On Point blog, page 1 of 63
COA rejects sufficiency challenges to ch. 51 commitment and medication orders
Fond du Lac County v. K.L.W., 2026AP87, 7/15/26, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
COA concludes that the county presented sufficient evidence to establish “Karrie’s” dangerousness and incompetence to refuse medication. Accordingly, it affirms both orders.
COA once again creates questions about the proper application of D.J.W. in recommitment appeals
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.
COA rejects sufficiency and DJW arguments and affirms ch. 51 extension
Racine County v. P.L., 2026AP132, 7/8/26, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
COA rejects P.L.’s arguments that the county failed to introduce clear and convincing evidence to support a conclusion that he is dangerous under the second standard (via the recommitment standard) and the circuit court failed to make specific factual findings, and affirms.
SCOW holds that appeal from Watts review is not moot; applies de novo standard (for now) and affirms
Racine County v. R.P.L., 2026 WI 26, 7/7/26, affirming an unpublished decision of the court of appeals; case activity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.
In light of SCOW’s decision in M.J.B, COA reverses circuit court’s order dismissing Ch. 51 petition because expert report was not timely.
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.
SCOW refuses to reconsider its previous decisions on mootness, holds that admission of hearsay evidence was harmless
Waukesha County v. R.D.T., 2026 WI 24, 6/30/26, affirming an unpublished decision of the court of appeals; case activity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.
SCOW holds that failing to meet deadline to provide access to examiner’s report 48 hours before a final Ch. 51 commitment hearing does not deny the circuit court competence to proceed.
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.
Defense win: COA reverses order continuing protective placement
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.
COA finds evidence sufficient, rejects DJW argument, and affirms 51 extension order
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.
COA: To continue protective placement, county does not need to show prior instances of specific harm to prove substantial risk of future harm.
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.