, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
COA rejects T.R.A.’s reading of the statutory requirements, finds ample evidence of dangerousness, and affirms.
Dangerousness
“Taylor” has a lengthy mental health history and was most recently committed following his decompensation while in jail. (¶10). In this recommitment action, the court concluded that Taylor was dangerous under the fifth standard. (¶17). Taylor first argues that evidence regarding pre-commitment behavior was vague and insufficient to establish his dangerousness. (¶20). Although COA agrees that more detail could have been “helpful,” the minimal facts presented in this hearing (an incident where Taylor was tazed by police multiple times) supports “a reasonable inference that Taylor was engaging in some sort of threatening behavior . . . .” (Id.). Importantly, that pre-commitment behavior does not, as Taylor argues, “stand alone,” rather, the expert’s testimony and his report establishes that when Taylor is “not under treatment and medicated, Taylor decompensates, becomes delusional and out of touch with reality, and engages in aggressive behavior demonstrating a willingness to engage in physically damaging behavior and violence toward others.” (¶28). Relying on its previous decision in Winnebago County v. S.H., COA rejects an argument that the circuit court was required to precisely identify “how” a person will become dangerous; rather, the statute requires “an educated conclusion as to the likelihood of reoccurring dangerousness.” (¶29). The evidence here, given Taylor’s history, was sufficient for the court to link his past dangerousness with the risk of future dangerousness. (Id.).
DJW Violation
T.R.A. also claims the circuit court failed to specify the dangerousness standard at issue in this appeal. (¶30). The record, however, shows that the circuit court cited the applicable standard in its oral ruling and made adequate findings which relied on the expert’s testimony. (Id.).