On Point blog, page 1 of 35
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.
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Waukesha County v. R.D.T., 2026 WI 24, 6/30/26, affirming an unpublished decision of the court of appeals; case activity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.
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.
SCOW holds that no colloquy is required when a person “stipulates” to an involuntary mental commitment order; flags numerous other unresolved issues
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.
COA affirms recommitment and concludes challenge to medication order is moot
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.
COA affirms extending involuntary commitment based on history of not taking medication and suicidal ideation.
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.