On Point blog, page 1 of 7

COA applies J.J., again holds failure to file petition and report doesn’t deprive circuit court of competency

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.

Read full article >

COA finds evidence sufficient for Chapter 55 medication order

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.

Read full article >

Defense win: COA reverses guardianship med order

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.

Read full article >

COA finds that county failing to timely file annual review of protective placement does not deprive the circuit court of competency.

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.

Read full article >

COA finds sufficient evidence of dangerousness and affirms protective placement

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.

Read full article >

COA affirms continuing protective placement over sufficiency challenge in a “close case.”

Eau Claire County v. R.B.-K., 2025AP1466, 12/16/25, District III (ineligible for publication); case activity

In a “close case,” the COA affirmed continuing protective placement over a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence that “Rory” was a danger to himself.

Read full article >

Defense win: COA reverses order continuing protective placement

La Crosse County and S.A.A. v. M.A., 2025AP269, 10/30/25, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity

In yet another protective placement win, COA agrees that the County’s evidence failed to satisfy the standards and reverses.

Read full article >

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.

Read full article >

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.

Read full article >

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.

Read full article >