On Point blog, page 1 of 1
COA holds that protective placement may be continued based on evidence from previous hearings provided the evidence was “adjudicated.”
Pierce County v. P.C.A., 2024AP1367, 7/1/25, District III (ineligible for publication); case activity
While affirming the circuit court continuing a protective placement order under Chapter 55 after a due process hearing (known as a Watts hearing), the COA clarified that, following previous due process hearings, documentary evidence that was admitted, and testimony that was accepted by the circuit court and incorporated into its findings, may be considered at subsequent due process hearings.
COA rejects sufficiency challenges in 51 appeal and affirms
Waukesha County v. J.A.K., 2024AP2535, 6/25/25, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
In yet another Chapter 51 appeal, COA rejects the usual arguments and affirms.
Defense Win! COA agrees that failure to timely provide examiner reports prior to initial commitment hearing deprives court of competency
Outagamie County v. M.J.B., 2024AP250, 5/20/25, District III (recommended for publication); case activity
In a case clarifying a legal question that has persisted for years in 51 litigation, COA holds that when the examiners do not satisfy the statutorily-imposed deadline for filing their reports in connection with a final hearing in an original commitment proceeding, the circuit court can lose competency.
COA affirms recommitment and involuntary medication orders over sufficiency and hearsay challenges in detailed discussion
Fond du Lac County v. D.P.E., 2025AP66-FT, 4/30/25, District II (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
COA affirms the circuit court’s orders recommitting D.P.E. (referred to as “Donald”) and authorizing the involuntarily administration of medication. Donald argued on appeal that the county did not present sufficient evidence to establish dangerousness and failed to meet its burden to prove he was not competent to refuse medication.
Defense win! County failed to prove examiner gave “reasonable explanation” of medication
Milwaukee County v. D.H., 2022AP1402, 3/7/23, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
To obtain an involuntary medication order, a county must satisfy the multi-step test for incompetency to make medication decisions in §51.61(1)(g)4. The first step requires the county to prove that the person received a “reasonable explanation” of the advantages, disadvantages, and alternatives to medication. The examiner can’t just testify that she complied with the statute. She must tell the court what she told the person about the medication. In “Dan’s” case, the court of appeals reversed the involuntary medication order because the county failed this step.