On Point: 3. Civil Commitments

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commitment because there was a substantial likelihood he would be a proper subject for commitment if treatment were withdrawn given his history of not taking medication for schizoaffective disorder unless court ordered.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.

Jackson County v. D.C., 2025AP1838 & 2025AP1839, 4/23/26, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity

The COA reversed D.C.’s commitment order and the order extending his commitment because the County did not meet its burden to establish he was dangerous.

Milwaukee County DHHS Aging and Disability Services v. B.C., 2024AP2521, 4/7/26, District I; case activity

Applying its recent decision published decision in Department on Aging v. J.J., COA again holds that the county’s failure to timely file the required petition and report to initiate the annual review does not deprive the circuit court of competency.

Winnebago County v. L.J.F.G., 2025AP2645-FT, 4/8/26, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity

In a rare appeal from an involuntary medication order related to a protective placement order, COA affirms despite some of the County’s missteps.

Fond du Lac County v. S.R.H., 2025AP2727-FT, 3/18/26, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity

“Seth” challenges the 2025 extension of his ch. 51 commitment, contending that Fond du Lac County failed to introduce clear and convincing evidence to support the conclusion that he is dangerous pursuant to either WIS. STAT. § 51.20(1)(a)2.b. or 51.20(1)(am) and that the circuit court therefore erred in entering the extension order on those grounds. COA affirms.

Grant County Dept of Social Services v. D.G.N., 2025AP2382, 2/27/26, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity

In this appeal limited to the validity of an order for the involuntary administration of psychotropic medication in a guardianship case, COA holds that the county failed to meet two of the Wis. Stat. § 55.14(3) requirements.

State v. J.D.B., 2026 WI , 2/25/26, reversing a published court of appeals opinion; case activity

SCOW reverses the COA, holding , clarifies the standard of review for each of the Sell factors, holds that Green is overruled to the extent that it “require[d] each and every piece of information it lists” and declines to decide several issues.

Department on Aging v. J.J., 2024AP1850, 2/10/26, District I (recommended for publication); case activity

The COA held in a decision recommended for publication that the deadline for counties to file the annual review of a person subject to protective placement is directory and failing to file timely does not deprive the circuit court of competency, while reminding parties that timely annual review remains statutorily and constitutionally required.

Brown County v. M.S., 2025AP1532, 2/3/26, District III (ineligible for publication); case activity

In yet another appeal focusing on Chapter 55’s dangerousness criterion, COA holds that while the County could have done a better job at this hearing, the evidence passes muster on appeal.