On Point blog, page 1 of 60
Defense Win! COA reverses protective placement order on sufficiency and hearsay challenges
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.
COA holds that stipulation forecloses challenge to lack of expert testimony at protective placement hearing; evidence otherwise sufficient
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.
COA affirms order denying child’s request for change of placement in CHIPS case
Sheboygan County DH & HS v. N.H. & E.H., 2025AP903-FT, 9/10/25, District 2 (one-judge decison; ineligible for publication); case activity
“Luke” appeals from an order denying his request to change his placement back to his father’s home in a CHIPS case. COA affirms.
COA rejects hearsay and D.J.W. challenges to ch. 51 commitment
Grant County v. T.L.M., 2025AP500, 8/28/25, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity
T.L.M. challenges her recommitment, arguing that the circuit court erroneously admitted hearsay evidence over her objection, and that the court failed to make the required factual findings to support the commitment. COA concludes that although the circuit court erroneously admitted some hearsay, the error was harmless, and that the circuit court satisfied the demands of Langlade County v. D.J.W., 2020 WI 41, 391 Wis. 2d 231, 942 N.W.2d 277.
COA rejects challenges to involuntary commitment and medication orders
Brown County v. M.J., 2025AP116, 8/26/25, District III (ineligible for publication); case activity
In a Chapter 51 appeal presenting familiar legal challenges, COA avoids some of the stickier legal issues on a path toward affirmance.
COA rejects challenge to protective order in TPR under forfeiture doctrine
State of Wisconsin v. S.L.L., 2024AP551, 8/26/25, District I (ineligible for publication); case activity
S.L.L. failed to preserve an objection to a protective order as to the identity of the proposed adoptive resource, leading to a quick affirmance from COA.
Defense wins: COA reverses protective placement due to insufficiency of the evidence
Wood County v. J.A.B., 2025AP220, 8/21/25, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity
The COA reversed the circuit court’s order for protective placement because the County did not establish that J.A.B. was so totally incapable of providing for her own care as to create a substantial risk of serious harm to herself or others.
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.