On Point blog, page 1 of 16
COA rejects challenges to involuntary commitment and medication orders
Brown County v. M.J., 2025AP116, 8/26/25, District III (ineligible for publication); case activity
In a Chapter 51 appeal presenting familiar legal challenges, COA avoids some of the stickier legal issues on a path toward affirmance.
COA approves what appears to be the 20th extension of an involuntary mental commitment order despite doctor’s “concerns” about medication regimen
Racine County v. D.S. 2025AP758-FT, 8/6/25, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
COA rejects a battery of challenges to D.S.’s involuntary commitment and medication despite sharing some of the examining physician’s “concerns” about her situation.
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.
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.
COA affirms third standard (2.c.) ch. 51 appeal due to abnormal neck movements and previous food restriction
Winnebago County v. J.D.M., 2024AP1601, 4/16/25, District II (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
COA affirms the circuit court’s orders recommitting J.D.M. (referred to as “Josh”) for twelve months and authorizing involuntarily administering medication. A jury found Josh mentally ill, a proper subject for treatment, and dangerous to himself or others. Josh argues on appeal that the county did not present sufficient evidence at trial to prove that he was dangerous under § 51.20(1)(a)2.c., d., or e, and the court made insufficient findings to enter the involuntary medication order.
Excessive water intake sufficient to find person “dangerous” under Chapter 51.
Winnebago County v. J.M., 2024AP1554, 4/2/25, District II (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
COA affirmed the circuit court’s order recommitting J.M. (referred to as “James Moore”) for twelve months and authorizing involuntarily administering medication. The Court found that Moore suffers from schizoaffective disorder, which caused him to drink an excessive amount of water to the point that he needed to be transported to the emergency room for low sodium levels in his body. The Court therefore found that Moore is a danger to himself, and that he is a proper subject for treatment because his condition is treatable with medication.
COA finds evidence sufficient for medication order in Ch. 51; once again highlights inconsistent case law
Winnebago County v. D.P., 2024AP2391-FT, 3/19/25, District II (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
In appeal eerily similar to a SCOW case that was dismissed as improvidently granted, COA affirms and holds that the conclusory testimony supporting involuntary medication and recommitment was legally sufficient.
Although County concedes findings could have been more thorough, COA discerns no DJW violation and affirms
Winnebago County v. J.S., 2024AP1333, 3/5/25, District II (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
In yet another case testing the applicability of SCOW’s D.J.W. mandate, COA finds that the circuit court “barely” satisfied those requirements and affirms.
COA rejects challenges to extension order; holds that stipulation to original commitment dooms sufficiency challenge
Sheboygan County v. L.L., 2024AP1443, 2/26/25, District II (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
COA confronts the usual challenges to a recommitment order and affirms based on a somewhat novel legal theory–that L.L.’s earlier stipulation to a commitment order undermines her sufficiency challenge to the recommitment.
COA dismisses another ch. 51 recommitment appeal as moot
Waukesha County v. R.D.T., 2024AP1390, 2/12/25, District II (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
COA dismisses “Rex’s” D.J.W. and sufficiency challenges to his 2023 recommitment and involuntary medication orders as moot.