On Point blog, page 1 of 16
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 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 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.
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Sheboygan County v. N.A.L., 2026 WI 16, 5/19/26, affirming an unpublished decision of the court of appeals; case activity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 commitment order under third standard and finds Ch. 55 exception does not apply
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.
Defense Wins: COA reverses commitment order and order to continue commitment based on insufficient evidence of dangerousness.
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.
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.
COA affirms ch. 51 recommitment due to forfeiture of hearsay objection, takes judicial notice of a criminal complaint
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.