On Point: 3. Civil Commitments

Milwaukee County Department on Aging v. J.J., 2024AP1850, petition for review of a published court of appeals decision, granted 10/14/26; case activity

SCOW will decide whether the circuit court loses competency to continue protective placement when the County does not comply with the deadline to file a petition and report for annual review.

Kenosha County v. R.M.P., 2026AP336, 10/7/26, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity

COA rejects “Ronald’s” attempts to overturn his commitment order based on his claims that the court denied his right to self-representation, held the hearing outside of the statutory timeframe, and that the evidence was insufficient.

Calumet County v. S.A., 2026AP1076, 10/7/26, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity

COA reverses S.A.’s protective placement, concluding that the county failed to present sufficient evidence that her incapacity is a result of developmental disability, degenerative brain disorder,
serious and persistent mental illness, or other like incapacities.

Washington County v. P.B.T., 2026AP1230, 9/23/26, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity

Although P.B.T. tries to argue that the plain text of the statute precluded a finding of dangerousness, COA finds his argument foreclosed by existing precedent interpreting that statute and affirms.

State v. Deonte D. Anderson, 2025AP1309 & 2025AP1310, 9/2/26, District II (not recommended for publication); case activity

The COA affirmed the circuit court’s order denying the defendant’s petition for conditional release from a commitment entered after he was found not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect.  Although the defendant no longer suffered from a mental illness and had not engaged in violence for four years, his poor behavioral record at the Mendota Mental Health Institute was sufficient evidence to deny the petition.

Door County v. R.A.W., 2026AP83, 8/18/26, District III (ineligible for publication); case activity

The COA affirmed the appellant’s protective placement in a 24-hour community based residential facility because evidence from the initial hearing and hearing to continue protective placement was sufficient to show that the current placement was the least restrictive in light of the appellant’s need for medication management and 24-hour supervision.

State v. Desmond J. Wilhite, 2024AP2177-CR, petition for review of a published decision of the court of appeals, granted 8/18/26; case activity

SCOW grants the state’s petition in this defense win (see our post on the COA decision here), which held 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.

Winnebago County v. J.S., 2025AP1865, 7/8/26, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity

In a recommitment appeal alleging a lack of sufficient findings, COA invokes a somewhat novel legal theory to excuse an oral ruling that it agrees could have been more thorough.

Racine County v. R.P.L., 2026 WI 26, 7/7/26, affirming an unpublished decision of the court of appeals; case activity

SCOW holds that this appeal from an annual review of a protective placement is not moot, somewhat reluctantly applies the governing standard of review, and affirms.

Ozaukee County v. T.D.D., 2025AP2257, 7/8/26, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity

The COA reversed the circuit court’s order dismissing Ozaukee County’s petition for commitment under Chapter 51 in light of SCOW’s decision in M.J.B. that failing to comply with the 48-hour deadline to make expert reports available to counsel did not divest the circuit court of competency.