On Point: 3. Civil Commitments

Portage County v. T.W.P., 2025AP1183, 11/26/25, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity

In a case involving a commitment order originating in “2008 or 2009,” COA finds that the County failed to prove that T.W.P. is currently dangerous and therefore reverses.

State v. B.M.T.,  2025AP1745-50, 11/21/25, District II (recommended for publication); case activity

In this appeal from an involuntary medication order, COA provides additional guidance as to how the “seriousness” of a crime is determined and rejects a challenge that the medication plan was insufficiently individualized.

Outagamie County v. R.M.R., 2025AP561, 11/18/25, District III (ineligible for publication); case activity

In a strong defense win, COA rejects the County’s arguments and holds that the evidence is insufficient to support this medication order as the County failed to name the particular medication it sought to involuntarily administer.

State v. Kyle A. Schaefer, 2023AP1747-CR, 11/18/25, District III (recommended for publication); case activity

Schaefer appeals from an order granting the Department of Health Services’ petition to revoke his conditional release under WIS. STAT. § 971.17(3)(e). When DHS originally detained Schaefer, it filed the required probable cause statement and petition to revoke his conditional release in the circuit court case but failed to timely submit the documents to “the regional office of the state public defender” within 72 hours as required by § 971.17(3)(e). After the circuit court dismissed the petition pursuant to State v. Olson, 2019 WI App 61, ¶2, 389 Wis. 2d 257, 936 N.W.2d 178, DHS refiled the same petition with a new date of detention. Schaefer’s conditional release was thereafter revoked on the second petition. COA affirms, holding that DHS may refile after a petition is dismissed for lack of compliance with § 971.17(3)(e).

Trempealeau County v. S.K., 2025AP645, 11/4/25, District III (ineligible for publication); case activity

The COA reversed the circuit court’s order to extend “Sharon’s” involuntary commitment.  Although the County presented evidence that Sharon would stop taking medication to treat her schizophrenia if she were not committed, the evidence to support her current dangerousness was conclusory.

La Crosse County and S.A.A. v. M.A., 2025AP269, 10/30/25, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity

In yet another protective placement win, COA agrees that the County’s evidence failed to satisfy the standards and reverses.

Outagamie County v. M.J.B., 2024AP250, petition for review of a published decision of the court of appeals, granted 10/6/25; case activity

SCOW granted Outagamie County’s petition for review to address whether an examiner’s report filed less than 48 hours in advance of the final hearing is inaccessible for purposes of Wis. Stat. § 51.20(10)(b), which provides that “[c]ounsel for the person to be committed shall have access to all psychiatric and other reports 48 hours in advance of the final hearing.” 

State v. Desmond J. Wilhite, 2024AP2177-CR, 9/25/25, District IV (recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

COA agrees with Wilhite that Wis. Stat. § 971.17(3)(e) is facially unconstitutional to the extent that it permits a circuit court to revoke an NGI acquittee’s conditional release and to commit the acquittee to institutional care based solely on the violation of a court-ordered condition or department rule without proof of current dangerousness. It also concludes that the unconstitutional provisions in § 971.17(3)(e) are severable, and leaves in place the remainder of the statute.

Brown County v. K.B., 2024AP1843, District III, 9/16/25 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

COA agrees with “Kathy” that the county failed to present sufficient evidence establishing that she is in continuing need of protective placement, and reverses the ch. 55 order.

V.K. v. D.J.F., 2024AP2028, 9/10/25, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity

COA ducks a recurrent issue as to whether expert testimony is required to prove the grounds for a protective placement and otherwise affirms the circuit court’s order granting this privately-filed petition for protective placement.