On Point blog, page 1 of 1
COA affirms 51.20 commitment for alcoholism as matter of first impression
Vernon County v. F.W.R., 2024AP203, District IV, 11/6/24 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
COA rejects F.W.R.’s challenges to his involuntary commitment order under Wis. Stat. § 51.20 for alcohol dependence, concluding that a person may be involuntarily committed for treatment for alcoholism, the circuit court followed the proper procedures and the county met its burden to prove that he was drug dependent and dangerous.
Protective placement upheld against Helen E.F.-based challenge
Waukesha County DHHS v. M.S., 2022AP2065, District 2, 9/6/23 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (briefs not available)
M.S. (“Martin”) spent nearly 22 years committed under Chapter 51. In 2021, the county switched course and sought and received a permanent guardianship and protective placement under Chapters 54 and 55. Martin challenged whether he was a proper subject for protective placement, relying “quite heavily” on Fond du Lac County v. Helen E.F., 2012 WI 50, 340 Wis. 2d 500, 814 N.W.2d 179. The court of appeals refers to Martin’s argument as a “red herring” and affirms, holding that the county met its burden to prove Martin was a proper subject for protective placement under Chapter 55. (Op., ¶6).
Evidence sufficient to prove elements of ch. 51 commitment
Outagamie County v. D.G.M., 2020AP967, District 3, 9/21/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The evidence at the final hearing on the petition to commit D.G.M. under ch. 51 was sufficient to establish all the statutory elements and D.G.M.’s incompetence to refuse medication.
Evidence showed ch. 51 respondent was “a proper subject for treatment”
Winnebago County v. J.C.S., 2021AP354, District 2, 8/4/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The evidence presented at J.C.S.’s final commitment hearing was “just enough” to prove J.C.S. was a proper subject of treatment, one of the elements necessary to justify a ch. 51 commitment order, § 51.20(1)(a)1.
Court of appeals erases line between civil commitments and protective placements
Marathon County v. P.X., 2017AP1497, 6/26/18, District 3, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
P.X. is autistic, non-verbal, intellectually and developmentally disabled and has obsessive compulsive disorder and pica. The question is whether he is capable of “rehabilitation,” which would make him a proper subject for treatment on Chapter 51. If not, then he should be placed under Chapter 55. The court of appeals held that even though P.X.’s disabilities cannot be cured and he can never function in society, his OCD and pica could be controlled with medication, so Chapter 51 applies. Under Chapter 51, a person can be committed to a mental institution for years, but Chapter 55 bars protective placement in a unit for the acutely mentally ill. See §55.12(2). This decision seems to let the county accomplish through Chapter 51 what it cannot do through Chapter 55. Let’s hope P.X. petitions SCOW for review.
SCOW declines to clarify test for determining whether mentally ill person is a “proper subject for treatment”
Waukesha County v. J.W.J., 2017 WI 57, 6/8/2017, affirming an unpublished court of appeals decision, 370 Wis. 2d 262, 881 N.W.2d 359; case activity
In Fond du Lac County v. Helen E.F., which involved a woman with Alzheimer’s disease, SCOW held that a person is a “proper subject for treatment” under §51.20(1) if she can be “rehabilitated.” It then set forth a test for determining whether a mentally ill person has “rehabilitative potential.” In this case, J.W.J. argued that Helen E.F.’s framework should be modified because it does not account for the characteristics of mental illnesses other than Alzheimer’s, such as the one he has–paranoid schizophrenia.
Waukesha County v. J.W.J., 2016AP46-FT, petition for review granted 9/13/16
Review of an unpublished court of appeals opinion; case activity
Issue (composed by On Point)
Fond du Lac County v. Helen E.F., 2012 WI 50, 340 Wis. 2d 500, 814 N.W.2d 179 held that an individual is capable of rehabilitation, and thus a proper subject for treatment under Chapter 51, when treatment would control the symptoms of the individual’s disorder. If, on the other hand, treatment would control only the individual’s activity or behavior, then he is not a proper subject for treatment under Chapter 51. The question is: how are courts to determine whether treatment is controlling symptoms of disorder–especially when medical experts, when describing the effects of treatment, blur the line between symptoms and behavior?
Mental commitment under § 51.20 — authority to place a person committed to outpatient treatment in a group home
Polk County DHS v. Boe H., 2012AP2612, District 3, 5/7/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity
While the circuit court lacked authority to specify that a person committed to outpatient treatment remain in a group home as a condition of the commitment order (¶14), the county department had the authority to place the person in a group home because that placement does not change the nature of his treatment from “outpatient”
Defense win! Alzheimer’s diagnosis means person is not a “proper subject for treatment” under Chapter 51
Fond du Lac County v. Helen E. F., 2012 WI 50, affirming 2011 WI App 72; for Helen E.F.: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity
Someone suffering from Alzheimer’s Disease is not a fit subject for commitment under ch. 51 but, instead, guardianship proceedings under ch. 55.
¶13 Wis. Stat. ch. 55 provides Helen with the best means of care.
Mental Commitment – insufficient evidence to show “proper subject for treatment”
Fond du Lac County v. Helen E. F., 2011 WI App 72(recommended for publication), affirmed 2012 WI 50; for Helen E.F.: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity
Alzheimer’s disease is not a qualifying mental condition for purposes of ch. 51 commitment, therefore Helen E.F. is not a proper subject for treatment as a matter of law. The disease is a degenerative brain disorder,