On Point blog, page 1 of 3
COA approves what appears to be the 20th extension of an involuntary mental commitment order despite doctor’s “concerns” about medication regimen
Racine County v. D.S. 2025AP758-FT, 8/6/25, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
COA rejects a battery of challenges to D.S.’s involuntary commitment and medication despite sharing some of the examining physician’s “concerns” about her situation.
COA affirms order continuing protective placement
Racine County v. R.P.L., 2025AP813-FT, 7/30/25, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
In an appeal from an annual protective placement review, R.P.L. escapes a finding of mootness but loses on the merits.
Defense win: Circuit court erred when it denied respondent’s request for fact witnesses to appear in person at ch. 51 trial
Washburn County v. L.R.Y., 2025AP272-FT, District 3, 7/22/25 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
“Lily” appeals an original commitment and involuntary med order, arguing that the circuit court violated her right to have the County’s fact witnesses testify in person. COA agrees that, under Wis. Stat. § 885.60(2)(d), the circuit court erred by failing to sustain Lily’s objection to the county’s fact witnesses appearing by video at the final hearing.
COA holds that protective placement may be continued based on evidence from previous hearings provided the evidence was “adjudicated.”
Pierce County v. P.C.A., 2024AP1367, 7/1/25, District III (ineligible for publication); case activity
While affirming the circuit court continuing a protective placement order under Chapter 55 after a due process hearing (known as a Watts hearing), the COA clarified that, following previous due process hearings, documentary evidence that was admitted, and testimony that was accepted by the circuit court and incorporated into its findings, may be considered at subsequent due process hearings.
COA holds that trial court did not err in finding that defendant could be restored to competency
State v. T.R.T., 2025AP387-CR, 6/19/25, District IV (not recommended for publication); case activity
Although it acknowledges uncertainty as to the appropriate standard of review, COA ultimately affirms the circuit court’s order under a clearly erroneous standard.
COA rejects sufficiency challenges in 51 appeal and affirms
Waukesha County v. J.A.K., 2024AP2535, 6/25/25, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
In yet another Chapter 51 appeal, COA rejects the usual arguments and affirms.
Defense Win! COA agrees that failure to timely provide examiner reports prior to initial commitment hearing deprives court of competency
Outagamie County v. M.J.B., 2024AP250, 5/20/25, District III (recommended for publication); case activity
In a case clarifying a legal question that has persisted for years in 51 litigation, COA holds that when the examiners do not satisfy the statutorily-imposed deadline for filing their reports in connection with a final hearing in an original commitment proceeding, the circuit court can lose competency.
COA affirms recommitment and involuntary medication orders over sufficiency and hearsay challenges in detailed discussion
Fond du Lac County v. D.P.E., 2025AP66-FT, 4/30/25, District II (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
COA affirms the circuit court’s orders recommitting D.P.E. (referred to as “Donald”) and authorizing the involuntarily administration of medication. Donald argued on appeal that the county did not present sufficient evidence to establish dangerousness and failed to meet its burden to prove he was not competent to refuse medication.
COA affirms third standard (2.c.) ch. 51 appeal due to abnormal neck movements and previous food restriction
Winnebago County v. J.D.M., 2024AP1601, 4/16/25, District II (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
COA affirms the circuit court’s orders recommitting J.D.M. (referred to as “Josh”) for twelve months and authorizing involuntarily administering medication. A jury found Josh mentally ill, a proper subject for treatment, and dangerous to himself or others. Josh argues on appeal that the county did not present sufficient evidence at trial to prove that he was dangerous under § 51.20(1)(a)2.c., d., or e, and the court made insufficient findings to enter the involuntary medication order.
Excessive water intake sufficient to find person “dangerous” under Chapter 51.
Winnebago County v. J.M., 2024AP1554, 4/2/25, District II (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
COA affirmed the circuit court’s order recommitting J.M. (referred to as “James Moore”) for twelve months and authorizing involuntarily administering medication. The Court found that Moore suffers from schizoaffective disorder, which caused him to drink an excessive amount of water to the point that he needed to be transported to the emergency room for low sodium levels in his body. The Court therefore found that Moore is a danger to himself, and that he is a proper subject for treatment because his condition is treatable with medication.