On Point: 3. Civil Commitments

Waukesha County v. R.D.T., 2026 WI 24, 6/30/26, affirming an unpublished decision of the court of appeals; case activity

SCOW refuses an invitation to retreat from previous decisions making it difficult for a Chapter 51 appeal to be moot but ultimately holds that R.D.T. is not entitled to relief as a result of the allegedly improper admission of hearsay evidence.

Outagamie County v. M.J.B., 2026 WI 23, 6/26/26, reversing a published decision of the court of appeals; case activity

In a unanimous decision, SCOW held that the deadline to provide access to examiners’ 48 hours in advance of the final hearing is not central to Chapter 51’s statutory scheme, violating the deadline does not divest the circuit court of competency to proceed, and the circuit court must therefore review whether failing to comply with the deadline was harmless error.

La Crosse County v. P.A.E., 2025AP303, 6/18/26, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity

COA reverses the circuit court’s order continuing PAE’s protective placement on the basis that La Crosse County failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that PAE was so totally incapable of providing for her own care or custody as to create a substantial risk of serious harm to herself or others.

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. 

Ozaukee County v. J.J.W., 2025AP1702, 6/3/26, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity

The COA affirmed the circuit court’s order continuing “Jacob’s” protective placement and determined the County did not need to establish a substantial risk of future harm by presenting evidence of previous harm identical to the harm that is anticipated.

Sheboygan County v. N.A.L., 2026 WI 16, 5/19/26, affirming an unpublished decision of the court of appeals; case activity

In a relatively concise majority opinion, SCOW addresses a narrow issue and holds that no colloquy is required when a person stipulates to an involuntary mental commitment order. However, the separate writings flag many other interesting and highly relevant issues for our readers.

Winnebago County v. E.R.B., 2025AP2522, 5/14/26, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity

COA affirms the circuit court’s orders extending ERB’s commitment and authorizing his involuntary medication and treatment, concluding that there was sufficient evidence to sustain the commitment order, and that the medication order is moot, as it previously expired.

Waukesha County Department of Health & Human Services v. C.O., 2025AP2640, 5/6/26, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity

COA affirms an order continuing “Cathy’s” protective placement based on concerns about her lack of independence and alcoholism.

Walworth County v. D.J.F., 2025AP2522, 5/6/26, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity

The COA affirmed the circuit court’s order extending D.J.F.’s involuntary commitment because there was a substantial likelihood he would be a proper subject for commitment if treatment were withdrawn given his history of not taking medication for schizoaffective disorder unless court ordered.

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.