On Point blog, page 1 of 1
Defense win: Extension of ch. 51 commitment not supported by sufficient findings as to each element of applicable dangerousness standard
Ozaukee County v. J.D.A., 2021AP1148, District 2, 12/15/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Langlade County v. D.J.W., 2020 WI 41, 391 Wis. 2d 231, 942 N.W.2d 277, requires a circuit court ordering a ch. 51 recommitment petition to make specific factual findings with reference to the relevant subdivision paragraph of § 51.20(1)(a)2. on which the recommitment order is based. At “Jane’s” recommitment proceeding, the circuit court cited a subdivision paragraph—specifically, § 51.20(1)(a)2.e.—but said little about the substance of the standard articulated under that subdivision paragraph and how the evidence proved the statutory elements of that standard. Thus, its findings were insufficient under D.J.W. and the recommitment order and medication order are reversed.
Defense win! Insufficient evidence of dangerousness under any of the 5 standards of dangerousness
Milwaukee County v. Cheri V., 2012AP1737, District 1, 12/18/12
court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity
Mental health commitment, § 51.20, requires proof of mental illness and dangerousness. Cheri V. limits this challenge to the latter; the court agrees:
¶7 As seen from our recitation of the facts adduced at the trial, however, there is absolutely no evidence that any of the statutory prerequisites were met—yelling at and pointing a finger at another person,